The Tribune

It became one of Winston Churchill’s better known maxims – “Jaw, jaw is better than war, war”. Britain’s famous Second World War leader was talking about the desirability of dialogue over destruction in the conduct of relations between states. This put the lie to accusations that he was a warmonger when the evidence showed that he opposed the use of force rather than negotiation with an aggressor in order to protect his country’s interests.

Mindful of the importance of keeping lines of communication open, heads of state historically conducted exchanges with their counterparts through emissaries and permanent envoys. But there were also major international conferences which might drag on interminably. One well-known example was the Berlin Conference in 1884-85, which lasted for more than three months, and, notoriously, drew up arbitrary borders in Africa in what became known as the scramble for the continent or, more crudely, the carve-up of Africa by European nations.

There were the famous summit meetings during the Second World War between the “big three” – Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin - at Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam that shaped Europe and the world. But only in more recent times - from the 1970s - has the practice of regular summits developed with political leaders playing an increasing role in foreign policy; and this has, in certain respects, been at the expense of diplomats on the ground. Such increased activity has become possible, of course, because of the relative ease of modern travel – except during the past two years or so of coronavirus restrictions which limited gatherings to virtual exchanges.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the G7 meeting of the world’s wealthiest democracies, hosted last month by Japan, and the summit of the Council of Europe, the international organisation separate from the European Union which upholds the values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. But I return to the subject today because those interested in international affairs might like some analysis of several other recent top-level international meetings for they are key to the conduct of diplomacy in today’s globalised world.

Nowadays, summits and other high-level ministerial gatherings seem to happen so often that it has been said, jokingly, that leaders see more of one another than of their own cabinet colleagues or even their families.

President Biden stayed at home, of course, when he convened the first Summit for Democracy in 2021 which was held virtually as was the second one in March this year which was considered to be only partially successful because it was not sufficiently inclusive. However, last week there was a one-day summit of the European Political Community (EPC) hosted by Moldova -- a little known country with a population of 2.5 million situated between Ukraine and NATO member Romania -- which wants to join the European Union. The EPC is a new platform for political coordination in the whole of Europe (not just within the EU) established in 2022 at the suggestion of France.

In addition, Singapore hosted last week the so-called Shangri-La Dialogue. This high-level meeting was attended by defence ministers from the region, including China, as well as by the US “Secretary of Defense”. It is said to be the premier defence and security conference in the Asia-Pacific and, reportedly, one outcome was to highlight the rift between China and the US.

At the same time, in South Africa there was a meeting of the foreign ministers of BRICS, which is a group comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, with the latter saying that its vision is “to provide global leadership in a world fractured by geopolitical tension”.

The argument in favour of regular such meetings is that they are an opportunity at a high level – head of state or government minister with the authority to make decisions - to conduct diplomatic negotiations and ease international tensions. Summits likewise provide the conditions for leaders to get to know one another better and to build personal trust, thus creating an atmosphere conducive to doing deals. Moreover, in modern times there is a significant distinction between these and conferences at which larger audiences exchange ideas and listen to presentations by experts in a particular field. The aim of conferences is often to identify whether collective action is needed for submission of issues to political leaders for approval whereas summits focus on decision-making and resolving specific issues.

Globalisation means that domestic decisions are increasingly constrained by what happens elsewhere in an interconnected world so that all too often one country cannot move forward without involving others. The aim of summits is to establish a consensus about the way forward, though one drawback is that when leaders meet collectively what often ensues at the end is a number of compromises in order to keep all participants happy so that they can return to their capitals and explain that they have successfully fought their corner. Nonetheless, some argue that such give-and-take is anyway the essence of diplomacy.

Another aspect of summits involving discourse among political leaders relates to the existence of an increasingly multi-polar world. Unlike the dominance of just two powers – the US and USSR - during the Cold War, this now requires the co-existence of several powers or groupings so that the aspirations of other countries over the distribution of power and influence can be recognized and, if appropriate and need be, satisfied. It might, therefore, be worth looking in more detail today at the Moldova and BRICS meetings.

MOLDOVA NEWS AND BRICS ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF WORLD AFFAIRS

Last week’s summit in Moldova was the second meeting of the EPC. It was attended by some fifty EU and other European countries’ heads of state or government. The aim of this group is to foster political dialogue and co-operation, to address issues of common interest and to strengthen the security, stability and prosperity of the European continent. So it constitutes an ideal forum for high-level political and strategic discussions affecting all the countries of Europe.

Hosting this summit was “a first” for Moldova, but it was judged to have done so successfully. Nestling between Ukraine and Romania, it sees itself as a bulwark against Russian aggression and therefore of benefit to the rest of Europe. In the face of threats from Russia, democratic Moldova also saw this high-level meeting as an opportunity to show its fitness for EU membership while seeking to accelerate the process of accession to the bloc.

Unsurprisingly, the issue of Ukraine was high on the agenda. President Zelensky, who was able to meet most of his allies during the course of a single afternoon, hailed the powerful support Ukraine was receiving from the West and stressed the importance of overturning Russia’s supremacy in the air as its missiles rained down indiscriminately on civilian targets in Kyiv and other parts of the country. He also asked for Britain’s support of Ukraine’s bid for NATO membership after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had expressed his pride in the UK’s long-term assistance to the country.

Meanwhile, the foreign ministers of the BRICS group, including Sergey Lavrov of Russia, were meeting in South Africa which, according to reports, aspires to be a crusading champion of a new alternative non-aligned multi-polar world. BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) have a combined population of more than 3.2 billion or 40 per cent of the world’s roughly eight billion people, and they are seen by some as an alternative to the G7 group of developed countries. It is said that the BRICS group believes that the world is slipping out of Western hands while Russia remains strong despite the effects of sanctions and the wide opposition to its invasion of Ukraine. Initially, South Africa called on Russia to withdraw. But it soon changed tack and adopted a policy of neutrality in refusing to condemn the invasion. The US has also accused South Africa of supplying weapons and military equipment to the Russians -- a claim that it has denied.

The key to South Africa’s policy seems to be the ruling African National Congress’s memories of Russian support during the apartheid years together with its assistance to liberation movements across Africa. But it seems that some South Africans believe that its current stance will lead the country away from its existing important trade partners and sources of investment in the US, UK and EU. They consider that this is a dangerous development, given the country’s failing economy as it grapples with an energy crisis, chronic unemployment, collapsing infrastructure and its currency falling sharply against the US dollar. Moreover, the opposition has criticized the government for being complicit in a war of aggression that undermines international peace and security.

At the BRICS meeting in Cape Town, foreign ministers are reported to have called for a rebalancing of the global order away from the West, with India’s foreign minister specifically telling the gathering that it should “send out a strong message that the world is multipolar, that it is rebalancing and old ways cannot address new situations”. At the heart of the world’s problems, he said, “we face an economic concentration that leaves too many nations at the mercy of too few”, while China’s foreign minister suggested that the BRICS group could be expanded to provide assistance to developing countries and emerging market economies. To add to the debate, Brazil’s foreign minister described BRICS as an “indispensable mechanism for building a multi-polar world order that reflects the needs of developing countries”.

Over all this, however, lurks the threat of serious diplomatic repercussions arising from inviting Russian president Vladimir Putin, who is subject to an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court, to the BRICS Summit in Johannesburg in August. If Putin comes, South Africa as a member of the ICC would be obligated to arrest him. If they did not do so, there are fears of a heavy backlash from the West and of the country’s already weakened currency collapsing. Critics say that South Africa is being manipulated by Russia and --in also engaging with both Russia and China through joint naval exercises -- it is needlessly antagonizing Western nations on whom it depends economically. So, clearly It needs to juggle this economic dependence with its growing ties to BRICS.

In whatever way this is viewed, an invitation to Putin to attend the forthcoming BRICS Summit presents a diplomatic headache for the South Africans – and it will be fascinating to see how they deal with it.

ENGLAND’S CUP FINAL TO REMEMBER

Football, known as soccer in the US, is the most popular sport in the UK. Clubs throughout the land are a huge part of the nation’s culture and are often seen as symbols of local communities. Many people associate themselves with one or other of the leading professional teams and support them. What is more, thanks to TV rights there is a massive amount of money in the game.

The governing body in England is the Football Association. Its Cup Final, normally held in May following a knockout competition during the course of the year, represents the climax to a long and gruelling season and is invariably a very special occasion.

Last Saturday’s event at the iconic Wembley Stadium in London in front of an estimated 83,000 crowd was no exception. It was a hard-fought contest in a wonderful setting and marvellous atmosphere of anticipation - with the stadium looking its best in the early summer sunshine - between two of the country’s leading teams, Manchester City and Manchester United. The clash of the two Manchesters was a splendid encounter that in so many ways seemed to reflect the very best of Britain.

After Manchester City, in a jet-propelled start, sensationally scored the first goal within 13 seconds – the quickest goal in FA Cup Final history - they deservedly beat their rivals 2-1 to achieve the double, having already become Premier League champions. They now hope to achieve the treble by defeating the Italian team Inter Milan in this weekend’s European Champions League final. But Manchester United -- with its impressive history as a successful football club, both domestically and against the best teams in Europe over the course of so many years – acquitted themselves well in the match, even though on the day their opponents showed themselves to be technically and tactically marginally superior.

In the presence of Prince William, who, as president of the FA shook hands with the players and officials before the match and presented the trophy and medals afterwards, Saturday’s event was an enormous success – and it showed yet again just why the FA Cup Final has for long been a famous institution in the sporting life of Britain.