Question

Do you think this sort of Summit should happen on a regular basis? Support your views by giving valid arguments in favour/against the Summit.

Answer 1

${\tt{\purple{\underline{\underline{\huge{Answer♡}}}}}}$

• 'Summit meetings' are defined as ad hoc meetings where heads of state and/or heads of government and/or foreign ministers from at least two of the big powers are present. 147 meetings of this kind in the period June 1941 till June 1961 are analyzed using as independent variable the different phases in East-West relations. As dependent variables use is made of a number of indicators of how limited or restricted the meetings were in scope and/or participation. The data give a certain support to a combination of hypotheses about the effects of polarization and predictability in social relations, but there are also alternative interpretations. The data seem to indicate that summit meetings are used most often and in a least restricted way when 1) there is an alliance against a third power, or 2) there is conflict, with bloc-formation (relatively) completed. The standard polarization hypothesis in sociological theory is then modified so as to be valid only till the conflict organizations have been completed and predictability has been obtained, but it is indicated that contact in this late phase of the history of a conflict may be of little instrumental value. Finally the need is pointed out for a permanent pattern of summit contact, perhaps within the framework of the UN while the big powers can use ad hoc meetings as political sanctions.

__________________________