Across the world, there is broad agreement, including in the area of politics and diplomacy, that a strong leader can be useful. The term, no doubt, carries more than one interpretation, but is generally taken to mean a leader who concentrates a great deal of power in his hands and dominates both a wide swathe of public policy and also the political party to which he or she belongs.
In today’s world, United States President Donald Trump and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi are presumed to fall into this category. Confirming this perception very recently, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni (addressing a Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington via video link) mentioned Mr. Trump and Mr. Modi as two strong leaders who are now shaping ‘A New Conservative Movement’. Both leaders also appear more than willing to engage in modern day summit diplomacy, even though it contains both positives and negatives as far as outcomes are concerned. Wielding power decisively has its benefits. However, belief in one’s sole judgment can have many negative consequences or fallout. Nevertheless, summit diplomacy has increasingly become the stock-in-trade of ‘maximum leader’ when it comes to issues such as war and peace.
From the past to the present
Most commentators link the beginning of summit diplomacy to the Congress of Vienna (1814-15), which sought to reshape the map of Europe after the Napoleonic Wars. More recently, summit diplomacy has been resorted to in conflict resolution and peace building. The Camp David Accords, signed in 1978, which led to a tentative peace between Egypt and Israel, is a conspicuous example of the success of modern day summitry. Another significant instance of the advantage of summit diplomacy was the interaction between U.S. President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail S. Gorbachev, leader of the Soviet Union, which helped to significantly reduce Cold War tensions. However, there are many more instances of failures than successes in the course of resorting to summit diplomacy. More often than not, the desire for visible success at a summit leads to superficial agreements or compromises that lack substance.
This is more true in the case of leaders who, notwithstanding the real outcome, are anxious to sustain their image of being a strong leader. A classic instance of this was how the West misinterpreted reality in the case of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, viz., regarding the possession of nuclear weapons by him. Summit diplomacy is, hence, fraught with several complexities.
The perils of ‘pseudo’ summit diplomacy are clearly evident in the backdrop of recent exchanges between Mr. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Their heated exchanges in the White House, on February 28, 2025, showcase summit diplomacy at its worst. Summitry is normally conducted in private. The Zelenskyy-Trump summitry took place instead in the glare of publicity, and what it achieved was providing Mr. Zelenskyy another opportunity for ‘grandstanding’ rather than finding a solution or a mutually acceptable outcome for the Ukraine conflict. Seldom has a discussion between leaders degenerated to levels that were seen during the Trump-Zelenskyy exchanges, much of it on television. With Mr. Zelenskyy almost ‘daring’ Mr. Trump, well aware of his nature, this could have but one result. Mr. Trump’s response was, therefore, not unexpected, and his diktat to Mr. Zelenskyy to accept the deal or else have the U.S. opt out of the Ukraine-Russia imbroglio was a ‘fait accompli’.
Mr. Zelenskyy’s embarking on a new variant of summit diplomacy was by going to Washington with an offer to seal an agreement with the U.S. on handing over many billions of dollars worth of ‘mineral rights’, in repayment for past U.S. military aid to Ukraine.
The sequel to this is in some ways even more problematic. Europe, caught in the cross hairs of the Trump-Zelenskyy exchanges, was seen scrambling to put in place an alternative. A hurriedly arranged meeting, in London, of 19 European leaders, put forward a fresh menu of sentiments, but which was lacking in substance. The declaration by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that Europe must “do the heavy lifting” for the future defence of Ukraine at a summit which took place “at a crossroads in history today”, further adding that his country was ‘willing to put boots on the ground and planes in the air to support a deal’,which was met with acclaim. He did not, however, forget to add — possibly as an afterthought — that no two countries were more closely aligned than the U.K. and the U.S. The latter sentiment is, perhaps, more real. The dominant sentiment in Europe, meanwhile, appears to be that the U.S. under Mr. Trump is in no mood to pursue former U.S. President Joe Biden’s strategy of supporting Zelenskyy’s Ukraine.
India and a working visit
The Trump-Zelenskyy exchanges are seen in some quarters as further enhancing Mr. Trump’s reputation in the realm of global politics today as being a ‘bully’, but this may not be all too true. In the meeting held between Mr. Trump and Mr. Modi during the Indian leader’s brief working visit on February 13, 2025, there was little evidence of ‘bullying’ despite Mr. Trump’s opposition to India’s tariffs and tariff barriers. The U.S. President did, however, lash out at the tariff barriers erected by India, warning that there could be serious consequences as a result. The exchanges were, however, civil and did not tantamount to ‘bullying’. No doubt, the U.S. side sought concessions and Mr. Modi did make some, but there is no evidence that he buckled under a Trump onslaught. The general consensus among analysts worldwide is that as far as the Modi-Trump meeting is concerned, the latter was not the obvious winner in the exchanges. Instead, the two ‘strong leaders’ seemed to adhere to Newton’s ‘Third Law of Motion’, in which there are no winners or losers. One should not, however, overlook ‘the bait’ the U.S. President held out to India — the sale of F-35 fighter jets to India.
The Joint Statement issued at the end of the Modi-Trump talks was, however, ‘a masterpiece in obfuscation’, long on possible collaboration while containing a gratuitous nod to India’s security concerns across Asia. The hidden agenda was, no doubt, on how best to increase U.S. defence sales to India. The offer of possibly the best aircraft in the world, the F-35 (which has so far not been available to India) was the ‘icing on the cake’ since this was a proposal that the Indian Air Force could be expected to use to pressurise the civil administration into accepting it as a counterweight to China. All in all, this was the best of possible outcomes, but given Mr. Trump’s penchant for producing surprises, the outcome of the first meeting between Mr. Modi and President Trump (in his second avatar) is probably yet to be determined.
The Indian Prime Minister did resort to various stratagems to prepare the ground for his meeting with Mr. Trump. The meetings with the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, the National Security Adviser, Michael Waltz, and industrialist and Tesla CEO, Elon Musk, prior to the Trump meet reveal a degree of careful preparation, given the U.S. President’s image as someone who makes few concessions. In any case, there are no set guidelines for a summit meeting of this kind. Further, in summit diplomacy, there are seldom clear cut winners or losers.
In perspective
Mr. Trump’s initial forays into summit diplomacy, however, do not quite fit the mould of summitry in diplomacy, which is principally aimed at conflict resolution and peace building at one level, and building relationships and trust at another. The truth is that notwithstanding sharp divergences in national interests and power imbalances, most world leaders today embark on summit diplomacy without adequate preparation. It often turns into a public relations exercise without worthwhile outcomes. Nevertheless, summit diplomacy will continue to occupy a vital, and often indispensable, place in modern international relations. It is even possible that summit diplomacy will become even more crucial in a world facing increasingly complex challenges which demand collective actions and cooperation.
M.K. Narayanan is a former Director, Intelligence Bureau, a former National Security Adviser, and a former Governor of West Bengal
Published – March 15, 2025 12:16 am IST
