The 7^th AU-EU summit kicked off earlier today under the theme ‘Promoting Peace and Prosperity through Effective Multilateralism.’ As the nearly 80 leaders of the African Union (AU) and the European Union (EU) leaders convene in Angola’s capital, Luanda, on 24-25 November 2025, a major question in the minds of many is whether this summit will mark a departure from the previous summit.

The last time the two sides met at a summit level was in February 2022. It is to be recalled that the summit was held under the theme ‘Two unions, one vision’. As it was clear for many close observers at the time, coming against the background of major policy dissonance over the COVID-19 pandemic, including over access to the vaccine, the idea of the AU and EU having ‘one vision’ was seen as nothing more than an illusion. What unfolded soon after that summit in February 2022, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, made it clear that the idea of ‘one vision’ was anything but grounded in reality.

The reality is that there are areas of shared interest between the AU and the EU. This has been in full display in the robust partnership and cooperation of the AU and the EU on peace and security. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine the operationalisation of the peace and security architecture of the AU without the critical role played by this partnership. Understandably, the peace and security partnership, for which the EU established the African Peace Facility, was premised on the recognition that the AU’s enhanced role in peace and security is a useful contribution to the global public good of the maintenance of international peace and security, which the EU has an interest in promoting.

Parallel to such a major area of convergence, the other equally important reality is that there are many policy areas in respect of which the interests of the two sides diverge, at times fundamentally. The policy dissonance regarding COVID-19 brought this into sharp relief. While the AU Assembly advocated for a TRIPs waiver regarding COVID-19 vaccines underscoring the need for a just international system, the EU was not supportive of the demand for TRIPs waiver. Although not the same situation, in the context of the war in Ukraine and unsurprisingly, the lack of shared policy position between the EU and the AU on the response to the war became a deal breaker in three consecutive annual consultative meetings of the EU Political and Security Committee and the AU Peace and Security Council. As a result, the annual consultative meetings held during 2022, 2023 and 2024 ended without adopting a joint communiqué.

Given that it is being held in a much more fraught global context and regional dynamics that further strain multilateral cooperation, the AU-EU summit in Luanda needs to be informed by the lessons from these experiences. For example, AU’s support for multilateralism is increasingly accompanied by the demand by AU member states (which is getting louder and was evident during the G20 summit in Johannesburg) for both a) reform, among others, of the global tax regime and the international financial institutions and b) delivery on commitments made in relation to the sustainable development goals and measures for addressing the threat of climate change.

This requires both sides treating the relationship with the seriousness it deserves. Despite being courted by many, the reality is the AU needs the EU. A case in point is the EU’s critical support for the AU’s mission in Somalia (AUSSOM). If mobilised towards priorities set by Africa and jointly designed and implemented, investments from the EU under the Global Gateway would be catalytic to advance some of the flagship projects of Agenda 2063 of the AU. The EU, on its part, needs Africa’s endowment with critical minerals, the demography that will be a major source of labour for the global economy and its growing market. It also needs, like others, AU member states in multilateral negotiations. Despite the power asymmetry and the different institutional arrangement for developing positions still working in its favour, the EU would do well not to perpetuate the business-as-usual model of engaging the AU, hence being comfortable with setting the agenda and dominating the process of shaping the outcomes of the AU-EU partnership meetings.

There is a lot of dialogue between the AU and the EU. As the cases referenced above show, the dialogue does not always translate into listening and mutual understanding. As the EU would do well not to perpetuate the business-as-usual-model of engaging the AU, for member states of the AU, there can be no exercise of agency without being able to set and negotiate the agenda of the AU-EU partnership meetings. Similarly, the rhetoric and ambition of speaking with one voice should be supported by a negotiated common position premised on Agenda 2063.

These were barely on display during the AU-EU ministerial on the part of the AU member states. By contrast, the AU adopted a different posture in the preparations for the summit. Instead of taking the easy road of copying and pasting from the AU-EU ministerial outcome document, the AU initiated a draft with new elements that reflect the interests and policy positions of Africa on the various agenda items agreed between the two sides.

In the negotiation on the outcome document for the AU-EU summit in Luanda, initially, there was no real discussion both on what informed the elements of the draft that the AU initiated and on why the EU side responded by deleting and replacing with its proposed formulations. This was far from an ideal way of engaging in negotiations. It became clear to both sides that there was a lot of value in engaging in direct negotiations held on 11 and 12 November. A critical factor in creating such an atmosphere was the role of the chair on the side of the AU. It has become apparent that there is a need for a more flexible engagement grounded in principle.