Tanzania's foreign policy: Africa's independence tool and Dar's liberator

To understand and appreciate Tanzania’s foreign policy, a peep into two incidents, all involving the founding Father of the nation, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, will help in shedding light on the source and form of the country’s foreign policy.

The two incidents happened in 1957, during Ghana’s independence day celebration in Accra and in 1985 when Mwalimu Nyerere was bidding farewell to Nigeria, one of the countries that had helped Tanzania during its 1964’s army mutiny at the Colito Barracks in Dar es Salaam, presently known as Lugalo Barracks, named in honour of Chief Mkwawa’s Barracks at Kalenga in Iringa Rural District, Iringa Region.

Addressing journalists during a press conference held in Nigeria in the course of his visit to bid farewell to the Nigerian leadership midway in 1985 as he prepared to step down from Presidency after 23 years at the helm, Mwalimu was asked by one of the journalists the following question:

“Tanzania has had friends both in the East and West. Why has it (Tanzania) done so?”

Mwalimu responded in three words, sending Nigerian journalists into fits of laughter, he said; WE ARE POOR.

Indeed, a poor man does not have choice. He has to cultivate friendship with all the people, both from the east and west, hence Tanzania’s decision to pursue the policy of non-alignment.

It is also important to bear in mind that when Tanzania and some of her friends pursued the non-alignment foreign policy, it was at the height of the Cold War between the East, led by the then Soviet Union and the West led by the United States.

Since then, Tanzania has had the pleasure of not only seeking assistance from east and west, but also in criticizing both sides of the divide.

Other prominent founders of the foregoing policy included the then Yugoslavia President, Field Marshal Tito, Cuba’s President Fidel Castro and the Father of Malaysian modern economy,  Mohamed Mahathir.

Although the West has in the past heavily criticized those who chose the non-alignment policy, however, the truth still remains non-alignment policy pursuers have been able to save their nations from numerous problems.

The second incident which helped in influencing Tanzania’s foreign policy was the speech made by Ghana’s President, Dr Kwame Nkrumah at the climax of his country’s independence celebrations.

Dr Nkrumah said the independence of Ghana was meaningless as long as other countries in other parts of Africa remained in bondage.

The Ghanaian leader made the speech which would later be quoted several times by President Nyerere at the time when Kenyans were waging their liberation war (Mau Mau) against the British and apartheid held sway in South Africa, northern and southern Rhodesia which later became Zambia and Zimbabwe respectively.

Dr Nkrumah’s historic speech that has remained relevant to date implied the need on the part of other independent African states to help countries which were still languishing under racism and colonialism.

The rest is of course history, as imperialists through their lackeys and running dogs within the military clique in the Ghanaian armed forces did not allow Dr Nkrumah to remain in power, hence continue to preach freedom to the rest of the continent.

In 1966, the Ghanaian leader was overthrown by the US educated General Afrifa during his tour of Romania.

However, the toppling of Dr Nkrumah was not in vain as Tanzania took over the liberation struggle of countries still under racism and colonial yoke as one of the planks of its foreign policy.

Tanzania’s decision to implement Dr Nkruman’s statement in practice further received a shot in the arm when the Organization of African Unity, OAU, established the offices of the OAU Liberation Committee, in Dar es Salaam.

 Initially, the OAU Liberation Committee Office in Dar es Salaam was headed by Tanzania’s Ambassador Magombe as Executive Secretary.

However, later the post was filled in by Brigadier General Hashim Mbitta who has since retired from the Tanzania Peoples Defence Forces, TPDF.

Before delving deeper into Tanzania’s implementation of the liberation struggle in central and southern Africa, it it would not be out of place to  look into, albeit in passing, on one issue that Africa’s detractors have always found delight in.

This is none other than their love to bring to the fore differences that existed between Mwalimu Nyerere and Dr Nkrumah in the realm of Africa’s integration.

It is indisputable that the two men differed quite considerably on how to bring about African union.

While Dr Nkrumah was in favour of immediate and total African union, Mwalimu preferred step by step integration (gradual) much as both men were agreed on one thing, African union.

Different outlook over Africa union between Mwalimu and Dr Nkrumah was, to some extent, a result of differences between themselves which could be attributed to many things that include, among others, differences in political background and experiences between the two statesmen.

Mwalimu admitted over Dr Nkrumah’s political experience in his live broadcast address from Zanzibar on February 5^th 1977 during the climax of the merger between two political parties, the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU) which had brought independence to Tanganyika and the Afro Shirazi Party which had spearheaded Zanzibar’s revolution on January 12^th 1964.

Mwalimu had this to say: “Circumcision is not painful if it is carried out on a person during one’s childhood.”

However, he said, circumcision was a different ball game if it was carried out during one’s adulthood.

Mwalimu compared the Union (and the only living union one in the continent) between Tanganyika and Zanzibar to circumcision carried out during childhood.

He said the union between the two countries that came into being on April 26^th  1964 was possible and had lasted that long because Zanzibar came on board less than three months after its revolution.

Mwalimu’s argument was that it would not have been possible for the two countries to forge the union many months after the revolution after Zanzibar leaders had got used to the trappings of leadership.

He said when Dr Nkrumah called for African Union immediately, the Ghanaian leader was better informed than them on the challenges that awaited African countries, and in particular, trappings that accompanied such positions that include, among others, motor outriders, inspection of guard of honours, high salaries and other fringe benefits, and above all, power which always ended up corrupting its holder!

Mwalimu’s Zanzibar speech was an admission, on his part, that Dr Nkruman said what he said in relation to African Union because he was more experienced than him.

Therefore, Mwalimu’s differences with Dr. Nkrumah would only make sense had he not appreciated and learnt from the Ghanaian leader!

Having bought the Ghanaian leader’s argument on the need for independent African countries to help, militarily if possible, those still languishing under racist, colonial yoke; Mwalimu prepared his country for the struggle of other countries.

In fact nothing helped to shape Mwalimu’s vision towards the liberation struggle than Dr Nkrumah’s overthrow and his country’s own army mutiny in 1964.

He realized that unless the country’s armed forces were transformed into peoples’ liberation army, Tanzania would get nowhere in its effort to help those still under racism and colonial bondage.

This then saw the emergence of what in Mwalimu’s own words, ‘the formation of small, but scientific liberation army’.

Instead of sending Tanzanians abroad for officer training course at Sandhurst in Britain, Tanzania came up with its own military staff college, tailored to meet Tanzania and Africa’s needs.

Politically, efforts were made to forge a cohesive nation that would readily help the army in its liberation role.

That is why military forays into Tanzania by Portuguese forces from Mozambique and bombings of the Salander Bridge in Dar es Salaam, jet fighter bombardment of Mtwara and other parts in southern Tanzania and finally, the killing, through a parcel bomb, of the Frelimo (Mozambique’s liberation party) failed to shake off Tanzanians.

In fact, if anything, such attacks against Tanzania helped in strengthening Tanzanians’ resolve to help their government in lending support to liberation movements such as frelimo, ZANU-PF (Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front)in Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), SWAPO in Namibia and the MPLA in Angola.

This explains why, during the time, it was easy to hear Tanzanians contributing money and materials for liberation struggle in southern Africa.

In order to help members of liberation movements in southern Africa carry out their armed struggle into the den of their enemies, Tanzania established training camps at Mgagao, in Iringa for South Africans and Farm 17 in Nachingwea, southern Tanzania for Frelimo fighters.

In some instances, Tanzanians fought side by side with members of liberation movements and by May 1994, the southern Africa was free from colonial and racial bondage, after the birth of democratic and majority ruled South Africa.

During the same period, it would be recalled how the West tried to arm twist Tanzania and Zambia into getting involved in road project rather than a more reliable form of transportation through the construction of a railroad from Dar es Salaam to Kapiri Mposhi in Zambia.

The two African countries wanted to have an alternative transport route for Zambia in order to empower the central African country in implementing sanctions against rebel Southern Rhodesia.

And because Zambia relied on the Durban route both for its imports and exports, especially of its major foreign exchange earner, copper which is extremely heavy, it could only implement sanctions against Zimbabwe if it had an alternative route to the sea.

Therefore when the West insisted on being ready to help in the construction of a road, both Tanzania and Zambia turned to the Chinese government, hence the construction of the Uhuru railway (the Tanzania Zambia Railway) at a cost of 2bn US dollars.

Construction of the railway line started in 1970 and was completed in 1976, marking the biggest Chinese financed project in Africa.

In the northern part of the country, Tanzania managed to get rid of Uganda’s dictator Idi Amin who had in October 1978, invaded Kagera Salient killing many innocent Tanzanians.

The eight months bush war which ended in May 1979 to date remains the only successful war carried by an independent country against another independent country but under the yoke of a repressive regime.

In the words of a an American Reuters’ Correspondent and author of the War in Uganda, Mr Tony Avirgan, Tanzania won the war against a better equipped Ugandan army because it had succeeded in transforming the fighting into a peoples’ war.

There have always been numerous arguments over the timing of dictator Amin’s invasion of Tanzania.

Despite military skirmishes between the two sides in the course of Amin’s eight year rule in Uganda, the Ugandan leader had faced no threat from Tanzania.

And if that is so, why did he order the invasion of a country that presented no military threat to his country?

Is it possible that Amin’s decision to invade Tanzania was engineered by a foreign country or power?

Interestingly, just when Amin’s troops invaded the Kagera Salient, a TPDF brigade strength that was to be sent to Namibia to help Swapo in their liberation struggle was about to complete its training in Ruvuma Region.

And by the time the invasion of the Kagera Salient was complete, the Brigade under Brigadier General Barton Lupembe was the most war prepared in the entire TPDF.

According to Tony Avirgan, the Brigade which would in April 1979, but this time under the spear wielding Colonel Benjamin Msuya (now retired Major General), captured Uganda’s capital city, Kampala in April 1979, did not lose a single soldier in the whole military campaign, hence reflecting its high preparedness.

As chairman of the frontline states in liberation struggle, Tanzania played a major role in hastening the liberation of Zimbabwe which was made difficult by massive support rendered by the West led by the United States and Britain.

For instance when the OAU called on the British government to punish Southern Rhodesia’s rebel leader, (Prime Minister), Ian Smith for his decision to declare unilateral independence (UDI) against Britain, the latter refused!

Although it had been agreed between and among OAU member states to cease diplomatic relations with Britain if she refused to take action against rebel Smith, at the end of the day only two countries, Tanzania and Zambia acted, breaking diplomatic relations with Britain!

Economically, through the foregoing decision, Tanzania suffered a lot as Britain was the leading contributor to the country’s aid.

This was the second time Tanzania had elected to lose foreign aid through its decision to stand on the side of the oppressed majority in Zimbabwe.

The first time was in 1965 when West Germany was forced out by Tanzania over Zanzibar’s decision to allow the opening of a diplomatic Consul of East Germany in Zanzibar.

The West Germany government asked Mwalimu to bring pressure to bear on the Zanzibar leader, Sheikh Abeid Amani Karume to close the East Germany Consul, but Mwalimu refused, arguing-rightly that much as Zanzibar was part of the Union, however, it was a sovereign state.

At this point, the West Germany government which was assisting Tanzania in building its paratroopers within the TPDF, health and other sectors threatened to stop all aid with the exception of health assistance, and this for humanitarian reasons.

But to the surprise of Germans, Mwalimu told them to pack up all their assistance and leave!

In a nutshell, the West Germany incident reflected, and continues to, Tanzania’s foreign policy independence that includes, among others, the ability to say No to anyone under the sun regardless who that person is!

The foregoing stance was repeated recently by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Mr Bernard Membe when he told the local media that Tanzania was ready to forgo all British government’s assistance if the condition was to recognize gay rights.

Following the Tanzania government’s position, the British government quickly barked off!

Support to the liberation struggle in the continent aside, Tanzania has also played a major role as peace maker in central African countries of Burundi and Rwanda.

In fact, had the Rwandan leadership of General Juvenal Habyarimana hastened implementation of the peace accord that had for years been forged by Tanzania, the 1994 genocide that saw the slaughtering of over one million Tutsis and moderate Hutus would not have happened!

With the end of the liberation struggle in southern Africa, partly finalized by the second phase government of President Ali Hassan Mwinyi; the foreign policy of the third phase administration of President Benjamin Mkapa was characterized by peace missions and conflict resolutions.

It started with Tanzania’s full participation in Burundi’s peace mission under the tutelage of Mwalimu Nyerere as chairman of the peace process.

Regionally, Tanzania joined the rest of former EAC members- Kenya and Uganda in discussions aimed at reviving the East African Community, EAC, which had collapsed on February 6^th 1977.

And on November 31^st 1999, the EAC was re-established. It did not take long, before the EAC membership was boosted following the incorporation of Rwanda and Burundi, hence bringing the new EAC membership to five.

A SHIFT IN FOREIGN POLICY

However, Tanzania’s foreign policy received a major boost in the first years of the fourth phase administration of President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete when it was transformed to include economic goals.

The move was partly due to domestic shift of the country’s economic development which can be traced as far back as the second phase administration that saw the introduction of market economic policies coupled with liberalization.

Tanzania’s envoys abroad were recalled home and taken through the importance of focusing on the country’s economic interests in their day to day operations in their respective missions abroad.

The objective of the foregoing policy, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation is, among others, to project, promote and protect Tanzania’s political, economic, social and economic interests through active and sustainable economic diplomacy.

·          To ensure that Tanzania’s relations with other nations and international institutions are also driven consonance with its economic interests

·          To build a self-sustaining economy, preservation of national peace and security as well as support regional and international endeavor for the creation of better and peaceful world.

·          To accelerate the political and social economic integration for the region and create necessary conditions which shall enable Tanzania to participate effectively in regional and international negotiations.

To the Tanzanian envoys, the message was simple: Gone were the days when they were expected to confine themselves to issues revolving around diplomatic niceties and other inexplicable concerns!

From now on, the name of the game was the country’s economic wellbeing.

 They were now expected to compliment the country’s economic endeavor at home in bringing bona fide investors.

In a nutshell, Tanzania’s embassies abroad were now supposed to serve as centers through which would-be investors could get responses on their inquiries on whatever they wanted to have or do in Tanzania.

Conversely, the Tanzanian government or any of the country’s economic institution for that matter, expected to get reliable information, as far as economic issues are concerned, from Tanzania’s embassies.

 

  By Attilio Tagalile

Of Lowasa's defence and CCM disciplinary committee

After the ruling party’s (Chama cha Mapinduzi) National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting two weeks ago, heated debate on who won between former Prime Minister, Edward Lowasa and the anti-corruption crusaders led by party chairman, President Jakaya Kikwete.

For the first group in the divide, there is no dispute that Lowasa not only emerged victorious, but has shamed the other side.

But whether his victory is enough in recouping his lost political glory which could, by extension, later help him-if he so desired to vie for the 2015 presidential election under his party’s ticket, time will tell.

According to the first group, one thing is now crystal clear; the murkiness that had initially surrounded what has come to be referred to as the Richmond power generation scandal has at last been rendered somewhat clearer!

One, that there is nothing that Lowasa knew, as far as the Richmond scamdal is concerned, that his boss, the president, did not know.

 And secondly, that Lowasa had wanted to finish off Richmond, before it could turn into a scandal, in the same way he had done with City Water.

But in his (Lowasa’s) own words (going by print media reports), the president restrained him, arguing that he had been advised on the best way of handling the issue by his team of permanent secretaries.

Although Lowasa could not take his story on the planned ‘killing of Richmond’ further, it was not however, difficult to decipher the point he was driving to which is: ‘had you allowed me to go ahead with my knife, Richmond would not have reached where it reached’.

The latter statement marked Lowasa’s first political cleansing, and no one helped him in completing the exercise more than his own boss’ decision not to utter a word on the point.

Lowasa’s second score revolved around Kikwete administration’s decision not to take any administrative or legal action against technocrats whose conduct on Richmond had forced him to take political responsibility by stepping down from the premiership.

Lowasa buttressed his second score when he said even the parliamentary probe committee had censored him not for being responsible for Richmond, but rather for his failure to keep close watch over the technocrats who had brought in Richmond.

Again, there was no response from the president and Lowasa’s statement was once again issued with a clean certificate of health.

Lowasa was however, not done!

He reminded the party chairman about the 2003 incident in which the proverbial knives had been drawn out against him.

“Had it not been for President Mkapa’s wisdom, you would not have been sitting on that chair today,” Lowasa told the party chairman.

Again there was no response from the party chairman, once again giving Lowasa’s assertion a mark of credibility.

It was not difficult to decipher what Lowasa wanted to make out of the statement, that while Mkapa helped him, he did not save him from Richmond!

Lowasa’s careful choice of incidents and the mastery wording with which he delivered his self-initiated defence during the NEC meeting was subtly made in order to bring about maximum effect in his defence.

But for reasons best known to him, Lowasa did not venture into the nature of the 2003 incident that had been brought up against the party chairman, then minister for foreign affairs and international cooperation by Mr Paul Sozigwa.

If Lowasa could have the audacity of reminding the party chairman of the 2003 incident that had almost killed his dream of becoming the president of the United Republic of Tanzania, what would stop him, should he be forced into a corner, to go public on the said incident?

The manner with which he had narrated the 2003 incident was such it was intended to warn the party chairman of how far he was capable of taking him to task should the party publicity secretary, Nape Nnauye and the deputy secretary general, John Chiligati continue with their ‘mud-smearing’ campaigns against him.

 In a nutshell, Lowasa’s entire argument before the NEC meeting boiled down to one thing-through his resignation from premiership, he had already served his punishment.

Then the former Prime Minister, Frederick Sumaye took the floor, seeking his party’s intervention in case it transpired that allegations made by Mr Nnauye and Mr Chiligati against the so called corrupt elements within the party were false.

Mr Sumaye however, said that in case such allegations were proved, then punitive actions should be taken by the party immediately against the culprits.

What is however, unfortunate is that four days after the end of the NEC meeting, it transpired that what some of the mainstream newspapers had reported in relation to what Sumaye had said was twisted by a team of corrupted journalists!

Sumaye’s earlier version carried by a section of selected newspapers gave readers the impression that he had supported Lowasa!

The involvement of Tanzanian journalists in dirty politics is not new and was first ushered in the run-up for the 2005 general elections when a group of journalists at the Mwananchi Communications Limited used photo-shop program to play around with pictures of retired Tanzanian diplomat.

The objective behind their game was to ensure that he fails in his attempt to seek the highest office on the land, and the best way of getting the diplomat out of the race was linking him up with the assassination of the founder of the Zanzibar nation, Sheikh Abeid Amani Karume!

But instead of dealing with such journalists appropriately, some of them were later rewarded for their shameless conduct, but that is another story requiring another day.

Meanwhile the way the ruling party had carried out its public campaign against mafisadi, few would have expected the issue to have ended the way it did, namely in an anti-climax.

Indeed, many people who read stories related to the NEC meeting in most of the mainstream papers after the party deliberations did not expect President Kikwete to say what he is quoted by the print media to have said, that ‘let us leave out the magamba business and instead work on strengthening the party’!

But while the first group considered Lowasa a victory, the second does not.

In fact, to the contrary, they consider the last NEC meeting as having marked the beginning of the end for the former prime minister, especially after it was decided to take his case and that of others back to the party’s disciplinary committee.

To appreciate their arguments, it is important to take stock of issues raised by Lowasa, especially on the Richmond power generation scandal.

Although some people may consider Lowasa a victor, as far as the Richmond question is concerned, they argue that the president’s knowledge on the issue does not necessarily mean that he was involved.

As a team player, they say the president turned down Lowasa’s one-man-show in preference for a suggestion-cum-advice presented to him by his team of permanent secretary.

What is more, as a president, what was required of him was to have the big picture on Richmond as opposed to its details which was Lowasa’s docket with his team of technocrats.

Indeed, if one had expected the president to know the nitty-gritty of Richmond, then what would have been the point of having a prime minister (the head of government business) in the first place?

Some people have faulted the president’s no response stance during Lowasa’s defence.

However, the second group (in defence of the president) say as party chairman and chair of the NEC meeting, it would have been demeaning for him to engage in a ping-pong game with Lowasa!

Unlike the NEC meeting, at the party’s disciplinary body, evidence would have to be produced in order to get down to the role of each side in the dispute.

For instance, Lowasa’s resignation has to date been said both by the parliamentary probe committee and himself (during the NEC meeting) that he stepped down in order to take political responsibility.

The implication of the foregoing statement is that the technocrats rather than Lowasa were directly involved in the scandal.

However, at the disciplinary committee hearing things would be different!

Each side’s role in the Richmond scandal would have to be laid bare before disciplinary action are taken!

For instance, the technocrats would be required, if they want to save their skins, to produce evidence, in the form of memos, phone messages, letters and what have you, that directly link their action (in case they exist) with the former prime minister.

Reading the parliamentary probe committee’s report between the lines, it appears that much as those behind it were committed at exposing the rote in the Richmond scandal, they may have also wanted to protect Lowasa.

For instance, the government’s decision to leave the technocrats most of whom had already reached retiring age, scot free speaks volume their possible non-involvement in the Richmond scandal!

Indeed, if you want to protect someone from further punishment, surely you will not punish people who have nothing to do with the scandal.

Therefore had Lowasa remained silent, after his resignation, in the same way the second phase President, Ali Hassan Mwinyi, had done in 1976 (when he along with Augustine Mrema, Peter Siyovelwa and others had resigned after the Mwanza prison incident), the situation would not have reached where it has.

In conclusion, Lowasa’s decision to remind the public, during the NEC meeting that his present fate was not different from Kikwete’s 2003 Paul Sozigwa incident, could, at the end of the day, turn out to be his major undoing.

By saying what he said on the 2003 incident, the former prime minister forgot that he was not dealing with his friend, but rather the President of United Republic of Tanzania.

By Attilio Tagalile 

China shows developing countries how to do it

A team of 24 academicians, former ambassadors and senior journalists from 15 African countries that included Tanzania were recently invited by one of the leading Chinese universities, Zhejiang Normal University for a three week tour of the second economy in the world.

The visit from October 26^th to November 16^th this year was spiced by 20 lectures over China’s socio-economic development delivered by top-flight Chinese academicians from different universities in the country.

The beauty of the China’s tour was that the lectures were organized and delivered in such a way that whatever tour members of the African group went through tallied with what they had learnt in their respective lectures.

Listening to their lectures and judging, from their body language, it was quite clearly the Chinese professors were genuinely out to share their problems and successes with the express purpose of helping us in helping our own countries back having learnt what we had seen in their country.

What was very interesting about this tour was the linkage the university (which specializes in training graduate teachers for schools and colleges) was playing between our group and their Chinese government in order to enhance their country’s socio-economic development.

This is an area that Tanzanian educational institutions, and universities in particular, ought to be playing to the Tanzanian government-serve not only as a bridge between the government and the outside world, but also as a laboratory of ideas for the country’s socio-economic development.

For slightly over three weeks members of the African group which fell under the framework of what came to be known as the African-Chinese Think Tank visited the poorest and the most developed parts of the country.

And one of the main objectives of the hosts was to show members of the African group how they had reached where they were in less than fifty years!

Secondly, they wanted to show the African group that much as China was presently the second economy in the world after the United States of America, it was still a developing country.

Yet for some of us who had already been to some of the most developed nations in the world, what we witnessed on the ground in terms of the country’s socio-economic development was nothing but breathtaking!

According to Chinese professors who lectured us, if all goes as planned, China should be able to catch up with developed countries like US by the year 2020.

However, looking at what they have already achieved and what they were presently involved in, it would not take that long for them to catch up with developed nations!

For unlike developing countries like Tanzania, the Chinese work extremely hard and day and night.

 Going through the countryside, the entire country can be compared to a construction site!

You hardly drive for five kilometers without coming across a forest of cranes, busy at work either helping to lift up a cast of gigantic piece of a flyover or working on a skyscraper.

In cities like Hangzho with eight million people, one hardly comes across groups of young men whiling away their time in groups in the way one sees say in Dar es Salaam!

Youths are very busy, either in schools and colleges or at work in farms and factories.

Because of their heavy involvement in industrial production, it is no wonder that their country has been Christened the world’s factory.

Most of the cities we stayed in during the tour, we hardly spent seven minutes in traffic despite the fact that their populations were over eight million with cars in hundreds of thousands!

For the doubting Thomas out there, consider the following:

China is the third vehicle manufacturer in the world and the second vehicle buyer in the world!

What is more, most of the world’s top range vehicles that include, among others, Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Audi, Porche, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Hyndai etc, are assembled in China and the bulk of it is bought and used locally.

But how has China managed to be the third top vehicle manufacturer and assembler in the world?

It is very simple; the secret lies in its educational program.

For unlike Tanzania which has lately focused in construction of universities, with degrees taking centre stage, china has for the last fifty years concentrated in the training of technicians.

Presently China has technicians literally in each and every field from electrical to mechanical and from laboratory to masonry.

And the result of such well-thought educational policy has been the production of top-flight technicians that has made it possible for China to be the home of most of the world’s top range vehicles and machineries.

It is for this reason that China describes itself as the home of high quality, but lowly paid technicians which make production and assembling of vehicles cheap.

China’s agricultural development policy which has made it possible for the country to feed its 1.4 billion population also contributes towards cutting down the cost of industrial products, hence turning it into the darling of leading industrial manufacturing companies in the West.

For although Chinese technicians’ salaries and other fringe benefits are low compared to the West, but cheap food and other necessities of life make their lives easy.

One thing that countries like Tanzania can learn from China is to take a hard look at their educational systems.

They need to put more emphasis in technical education through VETA (vocational educational and training authority), SIDO (Small Industrial Development Organization) outlets and technical colleges with the thrust being production of technicians.

Export of vehicles forms part of products that China exports making her the second leading exporter of products in the world after United States.

Previously, the spot was being held by the Federal Republic of Germany. 

Interestingly, despite having millions of vehicles in their cities, one hardly comes across traffic jams in the way Tanzanians experience in Dar es Salaam for the simple reason that Chinese cities are are not only well planned in terms of infrastructure, but they also have different forms of infrastructure for sorting out different problems!

For instance, given its large size (China is more than a country, a sub-continent) which is nine million square kilometers (one tenth of Tanzania’s 960,000 square kilometers), China has given priority on railroad, followed by roads and others.

Presently the country has 86,000 kilometers of railroad and 65,000 kilometers of road. However, more railroads and roads are presently under construction with the priority being given to the construction of railroad for bullet trains with over 400 kilometers speed per hour!

The Tanzanian government has in the last few months been talking about building flyover in Dar es Salaam as part of its effort to deal with increased traffic jams in which over one billion shilling is wasted everyday in terms of man-hours.

If the government is indeed committed in doing what it says it wants to, then the best thing to do would be to get the Chinese government’s assistance in the project and the traffic jam nightmare which is increasingly threatening to get out of control would be a thing of the past.

That has to be done as soon as possible for as they say, it is always important to strike the iron when it is still hot.

Interestingly, the Chinese are very moderate when they talk about their achievements.

They all insist that they have numerous socio-economic challenges which they have to work on in order to reach the economic stage reached by developed nations like the US and others the world over.

In fact, it is this moderation that one hardly comes across chest-beating which they actual deserve having knocked out of the second position a country that had for years occupied their nation, namely Japan.

Perhaps to get a sense of the foregoing, consider what Tanzanians would have told the world if their economic development would have surpassed that of countries like Germany and Britain which had occupied Tanganyika as colonizers and protectors respectively!

That is exactly what the Chinese have done, their country’s economic might has surpassed that of their former occupier.

One of China’s major cities members of the African group visited during the tour was Shanghai, a city that is lately challenging New York for space as the world’s leading cities.

According to former Tanzania’s Ambassador to China, Mr Charles Asilia Sanga, when he visited Shanghai in 1986, it was just one of China’s cities.

“There was literally nothing to write home about the city in terms of construction of its buildings,” he told the author.

Ambassador Sanga who has also served as a diplomat in New York said Shanghai had changed quite considerably.

The Tanzanian diplomat who was elected chairman of the African group during the tour said one of the main reasons behind China’s success in its socio-economic development lay in their style of solving whatever problem or advice they were given both by their own people and foreigners.

“If you tell a Chinese government official that his country has a problem in a given area, the message would not only be sent immediately to his or her boss, but would also be immediately worked on,” said the former personal assistant and speech writer to the founder of the Tanzanian nation, Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere.

As rightly noted by Mr Sanga, the Chinese were literally very demanding, during our tour, when it came to soliciting advice.

This is another area that Tanzanians can learn from the Chinese, seek out problems and immediately solve them instead of embarking on procrastination.

By Attilio Tagalile

Three-week China tour:Impressions and Lessons

INTRODUCTION:

The combination of three-week tour and a series of seminars on China’s economic reforms have constituted an eye-opener to me on the country’s leaps and bounds in its socio-economic development.

Lectures from top flight scholars from our hosts, Zhejiang Normal University and other universities across the country on the three-phase economic reforms (from 1949-78; 1978-86 and from 1986 to the present day) gave me an insight on what can be achieved by any country under the sun as long as it has well-worked out economic plans that are arrived at through collective decision-making process and are closely supervised, during implementation, by visionary and well focused leadership.

As Chinese professors took us through one lecture after another, focusing on one stage of their country’s development after another, I would time and again reflect on my own country’s (Tanzania) socio-economic development and was able to pin-point, with precision, where we went wrong!

Indeed, if there is anything I have learnt from my visit to China, it is the knowledge on what we should have done to bring about the right economic development for our country!

And perhaps more importantly, what we ought to do, and that would certainly depend on a very big if-that is, if my leaders back home were forced by some ‘powers’ to listen to me after my visit to China!

Before I came to China barely a few weeks ago, as my country was and continues to inch towards its 50 year independence annivesary to be marked on December 9^th 2011, it was an open secret to me that for years, we have economically not been doing well.

But the million dollar question was why and how could we have done better.

But now, the foregoing question has at last been answered after getting a series of insightful lectures laced up with sight-seeing that were organized in such a way that they complimented the lectures we had had.

The learning side apart, the impressions I had had over China before I left Tanzania were such that one could simply describe them as nothing more than confusion.

And the West and its powerful media in particular was, to a greater part, to blame for my lopsided picture on China!

For a start, I strongly believed that the Chinese did not believe in the existence of God!

Interestingly, it took me less than two days, after my arrival in China to discover that that Chinese believed in God, that what I had all along been fed was nothing but sheer propaganda!

 The truth stared me in the face during the first African-China Think Tank meeting when I found myself sitting side by side with a Chinese teenager who was not only a journalist, but also a Catholic! (I’m also a Catholic).

And as days went by, I discovered that as far as religions were concerned, China was not different from any country in the world!

This just goes to show why China would have to do a lot of work in order to get rid of bad image that is spread the world over by Western media institutions, of course, for economic reasons.

LESSONS LEARNT:

Before embarking on implementation of its economic reforms after its success against the Japanese who had for years occupied their country in 1949, the Chinese leadership under the Communist Party reviewed their country’s socio-economic problems and came up with answers to the problems.

Solution to their problems took the form of economic reforms that were implemented in phases and at the end of every phase, a review on problems that had been encountered was made with the express purpose of dealing with the problems.

The foregoing approach was not done in my country, much as Tanzania had attempted to come up with its own economic development (and like China, with Tanzania’s characteristics) through what came to be known as Vijiji vya Ujamaa, villagisation programme, under the policy of Socialism and Self-Reliance launched in 1967.

Whilst the CPC fixed problems after every phase, hence improving further the country’s economic development through reforms, my country did nothing until it reached a point where many believed that the Ujamaa policy had failed!

One of the main differences between China and Tanzania in their implementation of their respective economic policies was that while the former ensured that the entire leadership was involved in decision-making, the latter’s decion-making process was nothing but nominal, lacking collectiveness and hence ownership!

What is worse, while the CPC leadership made sure that every facet of its leadership was focused on reforms, in my country the absence of focus finally gave rise to a crack in the leadership with some of the leaders pursuisuing, secretly, different agendas that included, among others, corruption!

Therefore while the founding father, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere remained committed to the Ujamaa Policy, his lieutenants were not, hence reducing him to a lone ranger!

The cracks among the leadership finally widen into valleys when Mwalimu stepped down late in 1985.

It did not take long for the newly elected leadership to jettison all that had helped in reducing the growth of the gap between the haves and have not, namely the leadership code.

For under the leadership code which was promulgated by what came to be known as the Arusha Declaration, it was taboo for any Tanzanian leader to mix politics with business.

What was more, heads of parastatal institutions, private companies and government departments could equally not involve themselves in business.

However, the second phase leadership under President Ali Hassan Mwinyi jettisoned the leadership code in 1992, hence allowing Tanzanian leaders to mix politics and business and thereby giving birth to corruption!

It is important to note that once Tanzanian leaders were allowed to involve themselves in business, they used their political positions in enriching themselves through the use of their offices!

And by the time of writing this report, Tanzania is the third most corrupt nation in East Africa, after Kenya and Uganda, according to a survey conducted by the Transparency International (TI) on behalf of the recently established East African Bribery Index (EABI)!

In 2010, Tanzania held the fourth position in the East African Community, EAC, after Kenya, Uganda and Burundi.

Burundi is presently fourth while Rwanda remains in its fifth position under the EABI in the EAC.

And as if the jettisoning of the leadership code was not bad enough, later President Mwinyi introduced unrestricted liberalization coupled with uncontrolled privatisation that targeted the country’s over 400 parastatal organizations that had been established through tax payers’ money!

President Mwinyi’s decision to sell public institutions was a result of listening to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank economic restructuring policies!

It was thus not surprising that by the time Mwinyi left the stage in 1995, his regime had turned out into the most corrupt, collecting a mere 25bn/- (20m USD) per month!

And all these because unlike China, Tanzania lacked the presence of a strong ruling party that could have served as a beacon for the country’s leadership in the same way that the CPC has been doing.

The implementation of the IMF/WB economic restructuring policies could, in a way, be compared with the Soviet Union’s shock therapy carried out during Boris Yeltsin’s leadership!

While the Chinese leadership through their CPC had a well worked out leadership succession plan that ensured that whoever took up the mantle of leadership remained focused on the country’s economic (reforms) development from 1949 to present day; Tanzania can rightly be described as a country that has had two to three different leaderships, each with its own vision of economic development which differed from the other!

In short, much as the country is praised in Africa for having had peaceful leadership transition from the first phase under Mwalimu Nyerere to the present fourth phase of President Jakaya Kikwete, unfortunately each administration, with the exception of the first, has been playing its own economic tune to the detriment of the country’s socio-economic development!

And while the CPC has since the start of the implementation of its third phase in 1986 to 2006, supervised the transformation of China into a modern country, socially and economically, Tanzania has during the same period under review, been plunged from one economic disaster to another!

Lately, the country’s economic woes have been exacerbated by endless energy problems and lack of reliable railroad infrastructure!

What is very unfortunate about my country is that despite being the first in Africa to get the biggest Chinese assistance abroad, through the construction of the 1860km railroad from Dar es Salaam to Kapiri Mposhi in Zambia at the height of the liberation struggle in southern Africa, for inexplicable reasons, the Tanzanian leadership failed to make use of China’s assistance in linking Tazara to the rest of the railroads, especially after the breakup of the East African Community on February 6^th 1977!

The breakup of the EAC had in fact presented the Tanzanian leadership with the golden opportunity of uprooting the central meter railroad and replacing it with a standard railroad gauge similar to the Tazara one whose gauge is the same with that in Zambia, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Had the Tanzanian leadership sought another soft loan from the Chinese government for upgrading the central railroad, Tanzania would not have been facing present infrastractural problems as far as the central railway line is concerned.

Again what we witness here is nothing but lack of both vision and focus on the part of the Tanzanian leadership!

Meanwhile International Western media have gone to town, describing Tazara as nothing more than a white elephant!

Yet the truth is that Zambia reverted back to the use of the southern rail route through South Africa’s Durban port following the Tanzanian government’s failure to deal with corruption at the Dar es Salaam port!

Personally, I have always maintained that the only way for making Tazara economically viable is for the Tanzanian government to link it with other network of railroads in the country instead of depending on Zambia for running the railroad profitably.

For instance, presently the northern part of the country is facing food shortage (maize) which is however, in abundance in Rukwa Region, the southern part of Tanzania.

Had the Tanzanian leadership been more focused, they could have extended Tazara to Rukwa Region, a distance of slightly over 100km and made full use of Tazara in transporting maize from Rukwa to the northern part of the country!

That is why I totally agree with Professor Xiaofeng Zhang from the Institute of African Studies and many others who addressed us for his stress on railroad infrastructure for African countries.

Indeed, a country as large as Tanzania (with 960,000 square km, roughtly a tenth of China) cannot rely on roads for transporting the bulk of its goods across the country.

Politically, while the Chinese leadership through its CPC has grown from strength to strength, their Tanzanian counterpart through the ruling Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM) is presently on the verge of collapse through a variety of reasons that range from the fight for the next presidency scheduled in 2015 to the fight against festering corruption within the CCM leadership.

The fight against corruption would have been finished long ago had the present leadership been strong!

Unfortunately, it very weak!

Dangers inherent in weak party or government was clearly spelled out by another Chinese lecturer, Professor Luo Jianbo from the CPC party school during his insightful lecture.

He said stressed the importance of strong African political parties/governments, noting that such parties/governments would be capable of making decisions.

In nutshell, lessons that can be drawn from China is that the country has reached where it is today simply because it has all along had a strong and committed leadership.

The present Tanzanian leadership has failed to take action against corrupt leaders in its rank because it does not have the moral authority to deal with such leaders due to the fact that it is itself steeped in corruption!

Tanzania’s leadership lost its focus on the country’s economy, and by extension the very people it claimed to be all out to serve, as soon as it was invaded, among its leadership, by capitalist roaders who have been listening to what Washington and London tells them to do!

The series of lectures I have had the opportunity of listening to during my tour in China are a confirmation of what my former Ambassador to China, Mr Charles Sanga told me while waiting for the Dubai-Beijing flight at the Dubai International Airport on ) October 26^th this year.

He said the Chinese have succeeded in their economic reforms because once they decide on something, they stick to it until its logical logical conclusion!

That is the kind of resilience that African leaders, including my own leaders in Tanzania badly lack.

Mr Sanga’s assertions was further buttressed by a former World Bank Representative in Germany, Mr Oltmann G. Siemens, when he was being interviewed by the anchor man of a CCTV programme, Image of China on Friday, November 11^th this year.

Mr Siemens, German who had also participated in the restructuring of the East Germany economy immediately after the Germany unification on October 3^rd 1990, praised the Chinese leadership for carrying out whatever economic reforms they had decided on sustainably.

“If one wants to succeed in any change, such a change must be sustainable,” said Mr Siemens.

He said China succeeded in its economic reforms because it had the requisite leadership to push it through what they had agreed on.

DISAPPOINTMENT:

Have I had any disappointment during my tour in China? Yes, I have had two: one, failure to ride in those sleek bullet trains and two, leaving this country of very brave people without seeing the Great Wall of China!

I must admit, I’m a strong believer of development through railroads, and I had strongly believed that through this tour I would have had the opportunity of tasting the Chinese railway line, and in particular, the bullet train unfortunately, it was not to be!

I have travelled through Tazara six time, once to Kapiri Mposhi in 1986, during its ten year anniversary, and five times to Mbeya.

As already noted, I had also badly wanted to see the Great Wall of China, but that part was unfortunately not in our programme!

I hope one day I will get another opportunity to visit this country of very hard working people and be able not only to see the Great Wall of China but also to have a ride in those bullet trans.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, having been to China’s financial capital, Shanghai for two days and savoured its skyscrappers, I’m not surprised to learn that this country has pushed aside its former oppressor, Japan, as the second economy in the world after the United States of America.

And to learn that China has also overtaken Deutschland, the country I had worked for two years at its Deusche Welle, Swahili service, between 1991 and 1993 as the second exporter of goods in the world is nothing but breathtaking!

By Attilio Tagalile