Russia-Africa Summit in Moscow: a one-way partnership?

According to France 24, the 3rd Russia-Africa summit is wrapping up in Moscow. Vladimir Putin insisted there on strengthening economic cooperation with the continent. But, still according to the broadcaster, the record of earlier partnerships shows they benefit Russia above all. That's the facts, and they are thin: the dispatch does not detail the agreements signed, the figures, or the list of delegations. We therefore do not yet know what was concretely promised, or to whom.

What follows is our reading, not an established finding.

The question France 24 raises, that of an equal footing, deserves to be taken seriously rather than as a slogan. The pitch is well rehearsed: "win-win" partnership, respect for sovereignty, no colonial past to answer for. It is seductive, especially for states weary of Western conditionality. But the absence of a colonial past does not guarantee the absence of a balance of power. What matters is not the partner's flag but the place African economies occupy in the exchange.

This is where dependency theory serves as a compass. It reminds us that poor countries are not simply "behind": their economies were shaped to supply raw materials, cheap labour and outlets to the centre. The test, for Moscow as for any capital, is therefore simple. Who processes the resources? Who sets the prices? Who keeps the added value? If the ore leaves raw and finished goods come back, the summit will have changed the stage set, not the structure.

Amílcar Cabral put the criterion sharply: national liberation exists only when the nation's productive forces are freed from all foreign domination (our translation, Amílcar Cabral, "L'arme de la théorie"). Applied to Moscow, this shifts the debate. It matters little whether the interlocutor is Russian, French or Chinese: the question is whether these agreements free the development of African productive forces or put them at the service of another centre. A power rival to the former metropoles remains a power seeking resources, votes in international forums and markets.

We should also look at our own side of the mirror. African leaders are not extras: they negotiate, and some play partners off against one another to win better terms. That is rational. But Cabral and Fanon warned against an elite that settles into the inherited apparatus without transforming the economy: independence then changes the flag, not the structure. A deal that suits a ruling circle can be disastrous for the people who live near the mines and fields.

What we therefore expect next: the texts of the agreements, the volumes, the local-processing clauses, the financing terms. While these remain opaque, the final communiqué is worth what final communiqués are worth, which is to say little. The peoples concerned will not judge by handshakes, but by jobs, prices and factories.