The good people of Africa are no longer willing to be fooled

I think change will come about peacefully. Already the sharks in the ruling Zanu PF party are circling President Robert Mugabe

You don't swim through the turbid waters of international politics without developing some immunity to the bizarre. I like to think that I've heard too many exaggerations, understatements or sheer barefaced lies ever to be surprised by what politicians say. But at around 9am on Thursday I found myself stumped. We'd all just trooped into the coffee bar at the Palais des Congrès in Paris, clutching the little handbags which our French hosts had prepared as a gift. There were pens and notebooks inside so that we might register the fine words of the delegates to the biennial Franco-African summit.

I confess to a loathing of big international summits. They bring together the most vainglorious elements of politics – the posturing, the status obsession – with the laziest journalism to produce a mush of speeches and dead-end resolutions. Think of some of the recent ones: the UN summit against racism in South Africa – one long rant that took the debate nowhere; the Earth summit in Johannesburg – more blather and enough room service consumed to build houses for half the squatters around Soweto. Well almost. As bad, if not worse, are the meetings of the G8. At the last summit the poor of the world were thrown crumbs by Western leaders who seemed not to care whether Africa sank or swam. Mr Blair's plea for engagement with the continent was met with indifference.

The Paris summit will have done just as much for Africa, that is to say – nothing. What it lacked in size compared to the big UN summits it made up for in the rich incongruity of its elements. The city of liberty and the rights of man playing host to some of the most venal dictators in the world. Not that President Chirac seemed unaware of this; the jaw-dropping moment came when he took the podium to welcome the assembled heads of state. Remember, M. Chirac was the one who invited them; it was he who decided to defy the will of the EU and include Robert Mugabe on the list, forking out several thousand pounds a night to keep him in a luxurious suite at the Plaza Athénée hotel. In doing this Mr Chirac knew that the Zimbabwean leader would use the visit to prove he still had friends left in the world.

Having thrown Mr Mugabe a lifeline, President Chirac then lectured him. Before I quote the choicer chunks of M. Chirac's speech, let us reflect on this fact: on my count, approximately 23 of the leaders welcomed to Paris were dictators, among them a man who killed his own brother to win power. And this is what President Chirac had to tell them: "You – and we – cannot give legitimacy to violence; we cannot allow grey zones or areas of lawlessness to emerge; we cannot leave provinces to become disinherited. How can we remain indifferent to the grave famine now threatening 40 million Africans? Here too, the answer lies in determined action. The days of impunity or when people were able to justify the use of force are over. Now we must work to strengthen justice."

There was no standing ovation. I watched Robert Mugabe nodding along as if he agreed, or was he just lost in his thoughts, still recovering from the long journey to Paris? You might have thought the French President's bold words would have troubled Mr Mugabe. After all, even the French agreed with the EU decision to impose sanctions because Zimbabwe's elections were neither free nor fair. Had Robert Mugabe not sent the North Korean trained 5th Brigade into Matabeleland province, leaving thousands dead and tens of thousands more traumatised? Talk about "provinces disinherited"! Did Mr Mugabe not use food as a political weapon and allow his secret police to torture members of parliament?

As M. Chirac was speaking, the Zimbabwean police were locking up a High Court judge who'd had the temerity to challenge the arrest of an opposition leader. While Kofi Annan sat just a few seats away from Mr Mugabe, the UN's most senior judicial expert was condemning the arrest. None of this is a matter of opinion or a polemic. These are facts. Incontrovertible, nasty facts. The Zanu PF élite don't accept this and, along with a few cheerleaders in the West, blame it all on colonialism.

Yes, the racist rule of Ian Smith robbed the African people of their birthright. Of course it was a profound injustice for the land of Zimbabwe to remain in the hands of a minority for years after independence. And yes, successive British administrations have acted as if they wished the land question would just go away. When Mr Mugabe turned on the Matabele, the British didn't utter a squeak of protest. That made their concern for the white farmers seem inspired by feelings of racial solidarity.

But to pretend that the mess of land reform is entirely the fault of Britain is ludicrous. Through corruption, clienteleism and indifference to the plight of Zimbabwe's poor, Mr Mugabe bears a huge responsibility. He ran the show.

Zimbabwe today is lawless. But the law of impunity reigned in Paris. The only arrests were those of a handful of anti-Mugabe protestors. The other African leaders welcomed Mr Mugabe. Just this week, Presidents Obasanjo of Nigeria and Mbeki of South Africa argued that Zimbabwe should be readmitted to the Commonwealth. What was the basis of this claim? Wait for it: The situation in Zimbabwe had actually improved during the last year. Think about that, and the fact that the men making the assertion are regarded as two of the best leaders on the continent.

When President Chirac says one thing and does another the immediate effects on Africa are limited. When Thabo Mbeki and Olusegun Obasanjo elect to turn the principles of a new Africa upside down, it's a different issue. The New Partnership for African Development – Nepad – is supposed to lead the continent away from the stereotypes of misrule and kleptocracy. It is dead while such myopia continues. Mr Mbeki occupies an extraordinary position. He refuses to take the punitive action that might force Mr Mugabe to face reality; yet he is content to allow Zimbabwe's economic crisis to deepen and its famine to escalate. He will take no action either way.

I happen to believe that Africa and Zimbabwe will be turned around. There were lots of dictators in Paris for the summit, but far fewer than 10 years ago. The people of Africa are no longer willing to be fooled. One way or another, leaders of the old order will be swept aside. In Zimbabwe it will probably happen sooner than we think. I think it will come about peacefully. Already the sharks in the ruling party are circling Mr Mugabe. A new government of Zanu PF and opposition members is the most likely result. If the people of South Africa were prepared to share power with the architects of apartheid, then Zimbabwe's opposition can see their way to sitting in a transitional government with Zanu PF.

But not with Mr Mugabe. Even his closest supporters know that his days in power are coming to a close. Viewed in that light, the trip to Paris wasn't so much a diplomatic breakthrough as a last hurrah.

The writer is a BBC Special Correspondent