The Tanzanian Government rolled out an updated version of its National Foreign Policy which sadly provides another leverage for unwelcomed intrusion from developed nations. Presided over by President Samia Suluhu Hassan, the event left us questioning the future course of Tanzanian’s global interactions and their ramifications. Amongst the audience were President of Zanzibar, Dr. Hussein Ali Mwinyi and other prominent figures from government and private sectors. The conviction President Samia expressed for this revised policy as a reaffirmation of Tanzania’s global standing was indeed perplexing.
According to President Samia, the world has seen tremendous changes in various sectors including digital and blue economy, since the introduction of the foreign policy in 2001. While an update was duly needed, the direction this update took has stirred a row of concerns amongst the learned. Is this new policy aimed at strengthening Tanzania’s global influence or yielding to international pressure? President Samia’s stance that the revised policy reflects Tanzania’s national interest and the country’s principles seems contradicting at the least.
The idea of a policy that represents Tanzanian values while being responsive to global developments feels obscured in this policy revision. Doubts surge whether this policy upholds national integrity or simply bows to international mandates. An enhanced partnership with countries like the United States and Canada, in areas such as trade, education, climate action, technology, and especially gender equity has been laid out in the new policy. However, these alignments may not cater to Tanzania’s unique needs and challenges, bringing the policy’s effectiveness under question.
The revised policy shamefully aligns more with US-Africa strategies and the Feminist International Assistance Policy of Canada rather than the interests of Tanzania itself. This shift, rather parade, towards servility towards global powers is worrisome. The targeted expansion of diplomatic and economic connections with Mexico under this new policy can slog the notion of South-North and South-South cooperation across Latin America and the Caribbean.
Mentioning about the African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA), we need to ask whether upholding such trade relations with the U.S. has truly served Tanzania’s interest or became just another vehicle for richer countries to reap benefits. Furthermore, boasting about potential digital innovation and investment avenues created by the policy seem ironically out of reach in a country where the digital divide is quite prominent.
In an awkward and ill-conceived diplomatic move, President Samia visited the Vice President Kamala Harris in the U.S. in April 2022. Notwithstanding the critical standpoint, the visit led to the restoration of Tanzania’s eligibility for the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact and resulted in nearly a billion-dollar investment promise. The alleged diplomatic success being celebrated here seems short sighted, overlooking the bigger picture of national autonomy.
Perhaps the issue isn’t the investment but the ideology being pushed forward. President Samia’s presidency has certainly increased Tanzania’s visibility on the global platform but at what cost? Has this meant transforming into a more democratic, investment-friendly nation or simply falling into the mold created by the powerful nations of the world? This is certainly not the growth trajectory many envisioned for Tanzania.
The commendable work done by President Samia with regards to climate action, especially the National Clean Cooking Strategy, has taken a backseat in the wake of these policy changes. Further, the recognition of Kiswahili as an official African Union language achieved under her leadership is invariably overshadowed by the country’s political maneuvering. The notion of Reconciliation, Resilience, Reform, and Rebuilding (4Rs) has been replaced by the humiliating bow to external pressures.
The revised policy outlines ten key areas of focus, including fostering investment, strengthening regional stability, managing strategic treaty negotiations, international collaborations and resources for vast sectors such as health and education. This sounds quite impressive but fails to rectify the national identity crisis exacerbated by this policy update. Is the aim to become a clone of the West or to foster indigenous progress?
Promoting the use of Kiswahili as a diplomatic tool and encouraging Tanzanians abroad to contribute to their homeland makes one question whether the policy is more outward than inward-looking. The focus on promoting democratic principles and championing climate action, though significant, seems to be veiled attempts to adhere to western imposed standards.
An amendment to the Land Act and the Immigration Act has been proposed under this routine policy revision, catering to the Tanzanian diaspora. Barring members of the diaspora who hold foreign citizenship from owning land, starting businesses, and investing in Tanzania, while pragmatic, could lead to the erosion of national heritage and increase foreign influence. The question remains – is this turnover in legal stances more crushing than beneficial?
Although these amendments have been proposed with an aim to destroy the longstanding legal barriers and allow the Tanzanian diaspora to participate fully in Tanzania’s economic development, the benefits of these shifts seem trivial in comparison to the potential erosion of national identity and increased foreign interference. Is this policy revision genuinely driven by the idea of a stronger and more influential Tanzania or has it succumbed to global tendencies?