The question is less about whether summits work and more about how to make them work for Africa. The upcoming Russia‑Africa Summit in July is the latest in a long list of gatherings by global powers aimed at “winning friends and influencing people” across the continent. It follows last year’s United States‑Africa Leaders Summit, the European Union‑African Union (EU‑AU) Summit, the Tokyo International Conference on African Development, and the 2021 Forum on China‑Africa Cooperation (FOCAC). In the wake of COVID‑19, “summit diplomacy” has become a key tool for furthering geopolitical aspirations. Although these events are not new, they have assumed greater significance as competition between global powers intensifies.
Historically, summits have been criticised for their lack of substance and for perpetuating imbalanced power dynamics. Lately, however, there is a clear attempt to move beyond the cosmetic into something more tangible. Africa has emerged as a theatre for geopolitical competition, where global powers are actively selling their future visions. As this “new Cold War” heats up—accelerated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—powerful nations are working feverishly to establish allies and adversaries. Africa’s demographic profile, mineral resources and growing integration make it a bloc too big and influential to ignore. With one in four people in the world likely to be African by 2050, major powers realise the need to align with the continent. Summits are being used to build relationships, primarily to further economic and military cooperation.
Summits differ from regular diplomatic efforts because they blur the lines between symbolic gestures and substantive outcomes. They demonstrate a government’s commitment to an issue and help build trust—the key currency in today’s new Cold War. Effective summits focus on messaging, optics and credibility, typically shown through commitments, new initiatives and proclamations about a fresh chapter in African relations. Resolutions are carefully worded to showcase each global power’s comparative advantage, leaving African leaders heartened by their benevolence. Recent examples confirm this pattern: the EU‑AU summit featured a major investment plan for Africa under Europe’s Global Gateway project; FOCAC delivered significant vaccine and financing pledges in 2021; and the US‑Africa Leaders Summit announced a US $55 billion investment over the next three years.
Amid such fierce competition, what agendas are the world’s top and middle powers pursuing? Rattled by the growing “Dragon‑Bear” alliance, Western countries are redoubling efforts to rebuild lost influence in Africa. The United States has stressed humility and partnership, attempting to listen rather than lecture, though many African leaders remain wary of being used to further American interests. The EU, still nursing colonial hangovers in some member states, seeks to diversify its energy supplies and has African gas firmly in its sights. Paradoxically, while Europe could tap Africa’s young labour force for an economic stimulus, African migration is considered politically unpalatable. Emerging powers such as India, Turkey and the Gulf states are also courting African countries, offering commercial and diplomatic options beyond the great powers. The third Turkey‑Africa Partnership Summit took place in 2021, and the last India‑Africa Forum Summit was in 2015.
China’s approach appeals because of its non‑interference policy, although recent controversies have forced a charm offensive to reassure African allies. Russia, meanwhile, is exploiting Africa’s lingering distrust of the international order, promising equal participation and African leadership in a new multipolar world. African states are weary of Western fear‑mongering around Russia and China, noting that the West is more concerned with combating its rivals than advancing Africa’s interests. Consequently, many African countries adopt a pragmatic stance—straddling the powers for maximum benefit, avoiding ideology, and prioritising national interests. This pragmatism has largely informed the continent’s neutral position on the Ukraine conflict.
Global powers clearly need to build influence through summits, but what is in it for Africa? To benefit, African states must define collective positions and needs, negotiating from a position of strength. Leaders and officials cannot attend summits blindly without a clear agenda—a criticism previously levelled at FOCAC. Creating consensus among 55 nations is “convoluted, politically stressful and difficult,” notes Bankole Adeoye in his analysis of the AU’s common positions. A lack of institutional capacity, resources and ownership hampers progress. The remedy is greater communication, consultation and coordination, though progress will be slow. Summitry should be used to bypass the complexities of international relations and exercise bargaining power.
At last year’s EU‑AU summit, a recalibration of power dynamics was evident. Africa’s assertive approach stemmed from the EU’s loss of moral authority on vaccine hoarding, travel bans and double standards on decarbonisation, as well as from Africa’s expanding pool of strategic partners. Most importantly, a firm and coordinated Pan‑African strategy emerged. African experts, including Professor David Luke of the London School of Economics, stress that such a strategy counters the “divide‑and‑conquer” tactics that global powers may employ with individual African countries. African states must also develop mechanisms to track progress on summit commitments. A coherent continental strategy toward major external partners, championed by leading African countries, is essential to avoid exploitation and achieve tangible results.
Despite harsh economic conditions, African stakeholders are increasingly bullish about what they have to offer the world and can choose from a range of suitors. External shocks, double standards and self‑interest displayed by some partners reinforce the narrative that Africa must pursue its own strategic autonomy. The question, then, is not whether summits work, but how to make them work for Africa. Continental leaders should use summitry to bypass diplomatic complexities and exercise bargaining power in a new age of multilateralism. If summits attract investment and diversify both economies and development partners, they can deliver major value.
— Ronak Gopaldas, ISS Consultant, Director, Signal Risk and Faculty at the Gordon Institute of Business Science
Comments are closed for this story.