The Luanda Summit Exposes the Contradictions of African–European Diplomacy

By Bwanika Joseph

The 7th African Union–European Union Summit held in Luanda, Angola, unfolded at a time when both continents face worsening crises ranging from political instability and civic repression to mass migration, economic fragility and deepening insecurity.

Framed as a celebration of 25 years of AU–EU partnership, the summit carried the symbolism of unity, cooperation and shared commitment.

Yet beneath the ceremonial speeches and diplomatic language lies a more troubling contradiction, many of the leaders tasked with solving Africa’s complex challenges are themselves contributors to the very problems being discussed.

Looking at the summit through a critical lens from the viewpoint of ordinary civilians requires stepping away from what leaders say and instead examining the realities their governance produces. The heart of the contradiction becomes clear.

A gathering meant to promote peace and prosperity is heavily attended by leaders whose domestic records undermine those same ideals. Rather than a platform for accountability, the summit seemed like a stage where legitimacy is traded for participation.

The celebration of a 25-year partnership masks the deeper discomfort that, in this same period, many African countries have experienced democratic backsliding, civic space restrictions and entrenched leadership.

The language of partnership and shared values rings hollow when political transitions remain uncertain in member states like Uganda, elections are contested and accountability mechanisms remain weak or absent.

The summit’s celebratory tone appears to be less a reflection of progress and more a performance of stability.

Nowhere is this contradiction sharper than in discussions about peace and security. The Luanda summit aimed to reaffirm commitments to member state regional stability, conflict prevention and good governance.

Yet among the attendees are leaders facing serious accusations from citizens, including cases of unlawful detentions, intimidation of opposition voices and abuse of state security machinery.

The presence of Hon. Prime Minister Robinah Nabbanja

from Uganda who publicly admitted involvement in the unlawful holding of Ugandan civilian Hon. John Bosco Kibalama for years illustrates the moral and political tension at play.

Such examples undermine the credibility of peace discussions and raise the question, how can regional peace be pursued when abuses at home are ignored?

The migration agenda exposes another layer of contradiction. European leaders speak of managing flows and creating legal pathways, while African leaders emphasize youth empowerment and economic opportunity.

But this diplomatic choreography avoids the central truth: migration is driven by political failures at home. Young people flee because their leaders fail to provide accountability, economic security, justice or freedom.

They flee corruption, repression and exclusion. It becomes dishonest to address migration without addressing the governance failures that produce it.

A summit that avoids such realities cannot meaningfully resolve the crisis, no matter how many statements are issued.

Prosperity, too, cannot be separated from governance. Economic growth does not emerge from declarations of cooperation but from functioning institutions, transparency and respect for rights. In Luanda, prosperity was discussed as though it exists independently of political conditions.

This separation reflects a deeper structural weakness in the AU–EU relationship: the persistent attempt to discuss Africa’s economic challenges without confronting the political systems that limit development. Without reforms, any talk of shared prosperity remains aspirational rather than achievable.

Ultimately, the Luanda summit reflects a broader pattern in international diplomacy where gatherings become rituals rather than engines of change. Leaders meet, share coffee and wine, praise partnership and issue communiqués crafted by technocrats.

They return home to unchanged political landscapes while the problems they discussed governance failures, insecurity, migration pressures continue to deepen. When crises erupt, the response is usually another reconciliation meeting, another round of talks, another assurance of commitment to peace. The cycle repeats because the structural issues remain untouched.

If this summit is truly more than a gathering for coffee, wine and ceremonial speeches, then its outcomes must reflect moral courage rather than diplomatic comfort.

The same leaders who spoke of partnership should return with actionable solutions to the ongoing killings in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where civilians continue to suffer as the world watches.

And if the summit intends to defend democratic norms, then it must be equally willing to reprimand Tanzania’s leadership for election-related violence rather than turning a blind eye.

Without such bold and principled action, the AU–EU partnership will be considered becoming a 25-year-old ritual that celebrates itself while failing the people it claims to serve.

The author, is a Social Development specialist and CEO Bridge Your Mind Centre.

Email; bwani.jose@gmail.com