The arithmetic is far simpler than the problems. It was hoped that the EU-AU conference held over the weekend in Lisbon would provide the solutions.

A shadow in the shape of the Zimbabwean dictator hung over the meeting but even as German Chancellor Angela Merkel accused Robert Mugabe he had damaged Africa - she declared: "We don't have the right to look away when human rights are trampled on" - it became clear that his democratic deficit would not be enough to prevent the two sides from coming up with an EU-Africa strategic partnership.

Not for the first time, South African leader President Thabo Mbeki preferred to speak in generalities on the subject of human rights and governance. Yet, there, listening to him, was not only Mr Mugabe, on whom the EU imposed a travel ban (and rescinded it for the weekend) but also the Sudanese President who has consistently stymied any move towards a permanent solution to the Darfur crisis.

The presence of both angered leaders of the stature of the Czech President Vaclav Klaus. Along with others before the conference, he accused Lisbon of political cowardice. They could have equally condemned the EU's appalling recording the Sudanese crisis. Its inability to provide a contingent to the border area with Darfur to protect scores of thousands of displaced civilians, an embarrassment.

The reality is that the meeting took place, as realpolitik demanded. How correct the Portuguese Prime Minister's claim that the meeting had been "an extraordinary event" and that it will be "remembered as a milestone in the relations between Europe and Africa" remains to be seen.

The issues that confront the two parties made up of 81 countries are substantial. They range from immigration to climate change; in between, human rights, trade, peace and security and development. That made for a vast agenda. Lisbon can only be the first step in a long journey.

As a front-line state in the illegal immigration business, this issue will have been Malta's main interest at the conference. The European Commission has already indicated that it wishes to attract 20 million workers from outside the EU over the next two decades, not necessarily all of them from Africa and, preferably, highly skilled. The Commission may fairly be accused of poaching but it is indicative of the EU's growing "population deficit" that it should need this transfusion of workers from overseas.

That the EU has a vested interest in trade with Africa, and vice-versa, is best demonstrated by the fact that over €200 billion worth of trade takes place between the two "blocs", with France the biggest exporter (€21 billion), Italy the biggest importer (€31 billion). The EU wants that trade to grow. It has watched with some concern how it has been stalked in terms of trade by China, which, unlike the EU, attaches no importance to the receiving country's state of governance.

Any future economic partnership holds out the danger, for some African domestic markets, of "swamping", which is presumably why the summit ended in a deadlock as far as trade goes. But the resolve to build a new strategic "political partnership for the future" remains a topmost priority.

That anything was signed at all must be deemed a form of success. Mr Mugabe remained impenitent. Far from being chastened, he claimed that accusations that human rights were being abused in Zimbabwe were "trumped up". On this score, at least, the Portuguese Prime Minister's optimism seems to be unfounded.