Jumapili, 26 Juni 2016
Rais John Magufuli afanya mabadiliko ya Wakuu wa Mikoa na kuwateua Wakuu wa Wilaya 139
Rais wa Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania Dkt. John Pombe Magufuli leo tarehe 26 Juni, 2016 amefanya mabadiliko madogo katika safu ya wakuu wa mikoa na amewateua wakuu wa wilaya 139.
Katibu Mkuu Kiongozi Balozi John Kijazi amesema katika mabadiliko hayo Rais Magufuli amemteua aliyekuwa Mkuu wa Wilaya ya Sengerema Bi. Zainab R. Telack kuwa Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Shinyanga.
Bi. Zainab R. Telack anajaza nafasi iliyoachwa wazi na aliyekuwa Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Shinyanga Bi. Anna Kilango Malecela ambaye uteuzi wake ulitenguliwa.
Rais Magufuli pia amemteua Dkt. Binilith Satano Mahenge kuwa Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Ruvuma.
Dkt. Binilith Satano Mahenge anajaza nafasi iliyoachwa wazi na aliyekuwa Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Ruvuma Bw. Said Thabit Mwambungu ambaye amehamishiwa Ofisi ya Waziri Mkuu Dar es salaam ambako atapangiwa majukumu mengine.
Aidha, Rais Magufuli amemteua Dkt. Charles F. Mlingwa kuwa Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Mara.
Dkt. Charles F. Mlingwa anajaza nafasi iliyoachwa wazi na Bw. Stanslaus Magesa Mulongo ambaye uteuzi wake umetenguliwa.
Wakuu wapya wa mikoa walioteuliwa wataapishwa tarehe 29 Juni, 2016 saa tatu kamili asubuhi Ikulu Jijini Dar es salaam na mara baada ya kuapishwa watakula kiapo cha maadili ya uongozi.
Wakati huo huo, Rais wa Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania Dkt. John Pombe Magufuli leo tarehe 26 Juni, 2016 amefanya uteuzi wa Wakuu wa Wilaya 139.
Katibu Mkuu Kiongozi Balozi John Kijazi amesema katika uteuzi huo Rais Magufuli amezingatia mambo kadhaa ikiwa ni pamoja na umri ambapo kwa wale ambao umri wao ni zaidi ya miaka 60 ameamua wastaafu.
Mhe. Rais amewashukuru sana kwa utumishi wao mzuri na amesema pale ambapo itahitajika, serikali itaendelea kuwatumia katika majukumu mengine.
Katika uteuzi huo, Wakuu wa Wilaya waliopo sasa ambao wamebaki katika nafasi zao ni 39. Pia Rais Magufuli amewateua Wakurugenzi Watendaji wa halmashauri 22 kuwa Wakuu wa Wilaya kutokana na utendaji wao mzuri.
Aidha, nafasi 78 za uteuzi wa Wakuu wa wilaya zimejazwa na watanzania wengine ambao wameteuliwa kwa mara ya kwanza wengi wao wakiwa ni vijana, wenye elimu ya kutosha na uzoefu katika maeneo mbalimbali.
Walioteuliwa kuwa wakuu wa wilaya ni kama ifuatavyo (Orodha imepangwa kulingana na mikoa)
ARUSHA
Arusha - Mrisho Mashaka Gambo
Arumeru - Alexander Pastory Mnyeti
Ngorongoro - Rashid Mfaume Taka
Longido - Daniel Geofrey Chongolo
Monduli - Idd Hassan Kimanta
Karatu - Therezia Jonathan Mahongo
DAR ES SALAAM
Kinondoni - Ally Hapi
Ilala - Sophia Mjema
Temeke - Felix Jackson Lyaviva
Kigamboni - Hashim Shaibu Mgandilwa
Ubungo - Hamphrey Polepole
DODOMA
Chamwino - Vumilia Justine Nyamoga
Dodoma - Christina Solomon Mndeme
Chemba - Simon Ezekiel Odunga
Kondoa - Sezeria Veneranda Makutta
Bahi - Elizabeth Simon
Mpwapwa - Jabir Mussa Shekimweli
Kongwa - John Ernest Palingo
GEITA
Bukombe - Josephat Maganga
Mbogwe - Matha John Mkupasi
Nyang'wale - Hamim Buzohera Gwiyama
Geita - Herman C. Kipufi
Chato - Shaaban Athuman Ntarambe
IRINGA
Mufindi - Jamhuri David William
Kilolo - Asia Juma Abdallah
Iringa - Richard Kasesela
KAGERA
Biharamulo - Saada Abraham Mallunde
Karagwe - Geofrey Muheluka Ayoub
Muleba - Richard Henry Ruyango
Kyerwa - Col. Shaban Ilangu Lissu
Bukoba - Deodatus Lucas Kinawilo
Ngara - Lt. Col. Michael M. Mtenjele
Missenyi - Lt. Col Denis F. Mwila
KATAVI
Mlele - Rachiel Stephano Kasanda
Mpanda - Lilian Charles Matinga
Tanganyika - Saleh Mbwana Mhando
KIGOMA
Kigoma - Samsoni Renard Anga
Kasulu - Col. Martin Elia Mkisi
Kakonko - Col. Hosea Malonda Ndagala
Uvinza - Mwanamvua Hoza Mlindoko
Buhigwe - Col. Elisha Marco Gagisti
Kibondo - Luis Peter Bura
KILIMANJARO
Siha - Onesmo Buswelu
Moshi - Kippi Warioba
Mwanga - Aaron Yeseya Mmbago
Rombo - Fatma Hassan Toufiq
Hai - Gelasius Byakanwa
Same - Rosemary Senyamule Sitaki
LINDI
Nachingwea - Rukia Akhibu Muwango
Ruangwa - Joseph Joseph Mkirikiti
Liwale - Sarah Vicent Chiwamba
Lindi - Shaibu Issa Ndemanga
Kilwa - Christopher Emil Ngubiagai
MANYARA
Babati - Raymond H. Mushi
Mbulu - Chelestion Simba M. Mofungu
Hanang' - Sara Msafiri Ally
Kiteto - Tumaini Benson Magessa
Simanjiro - Zephania Adriano Chaula
MARA
Rorya - Simon K. Chacha
Serengeti - Emile Yotham Ntakamulenga
Bunda - Lydia Simeon Bupilipili
Butiama - Anarose Nyamubi
Tarime - Glodious Benard Luoga
Musoma - Dkt. Vicent Anney Naano
MBEYA
Chunya - Rehema Manase Madusa
Kyela - Claudia Undalusyege Kitta
Mbeya - William Ntinika Paul
Rungwe - Chalya Julius Nyangidu
Mbarali - Reuben Ndiza Mfune
MOROGORO
Gairo - Siriel Shaid Mchembe
Kilombero - James Mugendi Ihunyo
Mvomero - Mohamed Mussa Utali
Morogoro - Regina Reginald Chonjo
Ulanga - Kassema Jacob Joseph
Kilosa - Adam Idd Mgoyi
Malinyi - Majula Mateko Kasika
MTWARA
Newala - Aziza Ally Mangosongo
Nanyumbu - Joakim Wangabo
Mtwara - Dkt. Khatibu Malimi Kazungu
Masasi - Seleman Mzee Seleman
Tandahimba - Sebastian M. Walyuba
MWANZA
Ilemela - Dkt. Leonald Moses Massale
Kwimba - Mhandisi Mtemi Msafiri Simeon
Sengerema - Emmanuel Enock Kipole
Nyamagana - Mary Tesha Onesmo
Magu - Hadija Rashid NyemboUkerewe - Estomihn Fransis Chang'ah
Misungwi - Juma Sweda
NJOMBE
Njombe - Ruth Blasio Msafiri
Ludewa - Andrea Axwesso Tsere
Wanging'ombe - Ally Mohamed Kassige
Makete - Veronica Kessy
PWANI
Bagamoyo - Alhaji Majid Hemed Mwanga
Mkuranga - Filberto H. Sanga
Rufiji - Juma Abdallah Njwayo
Mafia - Shaibu Ahamed Nunduma
Kibaha - Asumpter Nsunju Mshama
Kisarawe - Happyness Seneda William
Kibiti - Gulamu Hussein Shaban Kifu
RUKWA
Sumbawanga - Dkt. Khalfan Boniface Haule
Nkasi - Said Mohamed Mtanda
Kalambo - Julieth Nkembanyi Binyura
RUVUMA
Namtumbo - Luckness Adrian Amlima
Mbinga - Cosmas Nyano Nshenye
Nyasa - Isabera Octava Chilumba
Tunduru - Juma Homela
Songea - Polet Kamando Mgema
SHINYANGA
Kishapu - Nyambonga Daudi Taraba
Kahama - Fadhili Nkulu
Shinyanga - Josephine Rabby Matiro
SIMIYU
Busega - Tano Seif Mwera
Maswa - Sefu Abdallah Shekalaghe
Bariadi - Festo Sheimu Kiswaga
Meatu - Joseph Elieza Chilongani
Itilima - Benson Salehe Kilangi
SINGIDA
Mkalama - Jackson Jonas Masako
Manyoni - Mwembe Idephonce Geofrey
Singida - Elias Choro John Tarimo
Ikungi - Fikiri Avias Said
Iramba - Emmanuel Jumanne Luhahula
SONGWE
Songwe - Samwel JeremiahIleje - Joseph Modest Mkude
Mbozi - Ally Masoud Maswanya
Momba - Juma Said Irando
TABORA
Nzega - Geofrey William Ngudula
Kaliua - Busalama Abel Yeji
Igunga - Mwaipopo John Gabriel
Sikonge - Peres Boniphace Magiri
Tabora - Queen Mwashinga Mlozi
Urambo - Angelina John Kwingwa
Uyui - Gabriel Simon Mnyele
TANGA
Tanga - Thobias Mwilapwa
Muheza - Mhandisi Mwanaisha Rajab Tumbo
Mkinga - Yona Lucas Maki
Pangani - Zainab Abdallah Issa
Handeni - Godwin Crydon Gondwe
Korogwe - Robert Gabriel
Kilindi - Sauda Salum Mtondoo
Lushoto - Januari Sigareti Lugangika
Wakuu wote wa Wilaya walioteuliwa wanapaswa kufika Ikulu Dar es salaam siku ya Jumatano tarehe 29 Juni, 2016 saa tatu kamili asubuhi kwa ajili ya kiapo cha maadili ya uongozi na maelekezo mengine kabla ya kuapishwa na wakuu wa mikoa watakaporejea katika mikoa yao.
Gerson Msigwa
Kaimu Mkurugenzi wa Mawasiliano, IKULU
Dar es salaam
26 Juni, 2016
Jumapili, 5 Juni 2016
Bondia MUHAMMAD ALI na Diplomasia ya TANZANIA
Tanzania imekuwa ikifuata sera ya kutofungamana na upande wowote tangu miaka ya 1960 mpaka sasa. Hali hiyo imeifanya Tanzania kuwa na uhusiano na pande zote mbili wakati wa Vita Baridi (Cold War).
Vita Baridi ni mvutano wa kisiasa na kijeshi baina ya Kambi ya Magharibi (Western Bloc) iliyoongozwa na Marekani na Kambi ya Mashariki (Eastern Bloc) iliyoongozwa na Urusi (USSR). Marekani na wenzake walifuata uchumi wa kibepari (capitalist economy) wakati Urusi na washirika wake wakifuata uchumi wa kijamaa (socialist economy). Mvutano huo ulianza mara baada ya kumalizika kwa Vita vya Pili vya Dunia (WW II) hadi mwanzoni mwa miaka ya 1990.
Mwaka 1979 Urusi (USSR) iliivamia Afghanistan. Marekani ilipinga vikali kitendo hicho. Wakati huohuo Urusi ilikuwa inafanya maandalizi ya Michezo ya Olimpiki ambayo ilipangwa kufanyika jijini Moscow mwaka unaofuata 1980.
Ili kupata uungwaji mkono kukwamisha michezo hiyo ya olimpiki jijini Moscow mwaka 1980, Marekani ilianza kampeni zake kushawishi baadhi ya nchi zisishiriki mashindano hayo. Katika kujaribu kufanikisha hilo, rais wa Marekani wa wakati huo Jimmy Carter alimtuma bondia MUHAMMAD ALI kutembelea baadhi ya nchi ili aweze kuzishawishi zisusie mashindano hayo maarufu duniani.
Mnamo tarehe 2 Februari 1980 MUHAMMAD ALI aliwasili Uwanja wa Ndege wa Kimataifa Dar es Salaam (DIA) nchini Tanzania na kulakiwa na Chediel Mgonja, Waziri wa Utamaduni, Vijana na Michezo. MUHAMMAD ALI alipaswa kulakiwa angalau na Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje kwa kuwa ujio wake nchini Tanzania ulikuwa wa kidiplomasia na siyo michezo.
Lengo kuu la bondia huyo lilikuwa kuwasilisha ujumbe wa Rais wa Marekani Jimmy Carter kwa Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, Rais wa Tanzania wakati huo. ALI alitaka amshawishi Mwalimu Julius Nyerere ili Tanzania isishiriki Michezo ya Olimpiki iliyopangwa kufanyika jijini Moscow, Urusi mwaka huo. Pamoja na jitihada nyingi zilizofanywa na maafisa wa Ubalozi wa Marekani nchini Tanzania kumshawishi Mwalimu Julius Nyerere kuonana na mwanamasumbwi MUHAMMAD ALI, Mwalimu Nyerere alikataa kabisa ombi hilo.
Baada ya 'bondia mwanadiplomasia' MUHAMMAD ALI kushindwa kuonana na Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, aliamua kuondoka nchini Tanzania na kuelekea nchini Kenya ambapo alilakiwa na Rais Daniel Arap Moi. Kenya ilikubali ushawishi wa Marekani na kususia Michezo ya Olimpiki ya mwaka huo. Tanzania ilikataa ushawishi wa Marekani na kushiriki Michezo ya Olimpiki jijini Moscow, Urusi mwaka huo ambapo ilijinyakulia medali mbili za fedha kupitia wanariadha mashuhuri Suleiman Nyambui na Filbert Bayi.
Diplomasia huhitaji ushawishi. Marekani ilimtumia bondia MUHAMMAD ALI kutokana na umaarufu wake kipindi hicho na pengine kwa kuwa ni Mmarekani mweusi ili nchi za Afrika zishawishike kirahisi. Pia itakumbukwa mwaka 1974 Rais wa Zaire (sasa DRC) Mobutu Seseseko aliandaa mpambano mkali baina ya mabondia wa Marekani MUHAMMAD ALI na George Foreman. Mpambano huo maarufu uliotajwa kuwa "mpambano mkubwa wa karne ya 20" uliofanyika Kinshasa, Zaire na kupewa jina la 'THE RUMBLE IN THE JUNGLE.' ALI alishinda katika mpambano huo kumwongezea umaarufu mkubwa barani Afrika na duniani kote.
Tanzania haikuwa na maslahi yoyote katika uvamizi wa Urusi nchini Afghanistan. Pia Tanzania haikuona sababu yoyote kwanini ikubali ushawishi wa Marekani kususia Michezo ya Olimpiki ya mwaka 1980. Haya yote yametokana na sera kigeni ya Tanzania ya kutofungamana na upande wowote. Tanzania imekuwa ikifuata sera hiyo tangu miaka ya 1960. Sera hiyo imeifanya Tanzania kuwa na uhusiano na pande zote mbili wakati wa Vita Baridi na hata sasa kama ilivyobainishwa na Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje wa Tanzania Mhe. Balozi Augustine Mahiga alipowasilisha hotuba ya bajeti ya Wizara yake kwa mwaka 2016/2017.
.....................................
Mwandishi wa makala hii ni mwanahistoria na mchambuzi wa masuala ya siasa. Anapatikana kwa barua pepe: tanzaniahistory@yahoo.com
Tupe maoni yako.
Vita Baridi ni mvutano wa kisiasa na kijeshi baina ya Kambi ya Magharibi (Western Bloc) iliyoongozwa na Marekani na Kambi ya Mashariki (Eastern Bloc) iliyoongozwa na Urusi (USSR). Marekani na wenzake walifuata uchumi wa kibepari (capitalist economy) wakati Urusi na washirika wake wakifuata uchumi wa kijamaa (socialist economy). Mvutano huo ulianza mara baada ya kumalizika kwa Vita vya Pili vya Dunia (WW II) hadi mwanzoni mwa miaka ya 1990.
Mwaka 1979 Urusi (USSR) iliivamia Afghanistan. Marekani ilipinga vikali kitendo hicho. Wakati huohuo Urusi ilikuwa inafanya maandalizi ya Michezo ya Olimpiki ambayo ilipangwa kufanyika jijini Moscow mwaka unaofuata 1980.
Ili kupata uungwaji mkono kukwamisha michezo hiyo ya olimpiki jijini Moscow mwaka 1980, Marekani ilianza kampeni zake kushawishi baadhi ya nchi zisishiriki mashindano hayo. Katika kujaribu kufanikisha hilo, rais wa Marekani wa wakati huo Jimmy Carter alimtuma bondia MUHAMMAD ALI kutembelea baadhi ya nchi ili aweze kuzishawishi zisusie mashindano hayo maarufu duniani.
Mnamo tarehe 2 Februari 1980 MUHAMMAD ALI aliwasili Uwanja wa Ndege wa Kimataifa Dar es Salaam (DIA) nchini Tanzania na kulakiwa na Chediel Mgonja, Waziri wa Utamaduni, Vijana na Michezo. MUHAMMAD ALI alipaswa kulakiwa angalau na Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje kwa kuwa ujio wake nchini Tanzania ulikuwa wa kidiplomasia na siyo michezo.
Lengo kuu la bondia huyo lilikuwa kuwasilisha ujumbe wa Rais wa Marekani Jimmy Carter kwa Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, Rais wa Tanzania wakati huo. ALI alitaka amshawishi Mwalimu Julius Nyerere ili Tanzania isishiriki Michezo ya Olimpiki iliyopangwa kufanyika jijini Moscow, Urusi mwaka huo. Pamoja na jitihada nyingi zilizofanywa na maafisa wa Ubalozi wa Marekani nchini Tanzania kumshawishi Mwalimu Julius Nyerere kuonana na mwanamasumbwi MUHAMMAD ALI, Mwalimu Nyerere alikataa kabisa ombi hilo.
Baada ya 'bondia mwanadiplomasia' MUHAMMAD ALI kushindwa kuonana na Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, aliamua kuondoka nchini Tanzania na kuelekea nchini Kenya ambapo alilakiwa na Rais Daniel Arap Moi. Kenya ilikubali ushawishi wa Marekani na kususia Michezo ya Olimpiki ya mwaka huo. Tanzania ilikataa ushawishi wa Marekani na kushiriki Michezo ya Olimpiki jijini Moscow, Urusi mwaka huo ambapo ilijinyakulia medali mbili za fedha kupitia wanariadha mashuhuri Suleiman Nyambui na Filbert Bayi.
Diplomasia huhitaji ushawishi. Marekani ilimtumia bondia MUHAMMAD ALI kutokana na umaarufu wake kipindi hicho na pengine kwa kuwa ni Mmarekani mweusi ili nchi za Afrika zishawishike kirahisi. Pia itakumbukwa mwaka 1974 Rais wa Zaire (sasa DRC) Mobutu Seseseko aliandaa mpambano mkali baina ya mabondia wa Marekani MUHAMMAD ALI na George Foreman. Mpambano huo maarufu uliotajwa kuwa "mpambano mkubwa wa karne ya 20" uliofanyika Kinshasa, Zaire na kupewa jina la 'THE RUMBLE IN THE JUNGLE.' ALI alishinda katika mpambano huo kumwongezea umaarufu mkubwa barani Afrika na duniani kote.
Tanzania haikuwa na maslahi yoyote katika uvamizi wa Urusi nchini Afghanistan. Pia Tanzania haikuona sababu yoyote kwanini ikubali ushawishi wa Marekani kususia Michezo ya Olimpiki ya mwaka 1980. Haya yote yametokana na sera kigeni ya Tanzania ya kutofungamana na upande wowote. Tanzania imekuwa ikifuata sera hiyo tangu miaka ya 1960. Sera hiyo imeifanya Tanzania kuwa na uhusiano na pande zote mbili wakati wa Vita Baridi na hata sasa kama ilivyobainishwa na Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje wa Tanzania Mhe. Balozi Augustine Mahiga alipowasilisha hotuba ya bajeti ya Wizara yake kwa mwaka 2016/2017.
.....................................
Mwandishi wa makala hii ni mwanahistoria na mchambuzi wa masuala ya siasa. Anapatikana kwa barua pepe: tanzaniahistory@yahoo.com
Tupe maoni yako.
Jumatano, 18 Mei 2016
JE, WAJUA? Mlima Kilimanjaro ulikuwa mlima mrefu kuliko yote katika Dola ya Ujerumani (German Empire).
Mlima Kilimanjaro ulikuwa mlima mrefu kuliko yote katika Dola ya Ujerumani (German Empire) hadi mwaka 1918. Dola ya Ujerumani ilijumuisha Ujerumani yenyewe na makoloni yake yote. Baada ya makoloni yake kujinyakulia uhuru, mlima mrefu zaidi uliobaki Ujerumani ya leo ni Mlima Zugspitze wenye urefu wa mita 2,962. Mlima Kilimanjaro, mlima mrefu kuliko yote Afrika una urefu wa mita 5,888 kwa mujibu wa vipimo vilivyofanyika mwaka 2014. Tarehe 5 Oktoba 1889 Mtanzania YOHANA LAUWO akiongozana na Mjerumani HANS MEYER na Muaustria LUDWIG PURTSCHELLER wanakuwa watu wa kwanza kufika kilele cha Kilimanjaro.
Jumatano, 11 Mei 2016
Je, Wajua? Zanzibar iliwahi kuingia katika Kitabu cha Kumbukumbu za Guinness Duniani.
Mnamo tarehe 17 Januari 1961 Uchaguzi wa Baraza la Kutunga Sheria ulifanyika Zanzibar. Afro-Shirazi Party (ASP) ilishinda viti 10, Zanzibar Nationalist Party (ZNP) viti 9 na Zanzibar and Pemba People's Party (ZPPP) viti 3. Zaidi ni kuwa katika jimbo la Chake-Chake ASP ilipata kura 1,538 na ZNP kura 1,537. Hii ni tofauti ya kura moja tu. Katika taarifa ya mwaka ya Kitabu cha Kumbukumbu za Guinness Duniani (Guinness Book of World Records), matokeo haya yalitajwa kama "matokeo yaliyokaribiana sana."
Jumatatu, 11 Aprili 2016
President Kikwete sends a Condolence Message to the President of Algeria
April 14, 2012
President Kikwete sends a Condolence Message to the President of Algeria
H.E. Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete, the President of the United Republic of Tanzania sends a condolence message to H.E. Abdelaziz Bouteflika, the President of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria following the death of H.E Ahmed Ben Bella, First President of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria. The message reads as follows:
“H. E. Abdelaziz Bouteflika
President of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria
ALGIERS
Your Excellency and Dear Brother,
I am deeply saddened by the sad news of the untimely death of the founding Father of your great Nation that took place on 11 th April, 2012.
On behalf of the Government and People of the United Republic of Tanzania, and indeed on my own behalf, I wish to convey our deepest sympathies and condolences to Your Excellency and, through you, to the bereaved family and relatives as well as the Government and the entire brotherly People of Algeria for this untimely death.
Tanzania will always remember the late Ahmed Ben Bella for the important role he played in cementing the relations between our two countries that so happily exists to-date.
He will also be remembered as a truly son of Africa who stood for unity and dignity of the African people. Africa has indeed lost one of the charismatic and revolutionary leaders who dedicated his life not only for the struggle for the independence of Algeria but also for the other African countries that were still suffering under colonialism. He also contributed positively to the peace and stability of Africa in his capacity as the Chairperson of the Panel of the Wise of the African Union.
At this difficult moment of agony and distress, we share your grief and pray to the Almighty God to give the bereaved family, relatives and all the people of Algeria strength and courage to endure the agony resulting from this great loss. May the Almighty God rest the soul of the deceased in eternal peace.
Please accept, Your Excellency and Dear Brother, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete
President of the United Republic of
Tanzania ”
Issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation
DAR ES SALAAM
14 th April, 2012
President Kikwete sends a Condolence Message to the President of Algeria
H.E. Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete, the President of the United Republic of Tanzania sends a condolence message to H.E. Abdelaziz Bouteflika, the President of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria following the death of H.E Ahmed Ben Bella, First President of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria. The message reads as follows:
“H. E. Abdelaziz Bouteflika
President of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria
ALGIERS
Your Excellency and Dear Brother,
I am deeply saddened by the sad news of the untimely death of the founding Father of your great Nation that took place on 11 th April, 2012.
On behalf of the Government and People of the United Republic of Tanzania, and indeed on my own behalf, I wish to convey our deepest sympathies and condolences to Your Excellency and, through you, to the bereaved family and relatives as well as the Government and the entire brotherly People of Algeria for this untimely death.
Tanzania will always remember the late Ahmed Ben Bella for the important role he played in cementing the relations between our two countries that so happily exists to-date.
He will also be remembered as a truly son of Africa who stood for unity and dignity of the African people. Africa has indeed lost one of the charismatic and revolutionary leaders who dedicated his life not only for the struggle for the independence of Algeria but also for the other African countries that were still suffering under colonialism. He also contributed positively to the peace and stability of Africa in his capacity as the Chairperson of the Panel of the Wise of the African Union.
At this difficult moment of agony and distress, we share your grief and pray to the Almighty God to give the bereaved family, relatives and all the people of Algeria strength and courage to endure the agony resulting from this great loss. May the Almighty God rest the soul of the deceased in eternal peace.
Please accept, Your Excellency and Dear Brother, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete
President of the United Republic of
Tanzania ”
Issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation
DAR ES SALAAM
14 th April, 2012
Jumatano, 6 Aprili 2016
Marais wawili wafariki wakitokea Dar es Salaam.
6 Aprili 1994 - Rais wa Rwanda Juvénal Habyarimana na Rais wa Burundi Cyprien Ntaryamira wanafariki katika ajali ya ndege muda mfupi kabla ya kutua kwenye Uwanja wa Ndege wa Kimataifa Kigali nchini Rwanda wakitokea Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Siku iliyofuata tarehe 7 Aprili, 1994 mauaji ya kimbari (genocide) yalianza. Zaidi ya Watusi 800,000 na Wahutu wa msimamo wa wastani waliuawa katika mapigano hayo yaliyodumu kwa takriban siku 100.
Timu ya Soka ya Tanzania yaigaragaza Marekani.
6 Aprili 2014 - Timu ya Soka ya Mtoto wa Mtaani kutoka Tanzania yashinda Kombe la Dunia. Timu hiyo inayoundwa na watoto kutoka kituo cha Tanzania Street Children Sports Academy (TSCSA) kilichopo jijini Mwanza, Tanzania iliicharaza Burundi magoli 3-1 katika mchezo wa fainali. Mchezaji Frank William alitia kimiani magoli yote matatu yaliyoipa ushindi timu yao kutoka Tanzania. Awali katika hatua ya nusu fainali, Tanzania iliigaragaza vibaya Marekani kwa magoli 6-1. Fainali hizo zilifanyika jijini Rio de Janeiro nchini Brazil. Kombe la Dunia la Mtoto wa Mtaani (Street Child World Cup) huwakutanisha watoto wa mitaani kote duniani.Kuelekea michuano ya mwaka 2014, mwanasoka wa zamani wa Uingereza David Beckham alinukuliwa akisema: “I look forward to Brazil in 2014 when street children from around the world will play football and represent the millions of children who still live or work on our streets.“
Jumatatu, 4 Aprili 2016
Tanzania's Recognition on Biafra
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER OF STATE (FOREIGN AFFAIRS) MR. C. Y. MGONJA AT STATE HOUSE ON TANZANIA'S RECOGNITION OF BIAFRA.
On behalf of the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, I have the following statement to make:-
The declaration of independence by Biafra on the 30th May 1967, came after two military coups d'etat - in January and July 1966 - and two major pogroms against the Ibo people. These pogroms, which also took place in 1966, resulted in the death of about 30,000 men, women and children, and made two million people flee from their homes in other parts of Nigeria to the tribal homeland in Eastern Nigeria. These events had been interspersed and followed by official discussion about a new constitution for Nigeria, and also by continued personal attacks on individual Ibos who had remained outside the Eastern Region.
The basic case for Biafra's secession from the Nigerian Federation is that people from the Eastern Region can no longer feel safe in other parts of the Federation. They are not accepted as citizens of Nigeria by the other citizens of Nigeria. Not only is it impossible for Ibos and people of related tribes to live in an assurance of personal safety if they work outside Biafra; it would also be impossible for any representative of these people to move freely and without fear in any other part of the Federation of Nigeria.
These fears are genuine and deep-seated, nor can anyone say they are groundless. The rights and wrongs of the original coup d'etat, the rights and wrongs of the attitudes taken by different groups in the politics of pre and post coup Nigeria, are all irrelevant to the fear which Ibo people feel. And the peoples of Eastern Nigeria can point to too many bereaved homes, too many maimed people, for anyone to deny the reasonable grounds for their fears. It is these fears which are the root cause both for the secession, and for the fanaticism with which the people of Eastern Nigeria have defend the country they have declared to be independent.
Fears such as now exist among the Ibo peoples do not disappear because someone says they are unjustified, or says that the rest of Nigeria does not want to exterminate the Ibos. Such words have even less effect when the speakers have made no attempt to bring the perpetrators of crimes to justice and when troops under the control of the Federal Nigerian Authorities continue to ill-treat, or to allow others to ill-treat, any Ibos who come within their power, The only way to remove the Easterners' fear is for the Nigerian Authorities to accept its existence, to acknowledge the reason for it, and then to talk on terms of equality with those involved about the way forward.
When people have reason to be afraid you cannot reassure them through the barrel of a gun; your only hope is to talk as one man to another, or as one group to another. It is no use the Federal Authorities demanding that the persecuted should come as a supplicant for mercy, by first renouncing their secession from the political unit. For the secession was declared because the Ibo people felt it to be their only defence against extermination. In their mind, therefore, a demand that they should renounce secession before talks are begun, is equivalent to a demand that they should announce their willingness to be exterminated. If they are wrong in this belief they have to be convinced. And they can only be convinced by talks leading to new constitutional arrangements which take account of their fears.
The people of Biafra have announced their willingness to talk to the Nigerian Authorities without any condition. They cannot renounce their secession before talks, but they do not demand that the Nigerians should recognise it; they ask for talks without conditions. But the federal authorities have refused to talk except on the basis of Biafran surrender. And as the Biafrans believe they will be massacred if they surrender, the Federal Authorities are really refusing to talk at all. For human being do not voluntarily walk towards what they believe to be certain death.
The Federal Government argues that in demanding the renunciation of secession before talks, and indeed in its entire 'Police Action', it is defending the territorial integrity of Nigeria. On this ground it argues also that it has a right to demand support from all other governments, and especially other African governments, for every state, and every state authority, has a duty to defend the sovereignty and integrity of its nation. This is a central part of the function of a national government.
Africa accepts the validity of this point, for African States have more reason than most to fear the effects of disintegration. It is on these grounds that Africa has watched the massacre of tens of thousands of people, has watched the employment of mercenaries by both sides in the current civil war, and has accepted repeated rebuffs of its offers to help by mediation or conciliation.
But for how long should this continue? Africa fought for freedom on the grounds of individual liberty and equality, and on the grounds that every people must have the right to determine for themselves the conditions under which they would be governed. We accept the boundaries we inherited from colonialism, and within them we each worked out for ourselves the constitutional and other arrangements which we felt to be appropriate to the most essential function of a state - that is the safe guarding of life and liberty for its inhabitants.
When the Federation of Nigeria became independent n 1960, the same policy was adopted by all its people. They accepted the federal structure which had been established under the colonial system, and declared their intention to work together. Indeed, the Southern States of the Federation - which includes Biafra - delayed their own demands for independence until the North was ready to join them. At the insistence of the North also, the original suggestion of the National Council for Nigeria and the Cameroons (the political party which had its centre in the South) that Nigeria should be broken up into many small states with a strong centre, was abandoned. The South accepted a structure which virtually allowed the more populous North to dominate the rest.
But the constitution of the Federation of Nigeria was broken in January, 1966, by the first military coup. All hope of its resuscitation was removed by the second coup, and even more by the pogroms of September and October 1966. These events altered the whole basis of the society: after them it was impossible for political and economic relations between the different parts of the old Federation to be restored. They meant that Nigerian unity could only be salvaged for the wreck of inter-tribal violence and of fear by a constitution drawn up in the light of what had happened, and which was generally acceptable to all major elements of the society under the new circumstances. A completely new start had to be made, for the basis of the State had been dissolved in the complete break-down of law and order, and the inter-tribal violence which existed.
The necessity for a new start by agreement was accepted by a conference of military leaders from all parts of the Federation, in Aburi, Ghana, in January 1967. There is a certain difference of opinion about some of the things which were agreed at that conference. But there is no dispute about the fact that everyone joined in a declaration renouncing the use of force as a means of settling the crisis in Nigeria. Nor does anyone dispute that it was greed that a new constitution was to be worked out by agreement, and that in the meantime there would be a repeal of all military decrees issued since January 1966 which reduced the powers of the regions. There was also agreement about rehabilitation payments for those who had been forced to flee from their homes, and about members of the armed forces being stationed in their home regions.
The Aburi conference could have provided the new start which was necessary if the unity of Nigeria was to be maintained. But before the end of the same month, General Gowon was restating his commitment to the creation of new States, and his determination to oppose any form of confederation. And on the last day of January, the Federal Military Authorities were already giving administrative reasons for delay in the implementation the agreements reached at Aburi, It was the middle of March before a constitutional decree was issue which was supposed to regularise the position in accordance with the decisions taken there. But unfortunately this decree also included a new clause - which had not been agreed - and which gave the Federal Authorities a reserve power over the Regions, and this completely nullified the whole operation. Nor had any payment been made by the Federal Government to back up the monetary commitment for rehabilitation which it had accepted in the Ghana meeting.
In short, the necessity for an arrangement which would take account of the fears created during 1966 was accepted at Aburi, and renounced thereafter by the Federal Authorities. Yet they are now claim to be defending the integrity of the country in which they failed to guarantee the most elementary safety of the twelve million peoples of Eastern Nigeria. These people had been massacred in other parts of Nigeria without the Federal Authorities apparently having either the will or the power to protect hem. When they retreated to their tribal homeland they were expected to accept the domination of the same peoples who instigated, or allowed, the persecution in the country which they are being told is theirs - i.e. Nigeria.
Surely when a whole people is rejected by the majority of the state in which they live, they must have the right to life under a different kind of arrangement which does secure their existence.
States are made to serve people; governments are established to protect the citizen of a state against external enemies and internal wrong-doers. It is on these grounds that people surrender their right and power of self-defence to the government of the state in which they live. But when the machinery of the State, and the powers of the Government, are turned against a whole group of the society on the grounds of racial, tribal or religious
prejudice, then the victims have the right to take back the powers they have surrendered, and to defend themselves.
For while people have a duty to defend the integrity of their state, and even to die in its defence this duty stems from the fact that it is theirs, and that it is important to their well-being and to the future of their children. When the sate ceases to stand for the honour, the protection, and the well-being of all its citizens, then it is no longer the instrument of those it has rejected. In such a case the people have the right to create another instrument for their protection - in other words, to create another state.
This right cannot be abrogated by constitution, nor by outsiders. The basis of statehood, and of unity can only be general acceptance by the participants. When more than twelve million people have become convinced that they are rejected, and that there is no longer any basis for unity between them and other groups of people, then that unity has already ceased to exist. You cannot kill thousands of people, and keep killing more, in the name of unity. There is no unity between the dead and those who killed them; and there is no unity in slavery or domination.
Africa needs unity. We need unity over the whole continent, and in the meantime we need unity within the existing states of Africa. It is a tragedy when we experience a setback to our goal of unity. But the basis of our need for unity, and the reason for our desire for it, is the greater well being, and the greater security, of the people of Africa. Unity by conquest is impossible. It is not practicable; and even if military might could force the acceptance of a particular authority, the purpose of unity would have been destroyed. For the purpose of unity, its justification, is the service of all peoples who are united together. The general consent of all the people involved is the only basis on which unity in Africa can be maintained or extended.
The fact that the Federation of Nigeria was created in 1960 with the consent of all the peoples does not alter that fact. That Federation, and that basis of consent, has since been destroyed. Nor is this the first time the world had seen a reduction in political unity. We have seen the creation of the Mali Federation, the creation of a Union between Egypt and Syria, and the establishment of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. And we have also seen the dissolution of all these attempts at unity, and the consequent recognition of the separate nations which were once involved. The world has also seen the creation of India and Pakistan out of what was once the Indian Empire. We have all recognised both these nation states and done our best to help them deal with the millions of people made homeless by the conflict and division. None of these things mean that we have liked these examples of greater disunity. They mean that we recognise that in all these cases the people are unwilling to remain in one political unit.
We recognise Mali, Egypt, Syria, Malawi, Zambia, Pakistan and India, What right have we to refuse, in the name of unity, to recognise the fact of Biafra? For years the people of that State struggled to maintain unity with the other peoples in the Federation of Nigeria; even after the pogroms of 1966 they tried to work out a new form of unity which would guarantee their safety; they have demonstrated by ten months of bitter fighting that they have decided upon a new political organisation and are willing to defend it.
The world has taken it upon itself to utter many ill-informed criticisms of the Jews of Europe for going to their deaths without any concerted struggle. But out of sympathy for the suffering of these people, and in recognition of the world's failure to take action at the appropriate time, the United Nations established the State of Israel in territory which had belonged to the Arabs for thousands of years. It was felt that only by the establishment of a Jewish homeland, and Jewish national state, could Jews be expected to live in the world under conditions of human security. Tanzania has recognised the State of Israel and will continue to do so because of its belief that every people must have some place in the world where they are not liable to be rejected by their fellow citizens.
But the Biafrans have now suffered the same kind of rejection within their state that the Jews of Germany experienced. Fortunately they already had a homeland. They have retreated to it for their own protection, and for the same reason - after all other efforts had failed - they have declared it to be an independent state.
In the light of these circumstances, Tanzania feels obliged to recognise the setback to African Unity which has occurred.
We therefore recognise the State of Biafra as an independent sovereign entity, and as a member of the community of nations. Only by this act of recognition can we remain true to our conviction that the purpose of society and of all political organisation, is the service of man.
Dar-es-Salaam,
13th April, 1968.
On behalf of the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, I have the following statement to make:-
The declaration of independence by Biafra on the 30th May 1967, came after two military coups d'etat - in January and July 1966 - and two major pogroms against the Ibo people. These pogroms, which also took place in 1966, resulted in the death of about 30,000 men, women and children, and made two million people flee from their homes in other parts of Nigeria to the tribal homeland in Eastern Nigeria. These events had been interspersed and followed by official discussion about a new constitution for Nigeria, and also by continued personal attacks on individual Ibos who had remained outside the Eastern Region.
The basic case for Biafra's secession from the Nigerian Federation is that people from the Eastern Region can no longer feel safe in other parts of the Federation. They are not accepted as citizens of Nigeria by the other citizens of Nigeria. Not only is it impossible for Ibos and people of related tribes to live in an assurance of personal safety if they work outside Biafra; it would also be impossible for any representative of these people to move freely and without fear in any other part of the Federation of Nigeria.
These fears are genuine and deep-seated, nor can anyone say they are groundless. The rights and wrongs of the original coup d'etat, the rights and wrongs of the attitudes taken by different groups in the politics of pre and post coup Nigeria, are all irrelevant to the fear which Ibo people feel. And the peoples of Eastern Nigeria can point to too many bereaved homes, too many maimed people, for anyone to deny the reasonable grounds for their fears. It is these fears which are the root cause both for the secession, and for the fanaticism with which the people of Eastern Nigeria have defend the country they have declared to be independent.
Fears such as now exist among the Ibo peoples do not disappear because someone says they are unjustified, or says that the rest of Nigeria does not want to exterminate the Ibos. Such words have even less effect when the speakers have made no attempt to bring the perpetrators of crimes to justice and when troops under the control of the Federal Nigerian Authorities continue to ill-treat, or to allow others to ill-treat, any Ibos who come within their power, The only way to remove the Easterners' fear is for the Nigerian Authorities to accept its existence, to acknowledge the reason for it, and then to talk on terms of equality with those involved about the way forward.
When people have reason to be afraid you cannot reassure them through the barrel of a gun; your only hope is to talk as one man to another, or as one group to another. It is no use the Federal Authorities demanding that the persecuted should come as a supplicant for mercy, by first renouncing their secession from the political unit. For the secession was declared because the Ibo people felt it to be their only defence against extermination. In their mind, therefore, a demand that they should renounce secession before talks are begun, is equivalent to a demand that they should announce their willingness to be exterminated. If they are wrong in this belief they have to be convinced. And they can only be convinced by talks leading to new constitutional arrangements which take account of their fears.
The people of Biafra have announced their willingness to talk to the Nigerian Authorities without any condition. They cannot renounce their secession before talks, but they do not demand that the Nigerians should recognise it; they ask for talks without conditions. But the federal authorities have refused to talk except on the basis of Biafran surrender. And as the Biafrans believe they will be massacred if they surrender, the Federal Authorities are really refusing to talk at all. For human being do not voluntarily walk towards what they believe to be certain death.
The Federal Government argues that in demanding the renunciation of secession before talks, and indeed in its entire 'Police Action', it is defending the territorial integrity of Nigeria. On this ground it argues also that it has a right to demand support from all other governments, and especially other African governments, for every state, and every state authority, has a duty to defend the sovereignty and integrity of its nation. This is a central part of the function of a national government.
Africa accepts the validity of this point, for African States have more reason than most to fear the effects of disintegration. It is on these grounds that Africa has watched the massacre of tens of thousands of people, has watched the employment of mercenaries by both sides in the current civil war, and has accepted repeated rebuffs of its offers to help by mediation or conciliation.
But for how long should this continue? Africa fought for freedom on the grounds of individual liberty and equality, and on the grounds that every people must have the right to determine for themselves the conditions under which they would be governed. We accept the boundaries we inherited from colonialism, and within them we each worked out for ourselves the constitutional and other arrangements which we felt to be appropriate to the most essential function of a state - that is the safe guarding of life and liberty for its inhabitants.
When the Federation of Nigeria became independent n 1960, the same policy was adopted by all its people. They accepted the federal structure which had been established under the colonial system, and declared their intention to work together. Indeed, the Southern States of the Federation - which includes Biafra - delayed their own demands for independence until the North was ready to join them. At the insistence of the North also, the original suggestion of the National Council for Nigeria and the Cameroons (the political party which had its centre in the South) that Nigeria should be broken up into many small states with a strong centre, was abandoned. The South accepted a structure which virtually allowed the more populous North to dominate the rest.
But the constitution of the Federation of Nigeria was broken in January, 1966, by the first military coup. All hope of its resuscitation was removed by the second coup, and even more by the pogroms of September and October 1966. These events altered the whole basis of the society: after them it was impossible for political and economic relations between the different parts of the old Federation to be restored. They meant that Nigerian unity could only be salvaged for the wreck of inter-tribal violence and of fear by a constitution drawn up in the light of what had happened, and which was generally acceptable to all major elements of the society under the new circumstances. A completely new start had to be made, for the basis of the State had been dissolved in the complete break-down of law and order, and the inter-tribal violence which existed.
The necessity for a new start by agreement was accepted by a conference of military leaders from all parts of the Federation, in Aburi, Ghana, in January 1967. There is a certain difference of opinion about some of the things which were agreed at that conference. But there is no dispute about the fact that everyone joined in a declaration renouncing the use of force as a means of settling the crisis in Nigeria. Nor does anyone dispute that it was greed that a new constitution was to be worked out by agreement, and that in the meantime there would be a repeal of all military decrees issued since January 1966 which reduced the powers of the regions. There was also agreement about rehabilitation payments for those who had been forced to flee from their homes, and about members of the armed forces being stationed in their home regions.
The Aburi conference could have provided the new start which was necessary if the unity of Nigeria was to be maintained. But before the end of the same month, General Gowon was restating his commitment to the creation of new States, and his determination to oppose any form of confederation. And on the last day of January, the Federal Military Authorities were already giving administrative reasons for delay in the implementation the agreements reached at Aburi, It was the middle of March before a constitutional decree was issue which was supposed to regularise the position in accordance with the decisions taken there. But unfortunately this decree also included a new clause - which had not been agreed - and which gave the Federal Authorities a reserve power over the Regions, and this completely nullified the whole operation. Nor had any payment been made by the Federal Government to back up the monetary commitment for rehabilitation which it had accepted in the Ghana meeting.
In short, the necessity for an arrangement which would take account of the fears created during 1966 was accepted at Aburi, and renounced thereafter by the Federal Authorities. Yet they are now claim to be defending the integrity of the country in which they failed to guarantee the most elementary safety of the twelve million peoples of Eastern Nigeria. These people had been massacred in other parts of Nigeria without the Federal Authorities apparently having either the will or the power to protect hem. When they retreated to their tribal homeland they were expected to accept the domination of the same peoples who instigated, or allowed, the persecution in the country which they are being told is theirs - i.e. Nigeria.
Surely when a whole people is rejected by the majority of the state in which they live, they must have the right to life under a different kind of arrangement which does secure their existence.
States are made to serve people; governments are established to protect the citizen of a state against external enemies and internal wrong-doers. It is on these grounds that people surrender their right and power of self-defence to the government of the state in which they live. But when the machinery of the State, and the powers of the Government, are turned against a whole group of the society on the grounds of racial, tribal or religious
prejudice, then the victims have the right to take back the powers they have surrendered, and to defend themselves.
For while people have a duty to defend the integrity of their state, and even to die in its defence this duty stems from the fact that it is theirs, and that it is important to their well-being and to the future of their children. When the sate ceases to stand for the honour, the protection, and the well-being of all its citizens, then it is no longer the instrument of those it has rejected. In such a case the people have the right to create another instrument for their protection - in other words, to create another state.
This right cannot be abrogated by constitution, nor by outsiders. The basis of statehood, and of unity can only be general acceptance by the participants. When more than twelve million people have become convinced that they are rejected, and that there is no longer any basis for unity between them and other groups of people, then that unity has already ceased to exist. You cannot kill thousands of people, and keep killing more, in the name of unity. There is no unity between the dead and those who killed them; and there is no unity in slavery or domination.
Africa needs unity. We need unity over the whole continent, and in the meantime we need unity within the existing states of Africa. It is a tragedy when we experience a setback to our goal of unity. But the basis of our need for unity, and the reason for our desire for it, is the greater well being, and the greater security, of the people of Africa. Unity by conquest is impossible. It is not practicable; and even if military might could force the acceptance of a particular authority, the purpose of unity would have been destroyed. For the purpose of unity, its justification, is the service of all peoples who are united together. The general consent of all the people involved is the only basis on which unity in Africa can be maintained or extended.
The fact that the Federation of Nigeria was created in 1960 with the consent of all the peoples does not alter that fact. That Federation, and that basis of consent, has since been destroyed. Nor is this the first time the world had seen a reduction in political unity. We have seen the creation of the Mali Federation, the creation of a Union between Egypt and Syria, and the establishment of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. And we have also seen the dissolution of all these attempts at unity, and the consequent recognition of the separate nations which were once involved. The world has also seen the creation of India and Pakistan out of what was once the Indian Empire. We have all recognised both these nation states and done our best to help them deal with the millions of people made homeless by the conflict and division. None of these things mean that we have liked these examples of greater disunity. They mean that we recognise that in all these cases the people are unwilling to remain in one political unit.
We recognise Mali, Egypt, Syria, Malawi, Zambia, Pakistan and India, What right have we to refuse, in the name of unity, to recognise the fact of Biafra? For years the people of that State struggled to maintain unity with the other peoples in the Federation of Nigeria; even after the pogroms of 1966 they tried to work out a new form of unity which would guarantee their safety; they have demonstrated by ten months of bitter fighting that they have decided upon a new political organisation and are willing to defend it.
The world has taken it upon itself to utter many ill-informed criticisms of the Jews of Europe for going to their deaths without any concerted struggle. But out of sympathy for the suffering of these people, and in recognition of the world's failure to take action at the appropriate time, the United Nations established the State of Israel in territory which had belonged to the Arabs for thousands of years. It was felt that only by the establishment of a Jewish homeland, and Jewish national state, could Jews be expected to live in the world under conditions of human security. Tanzania has recognised the State of Israel and will continue to do so because of its belief that every people must have some place in the world where they are not liable to be rejected by their fellow citizens.
But the Biafrans have now suffered the same kind of rejection within their state that the Jews of Germany experienced. Fortunately they already had a homeland. They have retreated to it for their own protection, and for the same reason - after all other efforts had failed - they have declared it to be an independent state.
In the light of these circumstances, Tanzania feels obliged to recognise the setback to African Unity which has occurred.
We therefore recognise the State of Biafra as an independent sovereign entity, and as a member of the community of nations. Only by this act of recognition can we remain true to our conviction that the purpose of society and of all political organisation, is the service of man.
Dar-es-Salaam,
13th April, 1968.
Alhamisi, 31 Machi 2016
Tanzania History: FOUNDING PRESIDENT JULIUS NYERERE: “AFRICANS UNITE – WITHOUT UNITY, THERE IS NO FUTURE FOR AFRICA!”
For centuries, we had been oppressed and humiliated as Africans. We were hunted and enslaved as Africans, and we were colonised as Africans. The humiliation of Africans became the glorification of others. So we felt our Africanness. We knew that we were one people, and that we had one destiny regardless of the artificial boundaries which colonialists had invented.
Since we were humiliated as Africans, we had to be liberated as Africans. So 40 years ago, we recognised [Ghana’s] independence as the first triumph in Africa’s struggle for freedom and dignity. It was the first success of our demand to be accorded the international respect which is accorded free peoples. Thirty-seven years later – in 1994 – we celebrated our final triumph when apartheid was crushed and Nelson Mandela was installed as the president of South Africa. Africa’s long struggle for freedom was over.
I was a student at Edinburgh University when Kwame Nkrumah was released from prison to be the Leader of Government Business in his first elected government [in 1951]. The deportment of the Gold Coast students changed. The way they carried themselves, the way they talked to us and others, the way they looked at the world at large, changed overnight. They even looked different. They were not arrogant, they were not overbearing, they were not aloof, but they were proud, already they felt and they exuded that quiet pride of self-confidence of freedom without which humanity is incomplete.
And so six years later, when the Gold Coast became independent, Kwame Nkrumah invited us – the leaders of the various liberation movements in Africa – to come and celebrate with Ghana. I was among the many invitees. Then Nkrumah made the famous declaration that Ghana’s independence was meaningless unless the whole of Africa was liberated from colonial rule.
Kwame Nkrumah went into action almost immediately. In the following year, he called the liberation movements to Ghana to discuss the common strategy for the liberation of the continent from colonialism. In preparation for the African People’s Conference, those of us in East and Central Africa met in Mwanza in Tanganyika to discuss our possible contribution to the forthcoming conference. That conference lit the liberation torch throughout colonial Africa.
Attempts at unity
Another five years later, in May 1963, 32 independent African states met in Addis Ababa, founded the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), and established the Liberation Committee of the new organisation, charging it with the duty of coordinating the liberation struggle in those parts of Africa still under colonial rule. The following year, 1964, the OAU met in Cairo [Egypt]. The Cairo Summit is remembered mainly for the declaration of the heads of state of independent Africa to respect the borders inherited from colonialism. The principle of non-interference in internal affairs of member states of the OAU had been enshrined in the Charter itself. Respect for the borders inherited from colonialism comes from the Cairo Declaration of 1964.
In 1965, the OAU met in Accra [Ghana]. That summit is not well remembered as the founding summit in 1963 or the Cairo Summit of 1964. The fact that Nkrumah did not last long as head of state of Ghana after that summit may have contributed to the comparative obscurity of that important summit. But I want to suggest that the reason why we do not talk much about [the 1965] summit is probably psychological: it was a failure. That failure still haunts us today. The founding fathers of the OAU had set themselves two major objectives: the total liberation of our continent from colonialism and settler minorities, and the unity of Africa. The first objective was expressed through immediate establishment of the Liberation Committee by the founding summit [of 1963]. The second objective was expressed in the name of the organisation – the Organisation of African Unity.
Critics could say that the [OAU] Charter itself, with its great emphasis on the sovereign independence of each member state, combined with the Cairo Declaration on the sanctity of the inherited borders, make it look like the “Organisation of African Disunity”. But that would be carrying criticism too far and ignoring the objective reasons which led to the principles of non-interference in the Cairo Declaration.
What the founding fathers – certainly a hardcore of them – had in mind was a genuine desire to move Africa towards greater unity. We loathed balkanisation of the continent into small unviable states, most of which had borders which did not make ethnic or geographical sense.
The Cairo Declaration was promoted by a profound realisation of the absurdity of those borders. It was quite clear that some adventurers would try to change those borders by force of arms. Indeed, it was already happening. Ethiopia and Somalia were at war over inherited borders.
Nkrumah was opposed to balkanisation as much as he was opposed to colonialism in Africa. To him and to a number of us, the two – balkanisation and colonialism – were twins. Genuine liberation of Africa had to attack both twins. A struggle against colonialism must go hand in hand with a struggle against the balkanisation of Africa.
Kwame Nkrumah was the great crusader of African unity. He wanted the Accra Summit of 1965 to establish a union government for the whole of independent Africa. But we failed. The one minor reason is that Kwame, like all great believers, underestimated the degree of suspicion and animosity which his crusading passion had created among a substantial number of his fellow heads of state. The major reason was linked to the first: already too many of us had a vested interest in keeping Africa divided.
Prior to the independence of Tanganyika, I had been advocating that East African countries should federate and then achieve independence as a single political unit. I had said publicly that I was willing to delay Tanganyika’s independence in order to enable all the three mainland countries to achieve their independence together as a single federated state. I made the suggestion because of my fear – proved correct by later events – that it would be very difficult to unite our countries if we let them achieve independence separately.
Once you multiply national anthems, national flags and national passports, seats of the United Nations, and individuals entitled to a 21-gun salute, not to speak of a host of ministers, prime ministers and envoys, you would have a whole army of powerful people with vested interests in keeping Africa balkanised. That was what Nkrumah encountered in 1965.
After the failure to establish the union government at the Accra Summit, I heard one head of state express with relief that he was happy to be returning home to his country still head of state. To this day, I cannot tell whether he was serious or joking. But he may well have been serious, because Kwame Nkrumah was very serious and the fear of a number of us to lose our precious status was quite palpable. But I never believed that the 1965 Accra Summit would have established a union government for Africa. When I say that we failed, that is not what I mean; for that clearly was an unrealistic objective for a single summit.
What I mean is that we did not even discuss a mechanism for pursuing the objective of a politically united Africa. We had a Liberation Committee already. We should have at least had a Unity Committee or undertaken to establish one. We did not. And after Kwame Nkrumah was removed from the African scene, nobody took up the challenge again.
Confession and plea
So my remaining remarks have a confession and a plea. The confession is that we of the first generation leaders of independent Africa have not pursued the objective of African unity with the vigour, commitment and sincerity that it deserved. Yet that does not mean that unity is now irrelevant. Does the experience of the last three or four decades of Africa’s independence dispel the need for African unity?
With our success in the liberation struggle, Africa today has 53 independent states, 21 more than those which met in Addis Ababa in May 1963. [Editor: With South Sudan’s independence in 2011, Africa now has 54 independent states]. If numbers were horses, Africa today would be riding high! Africa would be the strongest continent in the world, for it occupies more seats in the UN General Assembly than any other continent. Yet the reality is that ours is the poorest and weakest continent in the world. And our weakness is pathetic. Unity will not end our weakness, but until we unite, we cannot even begin to end that weakness. So this is my plea to the new generation of African leaders and African peoples: work for unity with the firm conviction that without unity, there is no future for Africa. That is, of course, assuming that we still want to have a place under the sun.
I reject the glorification of the nation-state [that] we inherited from colonialism, and the artificial nations we are trying to forge from that inheritance. We are all Africans trying very hard to be Ghanaians or Tanzanians. Fortunately for Africa, we have not been completely successful. The outside world hardly recognises our Ghanaian-ness or Tanzanian-ness. What the outside world recognises about us is our African-ness.
Hitler was a German, Mussolini was an Italian, Franco was a Spaniard, Salazar was Portuguese, Stalin was a Russian or a Georgian. Nobody expected Churchill to be ashamed of Hitler. He was probably ashamed of Chamberlain. Nobody expected Charles de Gaulle to be ashamed of Hitler, he was probably ashamed of the complicity of Vichy. It is the Germans and Italians and Spaniards and Portuguese who feel uneasy about those dictators in their respective countries.
Not so in Africa. Idi Amin was in Uganda but of Africa. Jean Bokassa was in Central Africa but of Africa. Some of the dictators are still alive in their respective countries, but they are all of Africa. They are all Africans, and all perceived by the outside world as Africans. When I travel outside Africa, the description of me as a former president of Tanzania is a fleeting affair. It does not stick. Apart from the ignorant who sometimes asked me whether Tanzania was in Johannesburg, even to those who knew better, what stuck in the minds of my hosts was the fact of my African-ness.
So I had to answer questions about the atrocities of the Amins and Bokassas of Africa. Mrs [Indira] Ghandi [the former Indian prime minister] did not have to answer questions about the atrocities of the Marcosses of Asia. Nor does Fidel Castro have to answer questions about the atrocities of the Somozas of Latin America. But when I travel or meet foreigners, I have to answer questions about Somalia, Liberia, Rwanda, Burundi and Zaire, as in the past I used to answer questions about Mozambique, Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia or South Africa.
And the way I was perceived is the way most of my fellow heads of state were perceived. And that is the way you [the people of Africa] are all being perceived. So accepting the fact that we are Africans, gives you a much more worthwhile challenge than the current desperate attempts to fossilise Africa into the wounds inflicted upon it by the vultures of imperialism. Do not be proud of your shame. Reject the return to the tribe, there is richness of culture out there which we must do everything we can to preserve and share.
But it is utter madness to think that if these artificial, unviable states which we are trying to create are broken up into tribal components and we turn those into nation-states, we might save ourselves. That kind of political and social atavism spells catastrophe for Africa. It would be the end of any kind of genuine development for Africa. It would fossilise Africa into a worse state than the one in which we are.
The future of Africa, the modernisation of Africa that has a place in the 21st century is linked with its decolonisation and detribalisation. Tribal atavism would be giving up any hope for Africa. And of all the sins that Africa can commit, the sin of despair would be the most unforgivable. Reject the nonsense of dividing the African peoples into Anglophones, Francophones, and Lusophones. This attempt to divide our peoples according to the language of their former colonial masters must be rejected with the firmness and utter contempt that it richly deserves.
The natural owners of those wonderful languages are busy building a united Europe. But Europe is strong even without unity. Europe has less need of unity and the strength that comes from unity in Africa. A new generation of self-respecting Africans should spit in the face of anybody who suggests that our continent should remain divided and fossilised in the shame of colonialism, in order to satisfy the national pride of our former colonial masters.
Africa must unite! That was the title of one of Kwame Nkrumah’s books. That call is more urgent today than ever before. Together, we, the peoples of Africa will be incomparably stronger internationally than we are now with our multiplicity of unviable states. The needs of our separate countries can be, and are being, ignored by the rich and powerful. The result is that Africa is marginalised when international decisions affecting our vital interests are made.
Unity will not make us rich, but it can make it difficult for Africa and the African peoples to be disregarded and humiliated. And it will, therefore, increase the effectiveness of the decisions we make and try to implement for our development. My generation led Africa to political freedom. The current generation of leaders and peoples of Africa must pick up the flickering torch of African freedom, refuel it with their enthusiasm and determination, and carry it forward.
Source: www.africaresource.com
Since we were humiliated as Africans, we had to be liberated as Africans. So 40 years ago, we recognised [Ghana’s] independence as the first triumph in Africa’s struggle for freedom and dignity. It was the first success of our demand to be accorded the international respect which is accorded free peoples. Thirty-seven years later – in 1994 – we celebrated our final triumph when apartheid was crushed and Nelson Mandela was installed as the president of South Africa. Africa’s long struggle for freedom was over.
I was a student at Edinburgh University when Kwame Nkrumah was released from prison to be the Leader of Government Business in his first elected government [in 1951]. The deportment of the Gold Coast students changed. The way they carried themselves, the way they talked to us and others, the way they looked at the world at large, changed overnight. They even looked different. They were not arrogant, they were not overbearing, they were not aloof, but they were proud, already they felt and they exuded that quiet pride of self-confidence of freedom without which humanity is incomplete.
And so six years later, when the Gold Coast became independent, Kwame Nkrumah invited us – the leaders of the various liberation movements in Africa – to come and celebrate with Ghana. I was among the many invitees. Then Nkrumah made the famous declaration that Ghana’s independence was meaningless unless the whole of Africa was liberated from colonial rule.
Kwame Nkrumah went into action almost immediately. In the following year, he called the liberation movements to Ghana to discuss the common strategy for the liberation of the continent from colonialism. In preparation for the African People’s Conference, those of us in East and Central Africa met in Mwanza in Tanganyika to discuss our possible contribution to the forthcoming conference. That conference lit the liberation torch throughout colonial Africa.
Attempts at unity
Another five years later, in May 1963, 32 independent African states met in Addis Ababa, founded the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), and established the Liberation Committee of the new organisation, charging it with the duty of coordinating the liberation struggle in those parts of Africa still under colonial rule. The following year, 1964, the OAU met in Cairo [Egypt]. The Cairo Summit is remembered mainly for the declaration of the heads of state of independent Africa to respect the borders inherited from colonialism. The principle of non-interference in internal affairs of member states of the OAU had been enshrined in the Charter itself. Respect for the borders inherited from colonialism comes from the Cairo Declaration of 1964.
In 1965, the OAU met in Accra [Ghana]. That summit is not well remembered as the founding summit in 1963 or the Cairo Summit of 1964. The fact that Nkrumah did not last long as head of state of Ghana after that summit may have contributed to the comparative obscurity of that important summit. But I want to suggest that the reason why we do not talk much about [the 1965] summit is probably psychological: it was a failure. That failure still haunts us today. The founding fathers of the OAU had set themselves two major objectives: the total liberation of our continent from colonialism and settler minorities, and the unity of Africa. The first objective was expressed through immediate establishment of the Liberation Committee by the founding summit [of 1963]. The second objective was expressed in the name of the organisation – the Organisation of African Unity.
Critics could say that the [OAU] Charter itself, with its great emphasis on the sovereign independence of each member state, combined with the Cairo Declaration on the sanctity of the inherited borders, make it look like the “Organisation of African Disunity”. But that would be carrying criticism too far and ignoring the objective reasons which led to the principles of non-interference in the Cairo Declaration.
What the founding fathers – certainly a hardcore of them – had in mind was a genuine desire to move Africa towards greater unity. We loathed balkanisation of the continent into small unviable states, most of which had borders which did not make ethnic or geographical sense.
The Cairo Declaration was promoted by a profound realisation of the absurdity of those borders. It was quite clear that some adventurers would try to change those borders by force of arms. Indeed, it was already happening. Ethiopia and Somalia were at war over inherited borders.
Nkrumah was opposed to balkanisation as much as he was opposed to colonialism in Africa. To him and to a number of us, the two – balkanisation and colonialism – were twins. Genuine liberation of Africa had to attack both twins. A struggle against colonialism must go hand in hand with a struggle against the balkanisation of Africa.
Kwame Nkrumah was the great crusader of African unity. He wanted the Accra Summit of 1965 to establish a union government for the whole of independent Africa. But we failed. The one minor reason is that Kwame, like all great believers, underestimated the degree of suspicion and animosity which his crusading passion had created among a substantial number of his fellow heads of state. The major reason was linked to the first: already too many of us had a vested interest in keeping Africa divided.
Prior to the independence of Tanganyika, I had been advocating that East African countries should federate and then achieve independence as a single political unit. I had said publicly that I was willing to delay Tanganyika’s independence in order to enable all the three mainland countries to achieve their independence together as a single federated state. I made the suggestion because of my fear – proved correct by later events – that it would be very difficult to unite our countries if we let them achieve independence separately.
Once you multiply national anthems, national flags and national passports, seats of the United Nations, and individuals entitled to a 21-gun salute, not to speak of a host of ministers, prime ministers and envoys, you would have a whole army of powerful people with vested interests in keeping Africa balkanised. That was what Nkrumah encountered in 1965.
After the failure to establish the union government at the Accra Summit, I heard one head of state express with relief that he was happy to be returning home to his country still head of state. To this day, I cannot tell whether he was serious or joking. But he may well have been serious, because Kwame Nkrumah was very serious and the fear of a number of us to lose our precious status was quite palpable. But I never believed that the 1965 Accra Summit would have established a union government for Africa. When I say that we failed, that is not what I mean; for that clearly was an unrealistic objective for a single summit.
What I mean is that we did not even discuss a mechanism for pursuing the objective of a politically united Africa. We had a Liberation Committee already. We should have at least had a Unity Committee or undertaken to establish one. We did not. And after Kwame Nkrumah was removed from the African scene, nobody took up the challenge again.
Confession and plea
So my remaining remarks have a confession and a plea. The confession is that we of the first generation leaders of independent Africa have not pursued the objective of African unity with the vigour, commitment and sincerity that it deserved. Yet that does not mean that unity is now irrelevant. Does the experience of the last three or four decades of Africa’s independence dispel the need for African unity?
With our success in the liberation struggle, Africa today has 53 independent states, 21 more than those which met in Addis Ababa in May 1963. [Editor: With South Sudan’s independence in 2011, Africa now has 54 independent states]. If numbers were horses, Africa today would be riding high! Africa would be the strongest continent in the world, for it occupies more seats in the UN General Assembly than any other continent. Yet the reality is that ours is the poorest and weakest continent in the world. And our weakness is pathetic. Unity will not end our weakness, but until we unite, we cannot even begin to end that weakness. So this is my plea to the new generation of African leaders and African peoples: work for unity with the firm conviction that without unity, there is no future for Africa. That is, of course, assuming that we still want to have a place under the sun.
I reject the glorification of the nation-state [that] we inherited from colonialism, and the artificial nations we are trying to forge from that inheritance. We are all Africans trying very hard to be Ghanaians or Tanzanians. Fortunately for Africa, we have not been completely successful. The outside world hardly recognises our Ghanaian-ness or Tanzanian-ness. What the outside world recognises about us is our African-ness.
Hitler was a German, Mussolini was an Italian, Franco was a Spaniard, Salazar was Portuguese, Stalin was a Russian or a Georgian. Nobody expected Churchill to be ashamed of Hitler. He was probably ashamed of Chamberlain. Nobody expected Charles de Gaulle to be ashamed of Hitler, he was probably ashamed of the complicity of Vichy. It is the Germans and Italians and Spaniards and Portuguese who feel uneasy about those dictators in their respective countries.
Not so in Africa. Idi Amin was in Uganda but of Africa. Jean Bokassa was in Central Africa but of Africa. Some of the dictators are still alive in their respective countries, but they are all of Africa. They are all Africans, and all perceived by the outside world as Africans. When I travel outside Africa, the description of me as a former president of Tanzania is a fleeting affair. It does not stick. Apart from the ignorant who sometimes asked me whether Tanzania was in Johannesburg, even to those who knew better, what stuck in the minds of my hosts was the fact of my African-ness.
So I had to answer questions about the atrocities of the Amins and Bokassas of Africa. Mrs [Indira] Ghandi [the former Indian prime minister] did not have to answer questions about the atrocities of the Marcosses of Asia. Nor does Fidel Castro have to answer questions about the atrocities of the Somozas of Latin America. But when I travel or meet foreigners, I have to answer questions about Somalia, Liberia, Rwanda, Burundi and Zaire, as in the past I used to answer questions about Mozambique, Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia or South Africa.
And the way I was perceived is the way most of my fellow heads of state were perceived. And that is the way you [the people of Africa] are all being perceived. So accepting the fact that we are Africans, gives you a much more worthwhile challenge than the current desperate attempts to fossilise Africa into the wounds inflicted upon it by the vultures of imperialism. Do not be proud of your shame. Reject the return to the tribe, there is richness of culture out there which we must do everything we can to preserve and share.
But it is utter madness to think that if these artificial, unviable states which we are trying to create are broken up into tribal components and we turn those into nation-states, we might save ourselves. That kind of political and social atavism spells catastrophe for Africa. It would be the end of any kind of genuine development for Africa. It would fossilise Africa into a worse state than the one in which we are.
The future of Africa, the modernisation of Africa that has a place in the 21st century is linked with its decolonisation and detribalisation. Tribal atavism would be giving up any hope for Africa. And of all the sins that Africa can commit, the sin of despair would be the most unforgivable. Reject the nonsense of dividing the African peoples into Anglophones, Francophones, and Lusophones. This attempt to divide our peoples according to the language of their former colonial masters must be rejected with the firmness and utter contempt that it richly deserves.
The natural owners of those wonderful languages are busy building a united Europe. But Europe is strong even without unity. Europe has less need of unity and the strength that comes from unity in Africa. A new generation of self-respecting Africans should spit in the face of anybody who suggests that our continent should remain divided and fossilised in the shame of colonialism, in order to satisfy the national pride of our former colonial masters.
Africa must unite! That was the title of one of Kwame Nkrumah’s books. That call is more urgent today than ever before. Together, we, the peoples of Africa will be incomparably stronger internationally than we are now with our multiplicity of unviable states. The needs of our separate countries can be, and are being, ignored by the rich and powerful. The result is that Africa is marginalised when international decisions affecting our vital interests are made.
Unity will not make us rich, but it can make it difficult for Africa and the African peoples to be disregarded and humiliated. And it will, therefore, increase the effectiveness of the decisions we make and try to implement for our development. My generation led Africa to political freedom. The current generation of leaders and peoples of Africa must pick up the flickering torch of African freedom, refuel it with their enthusiasm and determination, and carry it forward.
Source: www.africaresource.com
Jumamosi, 26 Machi 2016
Karudi Baba Mmoja, Toka Safari ya Mbali
1. Karudi baba mmoja,
toka safari ya mbali,
Kavimba yote mapaja,
na kutetemeka mwili,
Watoto wake wakaja,
ili kumtaka hali,
Wakataka na kauli,
iwafae maishani.
2. Akatamka mgonjwa,
ninaumwa kwelikweli,
Hata kama nikichanjwa,
haitoki homa kali,
Roho naona yachinjwa,
kifo kimenikabili,
Semeni niseme nini,
kiwafae maishani.
3. Yakawatoka kinywani,
maneno yenye akili,
Baba yetu wa thamani,
sisi tunataka mali,
Urithi tunatamani,
mali yetu ya halali,
Sema iko wapi mali,
itufae maishani
4. Baba aliye kufani,
akajibu lile swali,
Ninakufa maskini,
baba yenu sina hali,
Neno moja lishikeni,
kama mnataka mali,
Kama mnataka mali,
mtayapata shambani.
5. Wakazidi kumchimba,
baba mwenye homa kali,
Baba yetu watufumba,
hatujui fumbo hili,
akili zetu nyembamba,
hazijajua methali,
Kama tunataka mali,
tutapataje shambani?
6. Kwanza shirikianeni,
nawapa hiyo kauli,
Fanyeni kazi shambani,
mwisho mtapata mali,
haya sasa buriani,
kifo kimeniwasili,
Kama mnataka mali,
mtayapata shambani.
7. Alipokwisha kutaja,
fumbo hili la akili,
Mauti nayo yakaja,
roho ikaacha mwili,
Na watoto kwa umoja,
wakakumbuka kauli,
Kama mnataka mali,
mtayapata shambani.
8. Fumbo wakatafakari,
watoto wale wawili,
wakakata na shauri,
baada ya siku mbili,
wote wakawa tayari,
pori nene kukabili,
Kama mnataka mali,
mtayapata shambani.
9. Wakazipanda shambani,
mbegu nyingi mbalimbali,
tangu zile za mibuni,
hadi zitupazo wali,
na mvua ikaja chini,
wakaona na dalili,
Kama mnataka mali,
mtayapata shambani.
10. Shamba wakapalilia,
bila kupata ajali,
Mavuno yakawajia,
wakafaidi ugali,
Wote wakashangilia,
wakakumbuka kauli,
Kama mnataka mali,
mtayapata shambani.
11. Wakanunua na ng'ombe,
majike kwa mafahali,
wakapata na vikombe,
mashine na baiskeli,
Hawakuitaka pombe,
sababu pombe si mali,
Kama mnataka mali,
mtayapata shambani.
12. Wakaongeza mazao,
na nyumba za matofali,
Pale penye shamba lao,
wakaihubiri mali,
Wakakiweka kibao,
wakaandika kauli...
KAMA MNATAKA MALI
MTAIPATA SHAMBANI."
toka safari ya mbali,
Kavimba yote mapaja,
na kutetemeka mwili,
Watoto wake wakaja,
ili kumtaka hali,
Wakataka na kauli,
iwafae maishani.
2. Akatamka mgonjwa,
ninaumwa kwelikweli,
Hata kama nikichanjwa,
haitoki homa kali,
Roho naona yachinjwa,
kifo kimenikabili,
Semeni niseme nini,
kiwafae maishani.
3. Yakawatoka kinywani,
maneno yenye akili,
Baba yetu wa thamani,
sisi tunataka mali,
Urithi tunatamani,
mali yetu ya halali,
Sema iko wapi mali,
itufae maishani
4. Baba aliye kufani,
akajibu lile swali,
Ninakufa maskini,
baba yenu sina hali,
Neno moja lishikeni,
kama mnataka mali,
Kama mnataka mali,
mtayapata shambani.
5. Wakazidi kumchimba,
baba mwenye homa kali,
Baba yetu watufumba,
hatujui fumbo hili,
akili zetu nyembamba,
hazijajua methali,
Kama tunataka mali,
tutapataje shambani?
6. Kwanza shirikianeni,
nawapa hiyo kauli,
Fanyeni kazi shambani,
mwisho mtapata mali,
haya sasa buriani,
kifo kimeniwasili,
Kama mnataka mali,
mtayapata shambani.
7. Alipokwisha kutaja,
fumbo hili la akili,
Mauti nayo yakaja,
roho ikaacha mwili,
Na watoto kwa umoja,
wakakumbuka kauli,
Kama mnataka mali,
mtayapata shambani.
8. Fumbo wakatafakari,
watoto wale wawili,
wakakata na shauri,
baada ya siku mbili,
wote wakawa tayari,
pori nene kukabili,
Kama mnataka mali,
mtayapata shambani.
9. Wakazipanda shambani,
mbegu nyingi mbalimbali,
tangu zile za mibuni,
hadi zitupazo wali,
na mvua ikaja chini,
wakaona na dalili,
Kama mnataka mali,
mtayapata shambani.
10. Shamba wakapalilia,
bila kupata ajali,
Mavuno yakawajia,
wakafaidi ugali,
Wote wakashangilia,
wakakumbuka kauli,
Kama mnataka mali,
mtayapata shambani.
11. Wakanunua na ng'ombe,
majike kwa mafahali,
wakapata na vikombe,
mashine na baiskeli,
Hawakuitaka pombe,
sababu pombe si mali,
Kama mnataka mali,
mtayapata shambani.
12. Wakaongeza mazao,
na nyumba za matofali,
Pale penye shamba lao,
wakaihubiri mali,
Wakakiweka kibao,
wakaandika kauli...
KAMA MNATAKA MALI
MTAIPATA SHAMBANI."
Ijumaa, 25 Machi 2016
Uhuru wa Namibia Wanikumbusha Ujinga Wangu Zamani
Hivi karibuni nilisoma (mtandaoni) gazeti moja la tarehe 21 Machi 1990 likiwa na kichwa cha habari kinachosema:
"Namibia yapata Uhuru Baada ya Utawala wa Miaka 75 Kutoka Pretoria."
Habari hii ilinikumbusha ujinga wangu zamani. Zamani nilishangaa sana kwanini nchi ya Afrika Kusini inaitawala Namibia ambayo nayo ni nchi ya Afrika. Nilishangaa sana ni kwanini Waafrika wanawaonea kiasi kile Waafrika wenzao.
Baadaye nilikuja kujua kuwa Afrika Kusini ya kipindi kile ilikuwa chini ya utawala wa Makaburu. Makaburu waliitawala Namibia kwa miaka 75 hadi Namibia ilipojinyakulia uhuru wake tarehe 21 Machi 1990.
Hakika bila kufahamu historia, baadhi ya kumbukumbu za kihistoria zitabaki kutushangaza kila siku.
"Namibia yapata Uhuru Baada ya Utawala wa Miaka 75 Kutoka Pretoria."
Habari hii ilinikumbusha ujinga wangu zamani. Zamani nilishangaa sana kwanini nchi ya Afrika Kusini inaitawala Namibia ambayo nayo ni nchi ya Afrika. Nilishangaa sana ni kwanini Waafrika wanawaonea kiasi kile Waafrika wenzao.
Baadaye nilikuja kujua kuwa Afrika Kusini ya kipindi kile ilikuwa chini ya utawala wa Makaburu. Makaburu waliitawala Namibia kwa miaka 75 hadi Namibia ilipojinyakulia uhuru wake tarehe 21 Machi 1990.
Hakika bila kufahamu historia, baadhi ya kumbukumbu za kihistoria zitabaki kutushangaza kila siku.
The Decision For the University of Dar es Salaam Made
25 March 1970 - The decision was taken by the East African Authority to split the then University of East Africa into three independent universities for Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. The University of Dar es Salaam was established in Tanzania. It admits students mostly from Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda, as well as students from other countries the world over.
Jumatano, 23 Machi 2016
Facts About Walter Rodney and Life in Tanzania
Facts about Walter Rodney
1. Walter Rodney was born in Georgetown, Guyana on March 23, 1942.
2. Walter Rodney came from a working class family. His father Edward was a tailor and his mother Pauline was a seamstress.
3. Walter Rodney was married to Dr Patricia Rodney and had three children Shaka, Kanini and Asha.
4. Walter Rodney attended Queen's College, the top male high school in Guyana, and in 1960 graduated first in his class, winning an open scholarship to the University of the West Indies (UWI). He pursued his undergraduate studies at UWI Mona Campus in Jamaica, where he graduated with 1st class honors in History in 1963. Rodney then attended the School of Oriental and African Studies in London where, at the age of 24, he received his PhD with honors in African History. Rodney's thesis, A History of the Upper Guinea Coast, was published by Oxford University Press in 1970.
5. As a student in Jamaica and England, Walter Rodney was active in student politics and participated in discussion circles, spoke at the famous Hyde Park and, participated in a symposium on Guyana in 1965. It was during this period that Walter came into contact with the legendary CLR James and was one of his most devoted students.
6. Walter Rodney was multi-lingual. He learnt Spanish, Portuguese, French and Swahili which was necessary to facilitate his research.
7. Walter Rodney's first teaching appointment was in Tanzania before returning to the University of the West Indies, in 1968.
8. Rodney combined his scholarship with activism and became a voice for the under-represented and disenfranchised - this distinguished him from his academic colleagues. He took his message of Black Power, Black Liberation and African consciousness to the masses in Jamaica. In particular he shared his knowledge of African history with one of the most rejected section of the Jamaican society- the Rastafarians. His speeches and lectures to these groups were published as Grounding with My Brothers, and became central to the Caribbean Black Power Movement.
9. Rodney's activities attracted the Jamaican government's attention and after attending the 1968 Black Writers' Conference in Montreal, Canada he was banned from re-entering the country. This decision was to have profound repercussions, sparking widespread riots and revolts in Kingston on 6 October 1968, known as 'the Rodney Riots.'
10. Having been expelled from Jamaica, Walter returned to Tanzania after a short stay in Cuba. There he lectured from 1968 to 1974 and continued his groundings in Tanzania and other parts of Africa. Walter Rodney became deeply involved in the African Liberation Struggles at that time.
11. Walter Rodney's participation in African Liberation Struggles influenced his second major work, and his best known --How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. It was published by Jessica and Eric Huntley of Bogle-L'Ouverture in London, in conjunction with Tanzanian Publishing House in 1972.
12. Walter Rodney established an intellectual tradition which still today makes Dar es Salaam one of the centers of discussion of African politics and history. Walter wrote the critical articles on Tanzanian Ujamaa, imperialism, on underdevelopment, and the problems of state and class formation in Africa. Many of his articles which were written in Tanzania appeared in Maji Maji, the discussion journal of the TANU Youth League at the University.
13. Walter Rodney was a Pan-Africanist. He developed close political relationships with those who were struggling to change the external control of Africa and was very close to some of the leaders of liberation movements in Africa. Together with other Pan-Africanists, he participated in discussions leading up to the Sixth Pan-African Congress, held in Tanzania, 1974. Before the Congress he wrote a piece: "Towards the Sixth Pan-African Congress: Aspects of the International Class Struggle in Africa, the Caribbean and America."
14. In 1974, Walter Rodney returned to Guyana to take up an appointment as Professor of History at the University of Guyana, but the government rescinded the appointment.
15. Walter Rodney joined the newly formed political group, the Working People's Alliance, emerging as the leading figure in the resistance movement against the PNC government. During this period he developed his ideas on the self emancipation of the working people, People's Power, and multiracial democracy.
16. On July 11, 1979, Walter, together with seven others, was arrested following the burning down of two government offices. He, along with Drs Rupert Roopnarine and Omawale, was later charged with arson.
17. From that period up to the time of his murder, Rodney lived with constant police harassment and frequent threats against his life he nonetheless managed to complete four books in the last year of his life: An academic work: A History of the Guyanese Working People, 1881-1905; A political call to action; People's Power, No Dictator, and two children's books: Kofi Baadu Out of Africa and Lakshmi Out of India.
18. On Friday 13 June 1980, a remote control bomb, disguised in a walkie-talkie, handed to Walter Rodney by a senior military officer, Gregory Smith, was the weapon used to assassinate him. The bomb exploded in Walter Rodney's lap while he sat in a car with his brother in Georgetown, ending his life. He was 38 years old.
1. Walter Rodney was born in Georgetown, Guyana on March 23, 1942.
2. Walter Rodney came from a working class family. His father Edward was a tailor and his mother Pauline was a seamstress.
3. Walter Rodney was married to Dr Patricia Rodney and had three children Shaka, Kanini and Asha.
4. Walter Rodney attended Queen's College, the top male high school in Guyana, and in 1960 graduated first in his class, winning an open scholarship to the University of the West Indies (UWI). He pursued his undergraduate studies at UWI Mona Campus in Jamaica, where he graduated with 1st class honors in History in 1963. Rodney then attended the School of Oriental and African Studies in London where, at the age of 24, he received his PhD with honors in African History. Rodney's thesis, A History of the Upper Guinea Coast, was published by Oxford University Press in 1970.
5. As a student in Jamaica and England, Walter Rodney was active in student politics and participated in discussion circles, spoke at the famous Hyde Park and, participated in a symposium on Guyana in 1965. It was during this period that Walter came into contact with the legendary CLR James and was one of his most devoted students.
6. Walter Rodney was multi-lingual. He learnt Spanish, Portuguese, French and Swahili which was necessary to facilitate his research.
7. Walter Rodney's first teaching appointment was in Tanzania before returning to the University of the West Indies, in 1968.
8. Rodney combined his scholarship with activism and became a voice for the under-represented and disenfranchised - this distinguished him from his academic colleagues. He took his message of Black Power, Black Liberation and African consciousness to the masses in Jamaica. In particular he shared his knowledge of African history with one of the most rejected section of the Jamaican society- the Rastafarians. His speeches and lectures to these groups were published as Grounding with My Brothers, and became central to the Caribbean Black Power Movement.
9. Rodney's activities attracted the Jamaican government's attention and after attending the 1968 Black Writers' Conference in Montreal, Canada he was banned from re-entering the country. This decision was to have profound repercussions, sparking widespread riots and revolts in Kingston on 6 October 1968, known as 'the Rodney Riots.'
10. Having been expelled from Jamaica, Walter returned to Tanzania after a short stay in Cuba. There he lectured from 1968 to 1974 and continued his groundings in Tanzania and other parts of Africa. Walter Rodney became deeply involved in the African Liberation Struggles at that time.
11. Walter Rodney's participation in African Liberation Struggles influenced his second major work, and his best known --How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. It was published by Jessica and Eric Huntley of Bogle-L'Ouverture in London, in conjunction with Tanzanian Publishing House in 1972.
12. Walter Rodney established an intellectual tradition which still today makes Dar es Salaam one of the centers of discussion of African politics and history. Walter wrote the critical articles on Tanzanian Ujamaa, imperialism, on underdevelopment, and the problems of state and class formation in Africa. Many of his articles which were written in Tanzania appeared in Maji Maji, the discussion journal of the TANU Youth League at the University.
13. Walter Rodney was a Pan-Africanist. He developed close political relationships with those who were struggling to change the external control of Africa and was very close to some of the leaders of liberation movements in Africa. Together with other Pan-Africanists, he participated in discussions leading up to the Sixth Pan-African Congress, held in Tanzania, 1974. Before the Congress he wrote a piece: "Towards the Sixth Pan-African Congress: Aspects of the International Class Struggle in Africa, the Caribbean and America."
14. In 1974, Walter Rodney returned to Guyana to take up an appointment as Professor of History at the University of Guyana, but the government rescinded the appointment.
15. Walter Rodney joined the newly formed political group, the Working People's Alliance, emerging as the leading figure in the resistance movement against the PNC government. During this period he developed his ideas on the self emancipation of the working people, People's Power, and multiracial democracy.
16. On July 11, 1979, Walter, together with seven others, was arrested following the burning down of two government offices. He, along with Drs Rupert Roopnarine and Omawale, was later charged with arson.
17. From that period up to the time of his murder, Rodney lived with constant police harassment and frequent threats against his life he nonetheless managed to complete four books in the last year of his life: An academic work: A History of the Guyanese Working People, 1881-1905; A political call to action; People's Power, No Dictator, and two children's books: Kofi Baadu Out of Africa and Lakshmi Out of India.
18. On Friday 13 June 1980, a remote control bomb, disguised in a walkie-talkie, handed to Walter Rodney by a senior military officer, Gregory Smith, was the weapon used to assassinate him. The bomb exploded in Walter Rodney's lap while he sat in a car with his brother in Georgetown, ending his life. He was 38 years old.
Jumatatu, 21 Machi 2016
The Day Mwalimu Nyerere Refused to Meet US Boxer Muhammad Ali
21 March 1980 – US President Jimmy Carter announces a United States boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow to protest the Soviet war in Afghanistan.
Boxer Muhammad Ali was dispatched by the US administration to Tanzania, Nigeria, and Senegal to convince their leaders to join the boycott.
Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere, insulted that Carter had sent a mere athlete to discuss the boycott, refused to meet with the special envoy. Ali was hustled into a press conference that quickly became combative. The boxer was stunned when asked if he was a puppet of the White House. He said: "Nobody made me come here and I’m nobody’s Uncle Tom."
Tanzania competed at the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, USSR. The nation won its first ever Olympic medals at these Games.
Medalists were Suleiman Nyambui — Athletics, Men's 5,000 metres and Filbert Bayi — Athletics, Men's 3,000 metres Steeplechase. Both won silver medals.
Boxer Muhammad Ali was dispatched by the US administration to Tanzania, Nigeria, and Senegal to convince their leaders to join the boycott.
Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere, insulted that Carter had sent a mere athlete to discuss the boycott, refused to meet with the special envoy. Ali was hustled into a press conference that quickly became combative. The boxer was stunned when asked if he was a puppet of the White House. He said: "Nobody made me come here and I’m nobody’s Uncle Tom."
Tanzania competed at the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, USSR. The nation won its first ever Olympic medals at these Games.
Medalists were Suleiman Nyambui — Athletics, Men's 5,000 metres and Filbert Bayi — Athletics, Men's 3,000 metres Steeplechase. Both won silver medals.
Jumapili, 20 Machi 2016
A Life of Critical Engagement: An Interview with Issa Shivji
A Life of Critical Engagement: An Interview with Issa Shivji
Issa Shivji is one of the great public intellectuals of postcolonial Africa. He was a law student (1967-1970) at the University of Dar es Salaam, growing up amidst distinguished leftist scholars such as sociologists Giovanni Arrighi, Immanuel Wallerstein and John Saul. These scholars came from all over the world, attracted to the formative intellectual ferment at the university. Even as a precocious student, Shivji began to challenge the socialist policies of the Ujamaa regime of Julius Nyerere, the first President of Tanzania. During this early period he wrote such celebrated and widely-debated works as The Silent Class Struggle that drew attention to the social forces that were politically (un)represented in the new postcolonies of Africa. After receiving degrees from the London School of Economics and the University of Dar es Salaam, he took up a post in the Faculty of Law which he never left until retiring in 2006. During that time he became a public figure devoted to land reform and constitutional law. He survived political turbulence despite his outspoken commentaries on the turn to neoliberalism in the 1980s as well as the corporatization of the university. In 2008 he was awarded the Julius Nyerere Chair in Pan-African Studies with the express purpose of restoring the university as a center of public debate. Professor Shivji has inspired many younger academics, such as the political science lecturer, Sabatho Nyamsenda, who conducted this interview. He was also an active participant in the ISA’s World Congress in Durban, South Africa (2006).
SN: Your association with the University of Dar es Salaam (also known as Mlimani, or the Hill) started in 1967 as a law student, and after graduating you joined the law faculty at the same university – a position that you held for 36 years. Why did you decide to remain at the University while most of your progressive colleagues joined other institutions?
IS: True, many of my comrades joined other institutions including the National Service Office, the Party and even the army. In hindsight, it may sound a bit naïve, but the truth is that it was a collective decision of comrades as to who would be most effective where. Comrades thought, and I agreed, that I should remain at the University to do progressive intellectual and ideological work.
The University did provide relative space for progressive ideas to flourish, a terrain where progressive intellectual camaraderie could be created and sustained. At the time, the overall nationalist commitment combined with the deeper intellectual understanding of the imperialist system helped to cultivate radical young scholars, many of whom ended up as teachers in secondary schools thus further fertilizing progressive thought and practice.
I have never regretted spending the whole of my working life at the Hill.
SN: In your Accumulation in an African Periphery you divide the post-colonial experience of African countries, and Tanzania in particular, into three phases: the nationalist phase (1960s and 1970s), the critical phase (1980s) and the neoliberal phase (1990s to the present). How did these changes affect Mlimani?
IS: Universities exist in a social environment and they are obviously affected by changes in that environment. The decade of the eighties was an extremely critical period for our country as, indeed, it was for the rest of Africa. Universities were starved of resources while at the same time being exposed to an incessant ideological and intellectual onslaught of neo-liberal prescriptions. Many of our colleagues left for universities in Southern Africa – Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland and later South Africa and Namibia.
But some stuck it out, including many young radical scholars who had imbibed progressive ideas during the first two decades of revolutionary nationalist fervor. They continued to do some very good work. For example, they led the intellectual side of the “great” constitutional debate in 1983-4 articulating anti-authoritarian and anti-statist positions. Of course, there were different tendencies, those seeing liberal democracy, human rights, multi-party as the ultimate goal and therefore demanding essentially reformist reforms. Then a minority tendency saw the struggle for democracy as a school for independent class actions; they called for revolutionary reforms. To give one example: The reformists would demand immediate institution of the multi-party system while revolutionaries would demand, first, a separation of the party and the state, and second, a protracted national debate taking stock of the post-independence period and chart out and build a new national consensus.
In the transition from the nationalist to the neo-liberal period, the Hill was still a hotbed of debates and ideological struggles. These fizzled out during the third phase government as neo-liberalism consolidated itself in the country and vocationalization and corporatization of the University gained momentum.
SN: In 2008, you were appointed the first incumbent of the Mwalimu Nyerere Professorial Chair in Pan-African Studies, known as Kigoda in Kiswahili. Soon after you were installed, you were quoted saying it was “an honor” for you “to keep Nyerere’s legacy alive.” Which legacy were you referring to, given the fact that the Nyerere you describe in your writings is vehemently opposed to Marxism and struggles from below?
IS: Nyerere was a radical nationalist. He was a progressive Pan-Africanist and broadly anti-imperialist. To be sure, his anti-imperialism was not grounded in radical political economy, as was Nkrumah’s. Yet, his pro-people stance was consistent; his anti-imperialist position supportable and his nationalism progressive.
In comparison to the neo-liberal political class that succeeded him, and mindful of the havoc that this class has created in our society, woe unto any progressive, even a Marxist, who wouldn’t want to recall Nyerere’s legacy and deploy it as an ideological resource in the struggle against the current rapacious phase of capitalism.
Nyerere was not a Marxist and he didn’t disguise himself as one. Marx himself when confronted with vulgar Marxism exclaimed: “I am not a Marxist!”
As a head of state, it is true he came out against struggles from below. But does that mean that a progressive person should not celebrate Nyerere’s progressive legacy and draw lessons from its contradictory character? My friend, a Marxist is not a purist; s/he is political!
SN: What do you mean by the “contradictory character” of Nyerere’s legacy?
IS: I can do no better than give an anecdote about Mwalimu himself. A few months after he had thrown out students from the Hill for demonstrating against the state in 1978, he visited the campus. One student was courageous enough to ask him something to the effect: “Mwalimu, you talk about democracy but when we demonstrated in the interest of democracy you sent the FFU [Field Force Unit] to beat us up!”
Mwalimu stared at him, and then replied: “What did you expect? I am head of state; I preside over the institution which wields the monopoly of violence. If you cause chaos in the streets, of course I’d send in the FFU. But does that mean you shouldn’t fight for democracy? Democracy is never given on a silver platter!” [not his exact words]
And we all clapped. Mwalimu could have his cake and eat it!
SN: The Iranian revolutionary intellectual Ali Shariati once dubbed universities “invincible fortified fortresses,” whose main task is to produce intellectual slaves for the corporate world. Did the Kigoda, the Pan-African Studies Program, manage to open the gates of the Mlimani “fortress,” and link its intellectuals with the masses? If yes, how?
IS: It would be foolish for me to claim that Kigoda managed to open the gates of the university “fortress.” In Althusserian terms, universities are part of the ideological state apparatus. The dominant intellectuals there are undoubtedly producers and conveyors of dominant knowledge, which forms the basis of dominant ideologies.
But by the very nature of the process of production of knowledge, there is bound to be a clash of ideas. This allows some space for outlooks other than dominant ones. Nonetheless, such spaces should not be taken for granted. They have their limits and, in critical times, even those spaces are suppressed. It is a struggle to claim and reclaim on a continuous basis those progressive spaces. And like all struggles, these intellectual struggles also require imagination as to their forms and methods.
This is all that Kigoda attempted to do; nothing more. Perhaps it managed to cause some intellectual fervor; perhaps it managed to gain some credibility with young intellectuals and the people; perhaps it managed to excavate progressive archives of the Hill. Even that had limits, and those limits began to show towards the end of my term.
One can only do so much within the given circumstances. I think it was E.H. Carr, following Plekhanov and before him Marx, who said that while individuals make history, they do not choose the circumstances in which they do so.
SN: Nyerere once warned the oppressed against using money as their weapon. Yet, funding seems to have become central to intellectual projects nowadays. No work is done without money. Even the most progressive organizations have found it inevitable to kneel before the capitalist agencies in search of money. How did Kigoda run its activities?
IS: Yes, money, and donor money at that, has become the motor driving intellectual projects. Kigoda undoubtedly faced the problem of funding, but it established certain principles right at the outset. First, all administrative expenses, including the salaries of the Chair and his assistant, would come from the regular University budget. Second, Kigoda would avoid taking money from foreign donors. Third, whatever funding is given by domestic public institutions or friendly African intellectual organizations should be without strings attached. And, finally, the agenda and the activities of Kigoda would be set strictly by the Kigoda collective.
It was not easy but by keeping our budget modest, relying heavily on voluntary work and spending with a lot of prudence, we managed.
SN: Now that you have retired from the university, what are the projects you are planning to undertake?
IS: While still at the University, with two colleagues, Professor Saida Yahya-Othman and Dr. Ng’wanza Kamata, I embarked on the project to write a definitive biography of Mwalimu Nyerere supported by the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology. We have now more or less completed our research – if you can ever complete a research of this kind – and have now started the process of writing.
One of the important outcomes of that project is the establishment of the Nyerere Resource Centre (NRC). The Centre will have a documentation room where all the material we collected will be stored and made available to researchers. Around the Centre we will organize activities with a view to providing a platform for strategic thinking, debates and discussions. We hope to begin activities this year. It is my hope that NRC will become a hub for reflecting on many burning issues facing the country and the continent.
I feel that the neo-liberal, NGOism and consultancy culture with their emphasis on policy – more “action,” little thought – and prescriptive prognosis has taken a toll on our intellectual thinking, the result of which is that we have abdicated analyzing and understanding the world. We cannot fight for a better world without understanding the world better. For that, we need to take a longer view of history. Hopefully, the Centre will contribute towards reviving the culture of holistic, long-term thinking.
Issa Shivji is one of the great public intellectuals of postcolonial Africa. He was a law student (1967-1970) at the University of Dar es Salaam, growing up amidst distinguished leftist scholars such as sociologists Giovanni Arrighi, Immanuel Wallerstein and John Saul. These scholars came from all over the world, attracted to the formative intellectual ferment at the university. Even as a precocious student, Shivji began to challenge the socialist policies of the Ujamaa regime of Julius Nyerere, the first President of Tanzania. During this early period he wrote such celebrated and widely-debated works as The Silent Class Struggle that drew attention to the social forces that were politically (un)represented in the new postcolonies of Africa. After receiving degrees from the London School of Economics and the University of Dar es Salaam, he took up a post in the Faculty of Law which he never left until retiring in 2006. During that time he became a public figure devoted to land reform and constitutional law. He survived political turbulence despite his outspoken commentaries on the turn to neoliberalism in the 1980s as well as the corporatization of the university. In 2008 he was awarded the Julius Nyerere Chair in Pan-African Studies with the express purpose of restoring the university as a center of public debate. Professor Shivji has inspired many younger academics, such as the political science lecturer, Sabatho Nyamsenda, who conducted this interview. He was also an active participant in the ISA’s World Congress in Durban, South Africa (2006).
SN: Your association with the University of Dar es Salaam (also known as Mlimani, or the Hill) started in 1967 as a law student, and after graduating you joined the law faculty at the same university – a position that you held for 36 years. Why did you decide to remain at the University while most of your progressive colleagues joined other institutions?
IS: True, many of my comrades joined other institutions including the National Service Office, the Party and even the army. In hindsight, it may sound a bit naïve, but the truth is that it was a collective decision of comrades as to who would be most effective where. Comrades thought, and I agreed, that I should remain at the University to do progressive intellectual and ideological work.
The University did provide relative space for progressive ideas to flourish, a terrain where progressive intellectual camaraderie could be created and sustained. At the time, the overall nationalist commitment combined with the deeper intellectual understanding of the imperialist system helped to cultivate radical young scholars, many of whom ended up as teachers in secondary schools thus further fertilizing progressive thought and practice.
I have never regretted spending the whole of my working life at the Hill.
SN: In your Accumulation in an African Periphery you divide the post-colonial experience of African countries, and Tanzania in particular, into three phases: the nationalist phase (1960s and 1970s), the critical phase (1980s) and the neoliberal phase (1990s to the present). How did these changes affect Mlimani?
IS: Universities exist in a social environment and they are obviously affected by changes in that environment. The decade of the eighties was an extremely critical period for our country as, indeed, it was for the rest of Africa. Universities were starved of resources while at the same time being exposed to an incessant ideological and intellectual onslaught of neo-liberal prescriptions. Many of our colleagues left for universities in Southern Africa – Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland and later South Africa and Namibia.
But some stuck it out, including many young radical scholars who had imbibed progressive ideas during the first two decades of revolutionary nationalist fervor. They continued to do some very good work. For example, they led the intellectual side of the “great” constitutional debate in 1983-4 articulating anti-authoritarian and anti-statist positions. Of course, there were different tendencies, those seeing liberal democracy, human rights, multi-party as the ultimate goal and therefore demanding essentially reformist reforms. Then a minority tendency saw the struggle for democracy as a school for independent class actions; they called for revolutionary reforms. To give one example: The reformists would demand immediate institution of the multi-party system while revolutionaries would demand, first, a separation of the party and the state, and second, a protracted national debate taking stock of the post-independence period and chart out and build a new national consensus.
In the transition from the nationalist to the neo-liberal period, the Hill was still a hotbed of debates and ideological struggles. These fizzled out during the third phase government as neo-liberalism consolidated itself in the country and vocationalization and corporatization of the University gained momentum.
SN: In 2008, you were appointed the first incumbent of the Mwalimu Nyerere Professorial Chair in Pan-African Studies, known as Kigoda in Kiswahili. Soon after you were installed, you were quoted saying it was “an honor” for you “to keep Nyerere’s legacy alive.” Which legacy were you referring to, given the fact that the Nyerere you describe in your writings is vehemently opposed to Marxism and struggles from below?
IS: Nyerere was a radical nationalist. He was a progressive Pan-Africanist and broadly anti-imperialist. To be sure, his anti-imperialism was not grounded in radical political economy, as was Nkrumah’s. Yet, his pro-people stance was consistent; his anti-imperialist position supportable and his nationalism progressive.
In comparison to the neo-liberal political class that succeeded him, and mindful of the havoc that this class has created in our society, woe unto any progressive, even a Marxist, who wouldn’t want to recall Nyerere’s legacy and deploy it as an ideological resource in the struggle against the current rapacious phase of capitalism.
Nyerere was not a Marxist and he didn’t disguise himself as one. Marx himself when confronted with vulgar Marxism exclaimed: “I am not a Marxist!”
As a head of state, it is true he came out against struggles from below. But does that mean that a progressive person should not celebrate Nyerere’s progressive legacy and draw lessons from its contradictory character? My friend, a Marxist is not a purist; s/he is political!
SN: What do you mean by the “contradictory character” of Nyerere’s legacy?
IS: I can do no better than give an anecdote about Mwalimu himself. A few months after he had thrown out students from the Hill for demonstrating against the state in 1978, he visited the campus. One student was courageous enough to ask him something to the effect: “Mwalimu, you talk about democracy but when we demonstrated in the interest of democracy you sent the FFU [Field Force Unit] to beat us up!”
Mwalimu stared at him, and then replied: “What did you expect? I am head of state; I preside over the institution which wields the monopoly of violence. If you cause chaos in the streets, of course I’d send in the FFU. But does that mean you shouldn’t fight for democracy? Democracy is never given on a silver platter!” [not his exact words]
And we all clapped. Mwalimu could have his cake and eat it!
SN: The Iranian revolutionary intellectual Ali Shariati once dubbed universities “invincible fortified fortresses,” whose main task is to produce intellectual slaves for the corporate world. Did the Kigoda, the Pan-African Studies Program, manage to open the gates of the Mlimani “fortress,” and link its intellectuals with the masses? If yes, how?
IS: It would be foolish for me to claim that Kigoda managed to open the gates of the university “fortress.” In Althusserian terms, universities are part of the ideological state apparatus. The dominant intellectuals there are undoubtedly producers and conveyors of dominant knowledge, which forms the basis of dominant ideologies.
But by the very nature of the process of production of knowledge, there is bound to be a clash of ideas. This allows some space for outlooks other than dominant ones. Nonetheless, such spaces should not be taken for granted. They have their limits and, in critical times, even those spaces are suppressed. It is a struggle to claim and reclaim on a continuous basis those progressive spaces. And like all struggles, these intellectual struggles also require imagination as to their forms and methods.
This is all that Kigoda attempted to do; nothing more. Perhaps it managed to cause some intellectual fervor; perhaps it managed to gain some credibility with young intellectuals and the people; perhaps it managed to excavate progressive archives of the Hill. Even that had limits, and those limits began to show towards the end of my term.
One can only do so much within the given circumstances. I think it was E.H. Carr, following Plekhanov and before him Marx, who said that while individuals make history, they do not choose the circumstances in which they do so.
SN: Nyerere once warned the oppressed against using money as their weapon. Yet, funding seems to have become central to intellectual projects nowadays. No work is done without money. Even the most progressive organizations have found it inevitable to kneel before the capitalist agencies in search of money. How did Kigoda run its activities?
IS: Yes, money, and donor money at that, has become the motor driving intellectual projects. Kigoda undoubtedly faced the problem of funding, but it established certain principles right at the outset. First, all administrative expenses, including the salaries of the Chair and his assistant, would come from the regular University budget. Second, Kigoda would avoid taking money from foreign donors. Third, whatever funding is given by domestic public institutions or friendly African intellectual organizations should be without strings attached. And, finally, the agenda and the activities of Kigoda would be set strictly by the Kigoda collective.
It was not easy but by keeping our budget modest, relying heavily on voluntary work and spending with a lot of prudence, we managed.
SN: Now that you have retired from the university, what are the projects you are planning to undertake?
IS: While still at the University, with two colleagues, Professor Saida Yahya-Othman and Dr. Ng’wanza Kamata, I embarked on the project to write a definitive biography of Mwalimu Nyerere supported by the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology. We have now more or less completed our research – if you can ever complete a research of this kind – and have now started the process of writing.
One of the important outcomes of that project is the establishment of the Nyerere Resource Centre (NRC). The Centre will have a documentation room where all the material we collected will be stored and made available to researchers. Around the Centre we will organize activities with a view to providing a platform for strategic thinking, debates and discussions. We hope to begin activities this year. It is my hope that NRC will become a hub for reflecting on many burning issues facing the country and the continent.
I feel that the neo-liberal, NGOism and consultancy culture with their emphasis on policy – more “action,” little thought – and prescriptive prognosis has taken a toll on our intellectual thinking, the result of which is that we have abdicated analyzing and understanding the world. We cannot fight for a better world without understanding the world better. For that, we need to take a longer view of history. Hopefully, the Centre will contribute towards reviving the culture of holistic, long-term thinking.
MIAKA 100 TANGU 'OTA BENGA' AFARIKI UGHAIBUNI
Ota Benga ni binadamu aliyenunuliwa kama mtumwa kutoka Kongo na kuchukuliwa na Wazungu kwenda nchini Marekani katika hifadhi ya wanyama kwa ajili ya maonesho. Mwaka 1904 alishiriki katika 'Maonesho ya Louisiana' ikiwa ni maadhimisho ya miaka 100 tangu Marekani iliponunua eneo la Louisiana kutoka kwa Ufaransa. Alikuwa akioneshwa katika maonesho mbalimbali kuelezea hatua za mabadiliko ya binadamu (evolution).
Katika karne ya 20 ilikuwa ni jambo la kawaida binadamu hasa kutoka nchi za Afrika kutumika katika maonesho mbalimbali kuonesha 'hatua za awali' za mabadiliko ya binadamu (early stages of human evolution).
Ota Benga alizaliwa katika Kongo ya Wabelgiji (Belgian Congo) katika jamii ya watu wa Mbuti karibu na Mto Kasai. Aliishi Marekani hadi alipofariki kwa kujiua mwenyewe kutokana na msongo wa mawazo.
Leo tarehe 20 Machi, 1916 imetimia miaka 100 tangu alipofariki.
Katika karne ya 20 ilikuwa ni jambo la kawaida binadamu hasa kutoka nchi za Afrika kutumika katika maonesho mbalimbali kuonesha 'hatua za awali' za mabadiliko ya binadamu (early stages of human evolution).
Ota Benga alizaliwa katika Kongo ya Wabelgiji (Belgian Congo) katika jamii ya watu wa Mbuti karibu na Mto Kasai. Aliishi Marekani hadi alipofariki kwa kujiua mwenyewe kutokana na msongo wa mawazo.
Leo tarehe 20 Machi, 1916 imetimia miaka 100 tangu alipofariki.
Jumanne, 15 Machi 2016
Nyerere's ultimatum on South Africa's apartheid
Tanzania is among the countries that highly criticised South Africa's apartheid policies. In August 1960 Mwalimu Julius Nyerere said: "To vote South Africa in, is to vote us out." Finally on 15 March 1961 South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth of Nations.
Jumapili, 13 Machi 2016
13 Machi 2016 - Rais Magufuli atangaza Wakuu wa Mikoa wapya.
TAARIFA KWA VYOMBO VYA HABARI
Rais wa Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania Dkt. John Pombe Magufuli amefanya uteuzi wa wakuu wa Mikoa 26 ya Tanzania Bara, ambapo kati yao 13 ni wapya, 7 wamebakizwa katika vituo vyao vya kazi, 5 wamehamishwa vituo vya kazi na 1 amepangiwa Mkoa Mpya wa Songwe.
Uteuzi huo umetangazwa na Kaimu Katibu Mkuu Kiongozi, Mhandisi Mussa Ibrahim Iyombe leo tarehe 13 Machi, 2016 Ikulu Jijini Dar es salaam.
Wakuu wa Mikoa walioteuliwa ni kama ifuatavyo;
1. Mh. Paul Makonda - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Dar es salaam.
2. Meja Jenerali Mstaafu Ezekiel Elias Kyunga - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Geita.
3. Meja Jenerali Mstaafu Salum Mustafa Kijuu - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Kagera.
4. Meja Jenerali Mstaafu Raphael Muhuga - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Katavi.
5. Brigedia Jeneral Mstaafu Emmanuel Maganga - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Kigoma.
6. Mh. Godfrey Zambi - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Lindi.
7. Dkt. Steven Kebwe - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Morogoro.
8. Kamishna Mstaafu wa Polisi Zerote Steven - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Rukwa.
9. Mh. Anna Malecela Kilango - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Shinyanga.
10. Mhandisi Methew Mtigumwe - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Singida.
11. Mh. Antony Mataka - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Simiyu.
12. Mh. Aggrey Mwanri - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Tabora.
13. Mh. Martine Shigela - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Tanga.
14. Mh. Jordan Mungire Rugimbana - Mkuu wa Mkoa Dodoma.
15. Mh. Said Meck Sadick - Mkuu wa Mkoa Kilimanjaro.
16. Mh. Magesa Mulongo - Mkuu wa Mkoa Mara.
17. Mh. Amos Gabriel Makalla - Mkuu wa Mkoa Mbeya.
18. Mh. John Vianey Mongella - Mkuu wa Mkoa Mwanza.
19. Mh. Daudi Felix Ntibenda - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Arusha.
20. Mh. Amina Juma Masenza - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Iringa.
21. Mh. Joel Nkaya Bendera - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Manyara.
22. Mh. Halima Omary Dendegu - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Mtwara.
23. Dkt. Rehema Nchimbi - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Njombe.
24. Mhandisi Evarist Ndikilo - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Pwani.
25. Mh. Said Thabit Mwambungu - Mkuu wa Mkoa Ruvuma.
26. Luteni Mstaafu Chiku Galawa - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Songwe (Mkoa mpya).
Wakuu wote wa Mikoa walioteuliwa, wataapishwa Jumanne tarehe 15 Machi, 2016 saa 3:30 Asubuhi Ikulu, Jijini Dar es salaam.
Gerson Msigwa
Kaimu Mkurugenzi wa Mawasiliano, IKULU
Dar es salaam
13 Machi, 2016
Rais wa Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania Dkt. John Pombe Magufuli amefanya uteuzi wa wakuu wa Mikoa 26 ya Tanzania Bara, ambapo kati yao 13 ni wapya, 7 wamebakizwa katika vituo vyao vya kazi, 5 wamehamishwa vituo vya kazi na 1 amepangiwa Mkoa Mpya wa Songwe.
Uteuzi huo umetangazwa na Kaimu Katibu Mkuu Kiongozi, Mhandisi Mussa Ibrahim Iyombe leo tarehe 13 Machi, 2016 Ikulu Jijini Dar es salaam.
Wakuu wa Mikoa walioteuliwa ni kama ifuatavyo;
1. Mh. Paul Makonda - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Dar es salaam.
2. Meja Jenerali Mstaafu Ezekiel Elias Kyunga - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Geita.
3. Meja Jenerali Mstaafu Salum Mustafa Kijuu - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Kagera.
4. Meja Jenerali Mstaafu Raphael Muhuga - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Katavi.
5. Brigedia Jeneral Mstaafu Emmanuel Maganga - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Kigoma.
6. Mh. Godfrey Zambi - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Lindi.
7. Dkt. Steven Kebwe - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Morogoro.
8. Kamishna Mstaafu wa Polisi Zerote Steven - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Rukwa.
9. Mh. Anna Malecela Kilango - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Shinyanga.
10. Mhandisi Methew Mtigumwe - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Singida.
11. Mh. Antony Mataka - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Simiyu.
12. Mh. Aggrey Mwanri - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Tabora.
13. Mh. Martine Shigela - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Tanga.
14. Mh. Jordan Mungire Rugimbana - Mkuu wa Mkoa Dodoma.
15. Mh. Said Meck Sadick - Mkuu wa Mkoa Kilimanjaro.
16. Mh. Magesa Mulongo - Mkuu wa Mkoa Mara.
17. Mh. Amos Gabriel Makalla - Mkuu wa Mkoa Mbeya.
18. Mh. John Vianey Mongella - Mkuu wa Mkoa Mwanza.
19. Mh. Daudi Felix Ntibenda - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Arusha.
20. Mh. Amina Juma Masenza - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Iringa.
21. Mh. Joel Nkaya Bendera - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Manyara.
22. Mh. Halima Omary Dendegu - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Mtwara.
23. Dkt. Rehema Nchimbi - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Njombe.
24. Mhandisi Evarist Ndikilo - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Pwani.
25. Mh. Said Thabit Mwambungu - Mkuu wa Mkoa Ruvuma.
26. Luteni Mstaafu Chiku Galawa - Mkuu wa Mkoa wa Songwe (Mkoa mpya).
Wakuu wote wa Mikoa walioteuliwa, wataapishwa Jumanne tarehe 15 Machi, 2016 saa 3:30 Asubuhi Ikulu, Jijini Dar es salaam.
Gerson Msigwa
Kaimu Mkurugenzi wa Mawasiliano, IKULU
Dar es salaam
13 Machi, 2016
Jumamosi, 12 Machi 2016
Death threats, opposition leader flees country
13 March 1983: Nkomo flees Zimbabwe 'death threats'
The Zimbabwe opposition leader flies into London as his country appears to be on the brink of civil war.
The Zimbabwe opposition leader flies into London as his country appears to be on the brink of civil war.
Diamond Plutnumz amwaga chozi, ni baada ya vipimo vya DNA kuhusu Tifah Dangote
Msanii wa Tanzania Naseeb Abdul maarufu kama Diamond Platnumz na familia yake wamefanya vipimo vya DNA nchini Afrika Kusini na imebainika kuwa Tifah Dangote ni mtoto wao wa kinasaba. Tangu Diamond na Zari Hassan wampate mtoto huyo, kumekuwa na mijadala mingi kwenye vyombo mbalimbali vya habari ikiwemo mitandao ya kijamii kuwa Tifah si mtoto wa Diamond bali mtoto wa Ivan Ssemwanga ambaye ni mume wa zamani wa Zari Hassan. Habari kutoka kwa mtu wa karibu sana na Diamond zinasema nyota huyo wa wimbo 'Utanipenda' inaotamba kwa sasa, alibubujikwa na machozi ya furaha baada ya vipimo kuonesha Tifah ni mtoto wake halali.
Ijumaa, 11 Machi 2016
11 March 1966 - Benjamin Mwangata was born.
11 March 1966 - Benjamin Mwangata, a retired male boxer from Tanzania who represented his native East African country as a flyweight in two consecutive Summer Olympics, starting in 1988 (Seoul) was born. He also competed at two Commonwealth Games: 1990 and 1998.
Alhamisi, 10 Machi 2016
Mahatma Gandhi arrested, imprisoned!
10 March 1922 – Mahatma Gandhi is arrested in India, tried for sedition, and sentenced to six years in prison, only to be released after nearly two years for an appendicitis operation.
US buys piece of land from France
10 March 1804 – Louisiana Purchase: In St. Louis, Missouri, a formal ceremony is conducted to transfer ownership of the Louisiana Territory from France to the United States.
The Louisiana Purchase occurred during the term of the third President of the United States,
Thomas Jefferson. Before the purchase was finalized, the decision faced Federalist Party opposition; they argued that it was unconstitutional to acquire any territory. Jefferson agreed that the U.S. Constitution did not contain explicit provisions for acquiring territory, but he did have full treaty power and that was enough.
The Louisiana Purchase occurred during the term of the third President of the United States,
Thomas Jefferson. Before the purchase was finalized, the decision faced Federalist Party opposition; they argued that it was unconstitutional to acquire any territory. Jefferson agreed that the U.S. Constitution did not contain explicit provisions for acquiring territory, but he did have full treaty power and that was enough.
Jumatano, 9 Machi 2016
Mjerumani aliyetawala Tanganyika afariki
9 Machi 1964 - Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck anafariki. Huyu alikuwa Jenerali wa Jeshi la Ujerumani na kamanda wa vikosi Afrika Mashariki. Mnamo tarehe 13 Aprili 1914 aliteuliwa kuongoza vikosi vya Ujerumani katika himaya ya Tanganyika.
Jina "America" limetokana huyu mtu
9 Machi 1454 - Amerigo Vespucci,mpelelezi na baharia wa Italia anazaliwa.Aligundua sehemu ambayo alita 'New World'lakini baadaye ilipewa jina la 'America'kwa kuchukua neno la kilatini 'Americus'lenye maana sawa na jina lake 'Amerigo.'Huyu ndiye aliyegundua kuwa Brazil na West Indes siyo sehemu ya Asia kama mtangulizi wake Christopher Columbus, baharia na mpelelezi wa Ureno alivyodai hapo awali. Jina la kila nchi duniani lina asili yake. Jina 'Tanzania' limetokana na kuchukua baadhi ya herufi katika jina 'Tanganyika' na 'Zanzibar.'
#History Waziri Mkuu wa Italia ajiuzulu
9 Machi 1896 – Waziri Mkuu wa Italia Francesco Crispi ajiuzulu baada ya Italia kushindwa vibaya katika "Mapigano ya Adwa" nchini Ethiopia.
Jumanne, 8 Machi 2016
Slavery in the United States
#History 9 March 1841 – The U.S. Supreme Court rules in the
United States v. The Amistad case that captive Africans who had seized control of the ship carrying them had been taken into slavery illegally.
United States v. The Amistad case that captive Africans who had seized control of the ship carrying them had been taken into slavery illegally.
#History 8 Machi 1930 - Bishop John Gerald #NEVILLE became the Apostolic Administrator of #Zanzibar (#Tanzania).
#History 8 Machi 1930 - Bishop John Gerald #NEVILLE became the Apostolic Administrator of #Zanzibar (#Tanzania).
#History 8 Machi 1913 - Siku ya Wanawake Duniani Yaanzishwa
Siku ya Wanawake Duniani imekuwa ikiadhimishwa kila mwaka tangu ilipoanza kwa mara ya kwanza mwaka 1913. Siku hii huadhimishwa katika nchi nyingi duniani kuakisi maendeleo ya wanawake katika historia.
Jisajili kwenye:
Machapisho (Atom)