It is now clear that Mugabe will attend next month's crucial Lisbon summit. But, it has not been easy.

In May this year, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo represented the chairman of the African Union, President John Agyekum Kufuor in meetings at Berlin, Germany (which held the EU presidency until June 30) and Brussels, Belgium (EU capital) on the way forward for the relationship between Africa and Europe, where he firmly but diplomatically told Europe that it cannot "pick and choose" which Africans they will deal with if they try to deal with Africa on a continental basis. It is a summit and if it's a summit, Zimbabwe comes at the level of its leader or somebody in a representative capacity."

Seven years had been "wasted" since the last European Union-African Union summit in Cairo because of the Zimbabwe issue. But, the strong stance taken by the AU under President Kufuor’s chairmanship appears to have finally gotten things moving.

The Lisbon summit, scheduled for December 8 and 9, is intended to focus on areas requiring closer co-operation between Europe and Africa, migration, security, climate change, an energy partnership and notably trade, where the Economic Partnership Agreements with Africa’s Regional Economic Communities remain the most contentious economic issue on the table.

On October 31, AU and EU officials met here in Accra to set the agenda for the joint Lisbon summit. In Accra, the EU and AU agreed on a Joint EU-Africa Strategy and a first Action Plan to be adopted by the heads of state next month.

In Accra, EU officials confirmed that President Robert Mugabe, who has been accused of human rights abuses and economic mismanagement, will be invited. This came after UK premier Gordon Brown vowed not to attend or send any cabinet minister to the summit if the Zimbabwean leader attends.

The EU and the United States imposed targeted sanctions, including the travel ban on Mugabe and his close associates, after elections in 2002 which he is alleged to have rigged.

The Statesman wishes to add its voice to the growing chorus both in Europe and Africa that next month’s summit should not be bogged down by the question of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe’s presence.

Portuguese prime minister Jose Socrates, whose country now holds the EU presidency believes it would be a wasted opportunity for the summit that has been delayed for four years if Mugabe becomes the main focus.

AU leader, Alpha Konare also says, "What we would like is the summit between the EU and Africa, a very important and historic summit, to concentrate on the documents which are to be approved and not on President Robert Mugabe."

The British prime minister’s fear is that Mr Mugabe’s attendance would divert attention from important issues that need to be resolved. Mr Brown’s prophecy should not be made to come to pass.

Britain’s false appreciation of the African position on Zimbabwe was expressed by the British MP Kate Hoey who heads the all-party parliamentary committee on Zimbabwe.

In welcoming Brown’s summit boycott, she said it would force African leaders to come out against what Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe.

Africans would rather the EU’s focus on this summit would measure up to the EU’s vocals of entering an "equitable and equal" partnership with Africa, regardless of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe.

European leaders must understand that Africa’s insistence that Mugabe be invited was a matter of principle and not a sign of support for the Zimbabwean leader or his government.

After Akufo-Addo’s strong stance in Berlin and Brussels, Konare has also maintained that "We will not let ourselves be bullied or pressurised regarding who (from Africa) should attend the summit or not. That is why we as Africans had insisted that everyone (including Mugabe) should be present."

Africans are at the moment waiting patiently to see the strength of European delegations to attend the Lisbon summit. This should give us some indication of Europe’s seriousness to the future of Africa. The truth is Africa does not intend to wait on Europe.

Already negotiations with China, India, Russia and Japan are progressing very positively. America is also fully conscious of the 21st century reality that Africa is rapidly becoming a force to reckon with on its own strength, terms and turf.

Writing in the Zimbabwean Independent, a newspaper very critical of the Mugabe regime, Dutch-based Garikai Chimuka warns that the EU must be wary of elevating Mugabe to a martyr, for it is what he is exactly looking for. "Mugabe’s strategy at the summit is to be the point of focus through his predictable, now monotonous anti-British and anti-EU rhetoric."

The article avers that given that Mugabe "has dismally failed at home where his self-serving policies have spawned an economic crisis never seen outside of a war zone, his approach will be to shift focus from domestic problems and use his usual land rhetoric to cast Zimbabwean problems into the hands of Britain and the EU."

Indeed, Mugabe’s critics have always believed that he cleverly plays the victim of the West to gain sympathy, particularly from other African countries.

It is for this reason that some observers are wary of human rights issues dominating the summit, with Mugabe ever-ready to outsmart them by deflating the discourse from human rights to the land issue.

The purpose of the Joint Strategy is, at least in principle, to take the Africa-EU relationship to a new, strategic level with a strengthened political partnership and enhanced cooperation at all levels.

The partnership is desired to be based on a Euro-African consensus on values, common interests and common strategic objectives. Whether this envisaged partnership can strive to bridge the development divide between Africa and Europe through joint EU-AU efforts very much remain to be seen.

Leaders and ministers from EU and African countries met from 3-4 April, 2000, in Cairo, Egypt for the first EU-Africa summit addressing political and economic issues.

The summit yielded the Declaration of Cairo and a joint EU-Africa Cairo Plan of Action, both addressing the issues of trade, debt, political issues, peace building and conflict prevention, and development. The balance sheet has not been convincing.