Africa and Europe are struggling to match dreams with reality, writes Gamal Nkrumah In the dying days of 2007, Europe, or rather the European Union, and Africa -- note not the African Union -- decided that it was time to brainstorm and debate head-on a number of pertinent questions pertaining to the precise nature of the relationship between the two continents. It stands to reason that Africa and Europe, two continents that are bound with geographical proximity and historical entanglement, work closely together to cooperate and discuss several key pertinent issues of mutual concern. The Lisbon conference was replete with symbolic significance. First, the fact that the Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe attended the Lisbon summit and that the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown declined to participate in the Africa- Europe summit to protest the presence of Mugabe undoubtedly had important implications. First and foremost, it demonstrated in no uncertain terms that African leaders were determined that Mugabe participates. It also showed that Europe was reluctant to oppose Africa's desire that Mugabe attends the summit meeting in the Portuguese capital, an exceptionally symbolic venue. The Portuguese were the first Europeans to set foot on African soil and establish slave and trading forts. Extended the red carpet treatment by his contrite Portuguese hosts, Mugabe made the most of it. All this is music to the ears of the leaders of Africa, most of whom are democratically elected according to the rules and regulations of Western-style democratic practice. Indeed, during the past decade, most African countries south of the Sahara had conducted free and fair elections approved by Western governments. There are notable exceptions -- a few countries in the African continent that are on record as having conducted fraudulent elections and having flagrantly violated human rights. But, who appointed Europe as judge of African affairs? This is the vital question that Africans are asking. Why should Europe assume the moral upper hand? There are historical sensitivities that Africans harbour against Europe that cannot be overlooked or ignored. European countries were, after all, the colonial masters of Africa, and before that, were involved in the slave trade that impoverished the African continent and created a deplorable situation of social chaos that directly led to Africa's underdevelopment. Moreover, Europe's long shadow over Africa has not dissipated. After independence some 50 years ago, many African nations languished as neo-colonies of European nations. Small wonder then that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi called for reparations for the indignities, suffering and loss caused by the European slave trade and the atrocities of the colonial era. While his statements were received with derision by several European countries, African delegates noted that Gaddafi has a point. There is a growing sense of injustice in Africa over several key issues, such as immigration and subsidies by the EU to the farmers of Europe, the consequences of which are suffered by African farmers. Instead of producing sugar from European beetroot, for instance, Europe can import African cane sugar. Europe can open up its markets to African produce. Indeed, the Lisbon summit focussed primarily on trade issues, but energy and migration also topped the agenda. The Joint EU-Africa Strategy, the Action Plan and the Lisbon Declaration were adopted at Lisbon. Scrutiny and close reading of these three documents show that Africa did have a say at Lisbon. In Lisbon, the deal Africa was offered seemed harmless enough. The point is that Africans are speaking out more vociferously about what precisely they want from Europe. African leaders are now more articulate and, more importantly, united in the presentation of their list of demands. Moreover, they do not ask for charity, but understand that their demands entail mutual benefit. If socio-economic conditions in Africa worsen, it will inevitably reflect negatively on Europe. There is no such thing as Fortress Europe, and there can never be. Meanwhile, the Europeans appeared to be more reconciliatory in spite of political differences on Zimbabwe and Sudan. "If international leaders decided not to go to those countries which do not have reasonable human rights records, I am afraid we would not be attending any conferences at all," declared European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, himself a Portuguese national. This change in mood comes not a moment too soon. It is worth recalling the circumstances of Mugabe's invitation to Lisbon. Under African insistence, he was invited against the wishes of Britain, in particular. Baroness Amos, Britain's secretary of state for international development, attended the Lisbon summit instead of Blair. "We will not let ourselves be bullied or pressurised regarding who should attend the summit or not. That is why we as Africans had insisted that everyone should be present," African Union Commission Chairman and former Malian president Alpha Oumar Konare told reporters. Indeed, chief among the siren voices was that of Konare. He warned that Europe has no business interfering in the domestic affairs of African nations and that it cannot dictate which African leader is welcome in Lisbon and which is not. In two decades, Europe will undoubtedly be competing with India and China, at least as much as with America, in Africa. But, Africans are obliged to see developments in their proper perspective. Seven years on from the Cairo EU-Africa summit, still not everything has gone Africa's way. Trade is still very much under European hegemony. Another prize to have eluded Africa is the European intransigent position on the prickly question of migration. Europe exacerbates the African brain drain by luring Africa's professionals, ruining in the process Africa's fragile health systems. Yet, Europe is most reluctant to admit Africa's underprivileged and jobless youth. But, it had better do so with more humane means than those the European slave traders of yesteryear had employed.
