Misinformation is EAC Integration's biggest Hurdle, not Tanzania

Nico Minde

Tanzania has occasionally been accused as a stumbling bloc to the efforts of greater and deeper integration of the East African Community. Detractors and doomsayers have gone as far labeling Tanzania a sympathetic and closer to the Southern African Development Community (SADC). A new term has now been coined by the other partner states to show their solidarity minus Tanzania "The coalition of the willing". This came after the heads of states of Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda and some representatives from countries eyeing EAC membership met in the port city of Mombasa to discuss issues of trade. Tanzanian leaders reiterated that they were not invited. Tanzania's East African Community Affairs Minister Samuel Sitta has slammed this as "an act of isolation" and said that "Tanzania will not be bullied into fast-tracking the integration".  Tanzania's stance has always been a gradual and systematic approach to integration. 

The current tripartite coalition of Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda is contrary to the spirit of the community. But that being said, EAC's biggest hurdle is not Tanzania but misinformation and lack of civic awareness among the people of East Africa. Many a times, the EAC has been labeled an elitist body. That couldn't be far from the truth. The bloc has turned into a boardroom agenda of the Summit, the Council of Ministers and other technocrats. Many rural people do not know what the East African Community is and what its goals are. The integration paths of Economic Union, Common Market Protocol, a Monetary Union and ultimately a Political Federation are virtually unknown to the local people.

Just the other day, angry Kenyans reacted on social media to the alleged chasing out of Kenyans from Tanzania using the hash tag #SomeoneTellTanzania and Tanzanians reacted with a similar #SomeoneTellKenya. Reading the tweets, one could see the level of misinformation among the citizens of East Africa. People know very little about one another. We do not appreciate our differences and strengths. We have become very insensitive to one another. This can only be remedied through thorough civic education. The EAC leadership under the General Secretary Richard Sezibera should aim at incorporating integration studies in the school curriculum, where children are taught to appreciate the values of their neighbors and this will no doubt strengthen the quest for regional integration.    

Why Iran seeks constructive engagement

OPINION

By Hassan Rouhani,
Hassan Rouhani is president of Iran.

Three months ago, my platform of “prudence and hope” gained a broad, popular mandate. Iranians embraced my approach to domestic and international affairs because they saw it as long overdue. I’m committed to fulfilling my promises to my people, including my pledge to engage in constructive interaction with the world.

The world has changed. International politics is no longer a zero-sum game but a multi-dimensional arena where cooperation and competition often occur simultaneously. Gone is the age of blood feuds. World leaders are expected to lead in turning threats into opportunities.The international community faces many challenges in this new world — terrorism, extremism, foreign military interference, drug trafficking, cybercrime and cultural encroachment — all within a framework that has emphasized hard power and the use of brute force.

We must pay attention to the complexities of the issues at hand to solve them. Enter my definition of constructive engagement. In a world where global politics is no longer a zero-sum game, it is — or should be — counterintuitive to pursue one’s interests without considering the interests of others. A constructive approach to diplomacy doesn’t mean relinquishing one’s rights. It means engaging with one’s counterparts, on the basis of equal footing and mutual respect, to address shared concerns and achieve shared objectives. In other words, win-win outcomes are not just favorable but also achievable.

A zero-sum, Cold War mentality leads to everyone’s loss.Sadly, unilateralism often continues to overshadow constructive approaches. Security is pursued at the expense of the insecurity of others, with disastrous consequences. More than a decade and two wars after 9/11, al-Qaeda and other militant extremists continue to wreak havoc. Syria, a jewel of civilization, has become the scene of heartbreaking violence, including chemical weapons attacks, which we stronglycondemn. In Iraq, 10 years after the American-led invasion, dozens still lose their lives to violence every day. Afghanistan endures similar, endemic bloodshed.The unilateral approach, which glorifies brute force and breeds violence, is clearly incapable of solving issues we all face, such as terrorism and extremism. I say all because nobody is immune to extremist-fueled violence, even though it might rage thousands of miles away. Americans woke up to this reality 12 years ago.

My approach to foreign policy seeks to resolve these issues by addressing their underlying causes. We must work together to end the unhealthy rivalries and interferences that fuel violence and drive us apart. We must also pay attention to the issue of identity as a key driver of tension in, and beyond, the Middle East.At their core, the vicious battles in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are over the nature of those countries’ identities and their consequent roles in our region and the world. The centrality of identity extends to the case of our peaceful nuclear energy program. To us, mastering the atomic fuel cycle and generating nuclear power is as much about diversifying our energy resources as it is about who Iranians are as a nation, our demand for dignity and respect and our consequent place in the world. Without comprehending the role of identity, many issues we all face will remain unresolved.I am committed to confronting our common challenges via a two-pronged approach.First, we must join hands to constructively work toward national dialogue, whether in Syria or Bahrain.

We must create an atmosphere where peoples of the region can decide their own fates. As part of this, I announce my government’s readiness to help facilitate dialogue between the Syrian government and the opposition.Second, we must address the broader, overarching injustices and rivalries that fuel violence and tensions. A key aspect of my commitment to constructive interaction entails a sincere effort to engage with neighbors and other nations to identify and secure win-win solutions.We and our international counterparts have spent a lot of time — perhaps too much time — discussing what we don’t want rather than what we do want. This is not unique to Iran’s international relations.

In a climate where much of foreign policy is a direct function of domestic politics, focusing on what one doesn’t want is an easy way out of difficult conundrums for many world leaders. Expressing what one does want requires more courage.After 10 years of back-and-forth, what all sides don’t want in relation to our nuclear file is clear. The same dynamic is evident in the rival approaches to Syria.This approach can be useful for efforts to prevent cold conflicts from turning hot. But to move beyond impasses, whether in relation to Syria, my country’s nuclear program or its relations with the United States, we need to aim higher. Rather than focusing on how to prevent things from getting worse, we need to think — and talk — about how to make things better. To do that, we all need to muster the courage to start conveying what we want — clearly, concisely and sincerely — and to back it up with the political will to take necessary action. This is the essence of my approach to constructive interaction.

As I depart for New York for the opening of the U.N. General Assembly, I urge my counterparts to seize the opportunity presented by Iran’s recent election. I urge them to make the most of the mandate for prudent engagement that my people have given me and to respond genuinely to my government’s efforts to engage in constructive dialogue. Most of all, I urge them to look beyond the pines and be brave enough to tell me what they see — if not for their national interests, then for the sake of their legacies, and our children and future generations.

Debate on Sim-Card Tax: Views by Tanzanians

By Twaweza

A study by Twaweza on the controversial sim-card tax reveals a number of interesting findings. One key finding is that the tax amount is equivalent to a one week worth of airtime for the poorest households. One positive finding was that most Tanzanians have access to mobile phones but still an abysmal 46% are aware of the sim-card tax. See complete briefing here

Tanzania needs "Minimum Constitutional Reforms" for Now

A constitution symposium was organized by the Tanzania Constitution Forum (Jukwaa la Katiba) yesterday in Dar es Salaam. A number of paramount issues were raised by the discussants. Chief among them was the constituent assembly composition. This follows the heated debate in parliament last week over the same issue. A Bill was passed in parliament last week proposing 357 MPs in the United Republic of Tanzania and 81 representatives of the Zanzibar House of Representatives to be part of the constituent assembly. The Bill further proposes that 166 others be appointed by the president meaning that the total membership will be 604. The Chairperson of Jukwa la Katiba Deus Kibamba highlighted a very important issue of minimum reforms. 

As pointed out earlier in this blog, constitutional making process is not a one time event but a long and tedious process. From the look of things, it would be next to impossible for Tanzanians to finalize the tit-bits of the process and then go for a constitutional referendum before the next general elections in 2015. It is believed that there could be a deliberate ploy by certain people to frustrate the process so that the elections are pushed to 2017. The timeline set by the Constitution Review Commission will be hard to see the delivery of a new constitution before the elections of 2015. The suggestion for minimum reforms by Mr. Kibamba are timely and could be of great service to Tanzania at this time. 

In 1997, a Inter-Parties Parliamentary Group (IPPG) in Kenya pressed the then president Daniel Moi for crucial reforms before going into the 1997 general elections. Their calls included the set up of the electoral body in terms of composition and appointment of members, issues of the expanding the Bill of Rights of the minority, equity in political representation and resource distribution. Such calls together with those preceding the 2007 elections are vital lessons for Tanzania.

In truth, it will be diffucult for tanzania to have a new constitution before the elections. A lot of issues remain unsolved and division on issues such as the composition of the constituent assembly further shows we need more time. I urge the Constitution Forum to go ahead and highlight the needed "minimum reforms" and present them to the CRC and even the president. Taking lessons from Kenya, one of the minimum reforms should be the composition of the National Electoral Commission (NEC). The process of choosing commissioners to this body should be a cross-party consultative engagement and NEC should be given much independence. The Chairperson of this body should also be vetted by parliament. 

The call for minimum reforms by Mr. Kibamba are timely and should be taken into consideration.        

Striking Syria Illegal, immoral and dangerous

Phyllis Bennis; additional input from Nico Minde

With an impending motion before Congress on whether or not US carries a military intervention in Syria, Phyllis Bennis examines why the move to sanction a military operation will be illegal, immoral and dangerous. President Barack Obama is coy over the move as interpreted by his move to seek "Congress authorization". Secretary John Kerry has been adamant saying that the President needs no authorization to act. It has been reported in late August that the Bashaar Al Asaad government used chemical gas on its people. International pro-US media has been propping the story and calling for an imminent strike on Syria. Below is an analysis by Bennis posted in Al Jazeera. 

See analysis here

Thought of the Day

Not publishing researched work is a scientific misconduct.-Tom Loung.

The Future of American Diplomacy

Via the Diplomat

Is not doubling down on its great-power past, but in response to the "rise of the rest" is something more inclusive. Globalization has been changing U.S. foreign policy since the beginning of the American Republic. From our first diplomatic post in Tangier, Morocco founded in 1777, to the more than 285 diplomatic facilities around the world today operated by the U.S. Department of State, the business of diplomacy has evolved over time.

While it is obvious that thriving markets and global security go hand in hand, along with America’s central role in both arenas, often our diplomacy and institutions do not reflect this reality. In other words, the channels of influence that America could once rely on—large, multinational consortia of first-world powers—are waning in power. If one thing is clear to ambassadors around the world, it’s that U.S. diplomacy needs a jumpstart into the 21st century.

The key for American diplomacy is not doubling down on its great-power past, but harnessing the future on the ground. The enthusiasm and entrepreneurial spirit that became infectious in the “Arab Spring” countries will remain the norm. Young people are tapping into the culture of innovation, even amidst the political difficulties and a lack of access to money and resources. In turn, effective, pragmatic partnerships based on shared objectives—economic growth, stability and more—will be the engine for increased security and prosperity. This is the future of diplomacy, not just at the U.S. State Department—but worldwide.

On The Ground 

While terms such as “Economic Statecraft,” “Global Engagement,” and “Strategic Partnerships” have come into fashion in Washington, the tangible impact of these buzzwords is difficult to measure. Ironically, some of the most challenging places for U.S. foreign policy represent some of the greatest opportunities for these new approaches in 21-century statecraft.

The key is to create and empower stable business conditions in unstable places through private-sector leadership. The intersection of public and private sectors has now blurred the lines in diplomacy. Today, our diplomats are beginning to understand that public-private partnerships can get the most out of available resources, technology, knowledge, and networks. In fact, these partnerships might be the most effective foreign policy tool America has at its disposal today.

Take Israel and Palestine, where U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is pushing towards a final diplomatic peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Last year, I visited the Palestinian Territories to support an event called “Celebration of Innovation,” a locally organized business development and investor pitch competition. Essentially the State Department’s own prototype of Shark Tank, fifteen young Palestinian entrepreneurs were selected from hundreds of applicants to compete for the chance to present their ideas to an international audience. The two winners, Alaa—a twenty-four year old from the Gaza Strip who had never left his home before winning the chance to pitch his business—and Aya, the first Palestinian woman to own and raise sheep from Nabulus, are representative of a global change. If one thing became clear, it was that the next generation doesn’t want charity; they want a chance. 

Working with the best and brightest that this troubled region had to offer, their ingenuity—especially limited money and shaky security—is impressive. While observing the number of Palestinian businessmen and entrepreneurs that had succeeded throughout the Arab world, despite the odds, a Palestinian professor commented to me that, “Diamonds are created under pressure, therefore it is only natural that Palestinians entrepreneurs are like diamonds within this region.”

Alaa beamed with pride as he presented his business idea of creating miniature furniture for densely packed living conditions, like those in cramped New York studios, that he invented to deal with the overcrowded apartment in Gaza that his family lived in. Aya, short and covered in a traditional head-scarf, electrified the crowd with her energy as she pitched her idea of raising organic sheep to be locally sourced, given restrictions faced in the West Bank of imports from neighboring countries. In a packed room that was being broadcast live on television, both of these young entrepreneurs won grants to further develop their businesses.The amount of these micro-investments were negligible when balanced against the international aid and development budgets that the U.S. lends to their homeland. But the impact of empowering these young leaders—and the jobs they create—will be felt long beyond the legacy of the political leaders that today dictate the terms of the ongoing peace process. Cities like Richmond and Chicago have seen a link between creating jobs and lowering crime; Gaza and Nabulus are no different.

Changing Global Dynamics

The international system, which until the 1990s saw power disproportionally concentrated in North America and Europe, has since witnessed a dramatic change in distribution to other players—mostly in Asia and South America. To understand why 20th-century diplomacy needs an upgrade, it’s worth a look at the recent changes on the global stage.

Brazil, once a poster-child for income inequality, has enjoyed its economic renaissance following a prolonged lull. Indonesia, although still manacled by corruption, has evolved from an insular military dictatorship into a politically stable democracy with a promising economy. India has gone from an aid-dependent regional power to a hotbed of entrepreneurship, with its economy more than doubling in size between 2002 and 2008.

In that same period, Turkey’s economy has more than tripled, accompanied by a strong sense of identity and a brash self-confidence. Last, but certainly not least, is the dramatic rise of China, which in 1990 had a gross domestic product per capita less than India’s, but is today almost four times as wealthy. Yet with each of these economic successes comes development challenges, as played out recently in the streets of Brazil and Turkey through protest movements, not to mention the ongoing tumult playing out throughout the Arab world.

This so-called “rise of the rest” presents the United States with a decision. On the one hand, it could incorporate these new players into established systems of global governance, more accurately reflecting the distribution of international power and strengthen international cooperative mechanisms. On the other hand, if the West were to continue to resist or deny these new global players a place at the high table, there is a strong likelihood that the entire global system – which the West created and carefully nurtured over the past half century for its benefit, and that of others – may be jeopardized.