President Obama Meets With Leaders of Sierra Leone, Senegal, Malawi, and Cape Verde (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama will host a high-level conference with African leaders in August as an attempt to start taking more seriously with the burgeoning economies on the continent. It’s all well intended and meant to be a nod to growth within Africa, but at the same time, the continent is made up of 54 countries, and not all are created equal.

It could be a diplomatic tightrope for the U.S. leader, as many leaders will be vying for his attention.

The official White House statement, released in late January, said the summit is meant to “strengthen ties with one of the world’s most dynamic and fastest-growing regions,” and will “advance the administration’s focus on trade and investment in Africa, and highlight America’s commitment to Africa’s security, its democratic development, and its people.”

Not everyone is going to be invited to the gathering, such as Zimbabwe’s embattled President Robert Mugabe and Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir. In addition to Zimbabwe and Sudan, the leaders of Egypt, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar and Western Sahara have not been invited to attend the Washington mega gathering.

Surprisingly, Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta has, despite being under indictment at the International Criminal Court for his role in the 2007 post-election violence that led to the deaths of more than 1,000 in ethnic clashes.

What’s the difference between Kenyatta and Bashir? Everything.

But the biggest thing is America’s interest is security in Kenya, and with the attacks by Somali-linked militants in Nairobi last September, it’s a major issue. The U.S. is willing to overlook the hypocrisy in the matter, as it shoves Bashir to the side for his role in committing war crimes in his country’s western quarters, in Darfur.

“Uhuru is still technically an ICC indictee, although there is widespread speculation that his delayed trial at the Hague is about to collapse,” according to an article by a Kenyan newspaper.

Gambia’s leader, who claims he can cure HIV/AIDs and several types of cancer, will be attending, much to the disappointment of those who oppose him. He has also crushed opposition figures in his country, jailed journalists and dissenters and has executed people with impunity. What could Obama possibly have to talk to President Yahya Jammeh about? Who knows.

Aside from any controversies surrounding who’s invited, there are other issues to deal with — like holding African leaders accountable to their nations, and this can often mean delicate topics like good governance, democracy and human rights.

According to a report by the Voice of America in January, Gambian-born Sulayman Nyang, senior professor and former chair of the African Studies Department at Howard University in Washington, D.C., believes that the summit will have a historical impact, because Obama would be the first post-World War II president to bring African leaders together.

Gay rights, equal economic trade and corruption should top the list for Obama’s talking points with African leaders, Nyang told VOA.

“One problem that the Obama administration is going to face, and with congressional leaders very nice to gay groups in this country, and in the West — what are you going to tell some of the countries in Africa who are opposed to the gay groups? This is where you’re going to have a big contradiction in Western policy,” Nyang said, citing one an example.

Mukoma Wa Ngugi, a writer for the blog This Is Africa, put it this way: “Different African countries are in different situations, and no summit between the U.S. and that many countries can come up with useful solutions that will work for all 47 countries.”

The summit will come at a time when some Africans feel Obama has not done enough for the continent since his election. Yet there is time before August to change a little of that, if he wants to. It might involve a couple of unannounced trips back to Africa itself, but that is doubtful. His trip last year to the continent drew sharp criticism from American conservatives, who chided the administration for the cost, which was estimated at $100 million, mostly because of security.