Mama Amon
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 30, 2018
- 2,021
- 2,478
1. Preamble
Dear Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete,
The Former President of the United Republic of Tanzania,
The convergence point of hopes and fears of the citizenry in each and every nation-state is land, the natural resources embedded in the land and the land-borne artificial infrastructures.
The said infrastructures form a huge set of physical interrelated systems that provide goods and services which are essential to the "3S's of human life," namely, "survival, sustenance, and swelling" of economic, social, political, psychological, somatic, sexual, emotional and volitional dimensions of humanity.
They include aviation, ports, telecommunications, bridges, power grid, railways, roads, water networks, waste management systems, recreation facilities, and socio-economic structures such as marketplaces. Without such systems life is almost impossible.
It is for this reason Tanzania commenced the reform of the maritime sector, with the passage of the Port Act Number 17/2004, and the establishment of the TPA, just one year before you started serving as the President of Tanzania, the post which you held from 2005 to 2015.
Under this period of your leadership major reforms in the maritime sector were carefully implemented under your direct oversight and directives, the initiatives which are commendable by every sane person.
And under your successor President Magufuli did wonderful investments at the Dar es Salaa port. Specifically, we recall the government investment via World Bank's $345 million credit and a $12 million grant under the The Dar es Salaam Maritime Gateway Project (DSMGP) in 2017, and the government investment via $12 million grant from the UK's Department for International Development (DFID) as a top up to $63 million as raised by the Tanzania Ports Authority in 2017.
These steps were taken by you and your immediate successor based on the realisation of the fat that a seaport lies at the heart of the logistics supply chain, linking a country with its trading partners (see figure below). This is especially the case for Africa, which relies on maritime shipping as its principal mode of transportation for both primary and manufactured goods destined for export.
Seaports are an infrastructure facility allowing goods to be loaded/unloaded, stored, and transferred for inland delivery via other transport modes, such as trucks, trains, or inland waterway vessels. Ports usually have deep water channels or berths, as well as storage facilities, which determine how much cargo the port can handle and the type and capacity of vessels it can receive.
With the exception of some export processing zones (EPZs) that are located in
the vicinity of ports, cargo and merchandise leaving ports come from the hinterland via the infrastructures identified in the Figure below. To function properly, the links between ports and the hinterland must operate smoothly to avoid bottlenecks in the ports entrepots and to minimize dwell times.
The quality of a port’s physical infrastructure and related services is an important determinant of its overall efficiency. However, as also indicated in the Figure below, equally important in this regard is the institutional and regulatory infrastructure.
In short to function efficiently and to maximize its potential, a port needs two types of assets: (i) the “hard” physical infrastructure (seaport infrastructure and superstructure facilities for loading and unloading) and (ii) the “soft” infrastructure, which includes all the administrative and customs services necessary to facilitate the transit of goods, plus the supportive information and communications technologies (ICT).
The overall efficiency of a port therefore depends directly on the quality of both its hard and soft infrastructure as well as the institutional framework (the number of documents to be completed by shippers and importers; the functioning of customs administration).
Source; ADB (2010), African Development Report; Ports, Logistics, and Trade in Africa (New York; OUP, pg 33)
It is for this reason in 2014 you requested JICA to conduct a study after which they produced a "Comprehensive Transport and Trade System Development Master Plan in the United Republic of Tanzania; Building an Integrated Freight Transport System" Report, volume one to volume three.
However, as we shall soon show, these reforms, which are immediate antecedents to the Tanzania-Dubai Treaty, as signed in October 2022, and ratified by the Parliament of Tanzania on 10 June 2023, have been extended by the present government in a way that entails the building of an "Arab settler colony" in Tanzania, contrary to the state constitution.
This anomaly is unacceptable based on an argument whose outline is as follows;
1. An open-ended contract, as opposed to a closed-end contract, is a contract which has no termination date, either for employment or for delivery of goods or for provision of services.
2. The Tanzania-Dubai IGA is a contract that says that it will be terminated based on the closed-end HGAs that will be signed in the future by TPA and DPW.
3. At least one open-end HGA is needed to render IGA an open-end Treaty.
4. According to the Tanzania-Dubai IGA the number of HGAs that will be signed by TPA and DPW is open-ended.
5. Also, in interpreting broad and open-ended investment treaty provisions and applying them to facts the Tribunal mentioned at article 20 of the Tanzania-Dubai IGA cannot arbitrarily terminate an open-ended investment treaty since their power is limited to what the parties to the treaty freely agreed to.
6. Thus, unless the maximum number of HGAs is overtly and unambiguously stated under the said Tanzania-Dubai IGA, it logically follows that the Tanzania-Dubai IGA is an open-ended Treaty.
7. An open-ended investment Treaty overrides the time bars which will be stated in land titles to be issued to DPW by the government of Tanzania.
8. Thus DPW will have eternal use ownership rights and eternal fruits ownership rights over all the land segments which will be leased to them.
9. Since there is an inseparable connection between eternal use ownership rights, eternal fruits ownership rights and eternal substantive ownership rights over a given property, it logically follows that, eternal use ownership rights and eternal fruits ownership rights over land by DPW necessarily entail eternal substantive ownership of land by DPW.
10. Surrendering substantive ownership over land to a foreigner such as the Dubai Emirate is to authorize "Arab settler colonialism," a decision which entails a permanent transfer of territorial sovereignty over land to a foreigner, since under "settler colonialism," foreign migrants come to stay, dominate natives, displace them and replace them where necessary. This is what happened in South Africa, Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Northern Ireland, Rhodesia, and Zanzibar.
11. Handing over territorial sovereignty over land to a foreigner is violative of articles 1, 2(a), and 8(1)(a) of the constitution (1977), and amounts to treason against the state where the perpetrators of this treason are properly called traitors.
12. Thus, there are some members of the state house, the parliament, the CCM central committee and CCM National Executive committee who have severally committed treason and each of them deserves the name "traitor."
13. Traitors who do not repent and show remorse for their wrongful deeds lose their rights to stay in public offices including CCM offices since CCM policies and manifestos are totally incompatible with treasonous acts.
14. Thus, these members of the state house, the parliament, the CCM central committee (CC) and CCM National Executive committee (NEC) have to quit public offices either willingly or forcibly.
15. And for this reason, we shall argue that the so called "public education" currently being provided by the Prime Minister, Majaliwa Kassim Majaliwa, and several misguided celebrities is no "public education" at all but "public miseducation." It is a combination of misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. It is an unwarranted epistemic injustice to the public which is against human dignity. We will suggest that it should stop.
Our expe tation was that you would be behind this argument. Yet, despite these sad realities, there is circumstantial and credible evidence that, you have now made a U-turn, in a way that makes you an overt supporter of the said "Arab settler colony" project.
We want to change your mind. So, kindly allow us to show you why the above summarized argument is valid and sound by introducing you to the mind blowing claim emanating from the said controversial Treaty and the related "Arab settler colony" project.
For this purpose, we propose, and we request you to accept, to walk with us through the following sections of the present political intelligence memorandum:
- Preamble
- The mind blowing claim under the Tanzania-Dubai Treaty
- Your former stance against settler colonialism is on record
- Legal constraints surrounding compulsory land acquisitions
- Agents of colonialism include both Europeans and Arabs
- Differences between "exporter colonialism" and "settler colonialism"
- The disquieting ideological dynamics of settler colonialism
- The anatomy and pillars of a settler state
- How to terminate settler colonialism
- Summary, discussion and conclusion
- Why we have decided to write a letter to you
- A polite call for action from Jakaya KIkwete
- Key references
The master plan for development of the existing Dar Port footprint (2009)
2. The mind blowing claim under the Tanzania-Dubai Treaty
By all reasonable standards, the Tanzania-Dubai Treaty is an onerous contract. It is a contract in which the unavoidable costs of meeting the obligations under it exceed the economic benefits expected to be received from it.
The reason is simple: it beats human logic to learn that, the Tanzania-Dubai Treaty envisages unstated circumstances under which, one sane party acting on behalf of, and in the name of Dubai can propose to be given by Tanzania, and another sane party acting on behalf of, and in the name of Tanzania, agree to surrender to Dubai, the "substantive ownership rights" over at least 88 Tanzanian ports.
Specifically, the mind blowing claim which the Treaty covertly asserts, and which we overtly deny, is that, “Tanzania is a land without a people for a people without a land.”
This conclusion logically follows from the fact that, in terms of articles 4(1), 8, 14(2), 20, and 23(4), the Tanzania-Dubai Treaty asymmetrically bestows to Dubai “eternal use ownership rights” and “eternal fruits ownership rights” over our 88 ports, and hence, covertly bestowing to Dubai “substantive ownership rights” over our 88 ports.
We have consistently and emphatically denied the claim that, “Tanzania is a land without a people for a people without a land” since pre-independence struggles.
Zanzibar Revolution of 1964 was premised on this dictum, which entails the belief that "Zanzibar must be an African state."
We further reasserted our land policy position in 1999, when we passed the Land Act and the Village Land Act.
And recently, we reaffirmed this policy position on our territorial sovereignty through the Natural Wealth and Resources (Permanent Sovereignty) Act of 2017, a statute which is now being reviewed by the government, against the will of the people, so as to pave way for settler colonialism around our 88 Ports.
This unwavering position on our territorial sovereignty formed the basis of the government’s decision to shelve the Kigamboni New City Project, as announced by Honorable William Lukuvi, the then Land Minister, who took over from Professor Anna Tibaijuka. This way, we firmly rejected the pending American settler colonialism at Kigamboni.
3. Your former stance against settler colonialism is on record
For the same reason, during your presidency, which ran from 2005 to 2015, you were advised, with incontrovertible evidence provided, and you agreed, to refrain from implementing some recommendations of various study reports on maritime reforms.
Specifically, we understand that, during your presidency, three major different studies were conducted so as to furnish your government, as our then President, with scientifically warranted information that would facilitate meaningful decisions on how best to promote growth in container trade.
In 2008, Tanzania Ports Authority (TPA) commissioned the consulting firm Royal Haskoning to prepare a 20-year Ports Master Plan (PMP) covering all coastal and lake ports of Tanzania to guide development of port infrastructure in the country.
The PMP among other things recommended the deepening and strengthening of berths at Dar es Salaam port to increase capacity and operational efficiency by enabling the port to handle panamax vessels.
The National Ports Master Plan (PMP) as prepared by a consultant called Royal Haskoning was submitted to the government in 2009.
Its first part is hereby attached as evidence. Later, and under your directives, other consultants such as Sheilla and MTBS were severally hired by the Tanzania Ports Authority to update the National Ports Master Plan.
Their updates addressed coastal ports, lake ports, dry ports and river ports. MTBS’ experts performed the market assessment, SWOT analysis, strategic and technical options identification, quantification and selection based on financial and economic assessments. Further, MTBS executed a risk assessment and risk mitigation measures.
After examining the whole of the Tanzanian coastline for potential sites, three were identified as the most suitable locations for handling Dar es Salaam overspill traffic. They are Kigamboni (on the other side of the creek to the existing port); Bagamoyo; and Mwambani Bay (near Tanga).
In effect, the study reports came out with recommendations on the long term strategy for Tanzanian ports so that the capacity of the ports would be sufficient for the expected demand. And cumulatively, these three studies indicated that, the container traffic was expected to reach 2.5 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) in 2032.
In pursuit of this target, various scenarios of ports development were submitted to you by consultants, as the attachment shows in details.
Four port development scenarios were defined based on different combinations of thethree most suitable port sites, as shown in the table below.
It was assumed that the newport(s) would handle the Dar es Salaam overspill traffic as well as North Tanzania’straffic.
Development scenarios were therefore based on the combined traffic forecasts of Dar es Salaam and Tanga. The diagram below summarizes the scenarios:
Source: Tanzania Ports Authority(2009:xv).
Economic analyses and comparison of non-monetary aspects showed that Scenario 4 (Bagamoyo and Mwambani) is the preferred development alternative.
Finally, after various updates to the original proposals, the following options emerged:
Option one was: Expanding the Dar es Salaam Port by displacing all residents living within a rectangle of land whose sides are Uhuru Street, Bibi Titi Street, Azikiwe Street, Maktaba Street and Sokoine Drive. The map below, clearly reveals this rectangle.
For those who know Dar es Salaam physically, its circumference connects the following structures: National Library, former New Africa Hotel, Johari Rotana Hotel, Mnazi Mmoja Health Centre, Kisutu Market, College of Business Education and back to the the National Library. This is how one Arab had conceived the Port topology, even before our independence day in 1961.
A map showing the original proposal of Dar Port Topology that entails resettlement of TTCl HQ, St. Joseph Ctahedral, and all the building structures between Sokoine Drive and Bibi Ttiti Street, and beteen former New Africa Hotel and Kisutu Market.
However, this option seemed practically impossible for the government to raise enough funds for making payment of full, fair and prompt compensation to all affected land and property owners in this area.
Option two was, huge port construction at Bagamoyo. This option meant that all "Wakwere" residents of Bagamoyo had to be resettled, hence erasing the Bagamoyo Town and its suburbs. Again, it seemed practically impossible for the government to raise enough funds for making payment of full, fair and prompt compensation to all affected land and property owners in this area.
Option three was, huge port construction around the Mbegani Fisheries Institute, near Bagamoyo. This option meant that only the Fisheries Institute had to be relocated. It is a government property. So, it seemed practically possible for the government to raise enough funds for making these relocations. Other options are mentioned in the updated study reports.
But, there is a common thread running through these options: in law, the proposed maritime reforms could be possible if and only if the government could make payment of full, fair and prompt compensation to all affected land and property owners currently occupying the land needed for ports expansion.
Where this option is not feasible, the fallback position is forcible dispossession of land from natives. But, forcible displacement and resettlement of native land owners amounts to “settler colonialism,” as opposed to “exporter colonialism.”
While serving as our President, you rejected settler colonialism and abandoned all the proposed scenarios, except for the Fisheries Institute option.
There are good reasons, for which, we support your decision to reject settler colonialism, namely, the legal constraints surrounding compulsory land acquisitions and the wrong of European and Arab settler colonialism. Let us explain briefly.
4. Legal constraints surrounding compulsory land acquisitions
For the first two above options to be implemented, our Land Act (1999) and the related statutes had to be complied with fully. They collectively stipulate a process which is subject to mandatory payment of full, fair and prompt compensation to affected land and property owners.
According to Komu (2014), there are at least eight statutes that guarantee existing landholders of compensation when their lands are taken by government in Tanzania. They include:
- The Land Acquisition Act No. 47 of 1967,
- The Lands Act No. 4 of 1999,
- Village Land Act No 5 of 1999,
- The Investment Act No. 26 of 1997,
- The Urban Planning Act No. 8 of 2007,
- The Road Act No. 13 of 2007,
- The Export Processing Zones Act No. 11 of 2009, and
- The Valuation and Valuer Registration Act (2016).
“…to pay full, fair and prompt compensation to any person whose right of occupancy or recognized longstanding occupation or customary use of land is revoked or otherwise interfered with to their detriment by the State under this Act or is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act…”.
This principle is considered a variant to the situation before 1999 where the State could take land from an individual but compensate only unexhausted improvements made on the land and never loss of value attributable to the land itself.
The Investment Act No. 26 of 1997 which preceded the Land Act but largely borrowing from the then adopted National Land Policy of 1995 made an emphasis not on ‘full’ but on ‘adequate’ in the following words:
“…no acquisition unless the acquisition is under the due process of law which makes provision of fair, adequate and prompt compensation…”.
The Road Act No. 13 of 2007 on the other hand makes direct reference to the Land Act under Section 16 that:
“…the owner of such land shall be entitled to compensation for any development on such land in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act of 1967, the Land Act and Village Land Act…”
Similarly the Urban Planning Act No. 8 of 2007 underSection 64 addresses the compensation assessment butagain making direct reference to the Land Act:
“…for purpose of determining the amount ofcompensation payable, be calculated in accordancewith the provision of the Land Act….”
The Export Processing Zones Act No. 11 of 2009, although upholding provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of 1967 and those of the Land Act, makes a slight departure under Section 25:
“… pay the owner of such property just and prompt compensation in a freely convertible currency…”
And finally, the Valuation and Valuer Registration Act (2016) sets out Guidance on the valuation practice, including on:
(a) Types, purpose and basis of valuation.
(b) Methods of valuation to be applied - which includes the replacement cost method.
(c) Validity of valuations -setting a 2 years validity period for the valuation reports relating to compensation and the definition of "prompt payment of compensation" meaning the payment of compensation within six months after approval of valuation by the Chief Valuer.
(d) Cut-off date and limitation period - the cut-off date shall be the “date ofcommencement of valuation” and that “Upon commencement of valuation, a personshall not add or improve anything to the land or such premises”; and
(e) Access to land and buildings that affords rights to entry to land and buildings for the purpose laid out in the Act (i.e. valuation) by the Registered Valuer subject to prior notice.
A general examination of the laws governing land compensation assessment in Tanzania indicates five key terms but not so distinct nor exclusive that are used to describe attributes of compensation.
These include ‘full’, ‘fair’, ‘just’, ‘adequate’ and ‘prompt’. The terms ‘ fair’ and ‘prompt’ are common in all five legislation whereas ‘full’ is limited to the Land Act No. 4 of 1999,‘adequate’ is found in the Investment Act No. 26 of1997 and, ‘just’ is introduced in the latter legislation, the Export Processing Zones Act No. 11 of 2009.
There is no attempt in any of the laws to explain the explicit meaning of these terms as used in land acquisition procedures that would have removed the ambiguity.
But, the existing literature on compensation problem in Tanzania indicates two schools of thoughts, one being supportive of the doctrine embodied in the principle of equivalence(POE) and the other being sustainable livelihood approach(SLA).
According to the Department for International Development (2001), there are six core concepts of the sustainable livelihood approach (SLA), which are: people-centered; holistic; dynamic; building on strengths; macro-micro links and sustainability. On the other hand, the principle of equivalence advocates:
“…affected owners and occupants should be neither enriched nor impoverished as a result of the compulsory acquisition…”
The basic premise here is that those whose land is taken must be compensated for the loss (land, developments on the land and related costs such as disturbance) to the same extent as they would have expected to realize their values on a willing buyer and willing seller arrangements.
Section 3(g) and Section 156 of the Land Act No. 4 of 1999 provides that any person whose user rights to land have been curtailed by the state is entitled to compensation.
The amount of compensation payable is to be assessed by a qualified valuer and the basis for assessment of the value of land and unexhausted improvement on the land is market value.
According to Morri and Benedetto (2019:4-5), as defined by the Appraisal Institute in 2002, “market value” is “the most probable price, as of a specified date, in cash, or in terms equivalent to cash, or in other precisely revealed terms, for which the specified property rights should sell after reasonable exposure in a competitive market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably, and for self-interest,, and assuming that neither is under undue duress.”
This definition includes five key concepts, namely: (a) A certain amount of money has to be estimated by a competent person as being the consideration payable for the sale of the property; (b) The date as of which this consideration must be estimated is the valuation date; (c) There must be two distinct and independent players: a seller willing to sell at the best price achievable on the market and a buyer willing to buy but without paying a higher price than he/she could pay for similar assets; (d) The transaction must only take place following adequate marketing that is the property must remain on sale for a sufficient tie to ensure that it an be assessed by a sufficient number of potential buyers; (e) Both the seller and the buyer must at with full knowledge of all the information concerning the property and both must be willing and not obliged or forced to complete the transaction.
And, on the other hand, commercial value is derived from the future meaning that it is an expression of doing business by using an income generating property. So it involves expectations risk assessment and investment in the future.
The Act defines the process of computing the market value as follows:
‘…the market value of any land and unexhausted improvement shall be arrived at by use of comparative method evidenced by actual recent, sales of similar properties or by use of income approach or replacement cost method where the property is of special nature and not saleable...’
The basis of assessment of value of land and objects found on a piece of land for purposes of compensation under the Land Act of 1999 and as per Regulation No.3 of the 2001 Land Regulations is market value. On this view, compensation entitlement will include the following:
(i) Market value of land, crops, buildings or such other unexhausted improvement on land;
(ii) Disturbance allowance which is to be calculated by multiplying value of the land by an average percentage rate of interest offered by commercial banks of fixed deposits for twelve months;
(iii) Transport allowance which is the actual cost of transporting twelve tons of luggage by rail or road within twenty kilometers from the point of displacement;
(iv) Accommodation allowance computed on the basis of passing monthly rent of the building to be compensated multiplied by thirty six months;
(v) Loss of profit which is the net monthly profit of the business carried out on the land, and evidenced by audited accounts, multiplied by thirty six months;
(vi) Cost of acquiring or getting the subject land; and
(vii) Interest on delayed compensation payment- an individual will be entitled to interest payment for compensation that has been delayed for six months or more computed at an average rate of interest offered by commercial banks on fixed deposits.
In short, compensation is considered to be PROMPT if paid without delay; compensation is considered to be FAIR if it is based on market value of assets that has been nationalized or expropriated. And, compensation is considered to be FULL if it allows the recovery of both past losses and future losses.
According to Ripinsky and Williams(2008:112-28), the distinction between past losses and future losses is relatively straightforward in the context of contractual damages, if we reason along the legal categories of DAMNUM EMMERGENS and LUCRUM CESSANS. On one hand, DAMNUM EMMERGENS refers to the expenses incurred in performing the contract. And on the other hand, LUCRUM CESSANS refers to the net profit which the contract would have produced under the full contract term.
The logic for this distinction is simple to understand. In a typical breach of contract, the injured party, in reliance upon the contract, may have incurred expenses placing himself in a position to perform the contract with an expectation of receiving some revenue in return that would reimburse expenses incurred, plus provide some degree of profit.
When the other party fails to perform in a situation where the injured party already incurred expenses, in order to wipe out the consequences of the breach, the injured party must be compensated for the expenses already incurred and must be awarded the profits lost, as the two elements would be the equivalent of substituting for contract performance, that is, together, they are economically equivalent to obtaining the revenues not earned.
Tribunals rarely have a problem in awarding DAMNUM EMMERGENS because this is a loss that has already occurred and is relatively east to establish an quantify. That is, DAMNUM EMMERGENS is always recoverable. And in this case, the claimant may recover not only the costs incurred in reliance on the contract but also incidental expenses incurred after the breach of the contract, for example, costs of removing the personnel from a foreign country, costs incurred in liquidating the company established to perform the contract, and so on.
Compensation for DAMNUM EMMERGENS only, however, would put a claimant in the position it was before concluding the contract, whereas, if supplemented by LUCRUM CESSANS (net gain lost), it would put the claimant in a position that it would have been in if the contract had been performed. In other words, only awarding both DAMNUM EMMERGENS and LUCRUM CESSANS would achieve the objective of full compensation.
However, he distinction between past losses and future losses is less pronounced when compensation is measured on the basis of the market value of assets, which is calculated either by reference to the amount of future benefits that the asset is expected to generate, or by reference to the amount actually invested in the asset, but not both taken together.
Thus, Sulle & Nelson (2009:53) commenting on the growing complaints against the inadequacy of compensation made, have argued for amendments of the laws to provide for commercial value as opposed to market value which they argue would take care of the inherent opportunity cost. They state as follows:
"... these estimates, excluding any value attached to land itself, do not appear to take any account of the opportunity costs villages would have to incur in turning their land to a miombo woodlands used for various economic activities... Clearly, villages incur opportunity costs in granting large areas of land to investors which are not being factored into existing assessments of land values and compensation payments."
For these legal reasons, your security advisers proposed to reject this compensation route, and you agreed, simply because it is practically impossible for the government to raise funds for making payment of full, fair and prompt compensation to all affected land and property owners in this area. And today, eight years later the situation has not changed.
5. Agents of colonialism include both Europeans and Arabs
Specifically, colonialism is commonly defined as the policy and practice of a foreign country acquiring political control over another country, governing it with its designated representatives and exploiting it economically.
Generally, it refers to the combination of territorial, juridical, cultural, linguistic, political, mental, and economic domination of one group of people or groups of people by another group of people, where, the colonizers create wealth through stolen native land and stolen native labor.
European colonialism refers to the various formulas of territorial domination effected by European powers upon non-European people, from the late 1400s to the middle of and late 1900s.
At various points in modern history, European powers colonized, in some form, most of Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, Oceania, the Middle East and the Arctic, excluding Antarctica.
But, Europeans are not the only colonizers. Arabs too colonized many nations. Arab settler colonialism in Africa began with the Arab invasion of Egypt in 640 A.D. and persists today in Mauritania, Sudan and all of North Africa.
The Arab settler colonies in East Africa, at Zanzibar and Mombasa, predate by centuries the Dutch settler colony in Cape Town. Also, from 1821-1956, Egypt was a classic, European-type colonial ruler in Sudan.
Thus, Arab colonialism in Africa is no figment of the imagination. And it persists today in different guises. Unlike European colonialism, it is not even in nominal retreat. The Arabs in Africa are colonialists and are even now, with great determination, expanding their territories.
On one hand, in historical Africa, Arabs have always opted for “settler colonialism.” Settler colonialists come to stay, and conquer native populations and their culture, as the history of Canada, America, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Palestine, Zanzibar, and Northern Africa shows.
On the other hand, and this is in Africa only again, Europeans have often opted for “exporter colonialism,” except for South Africa. Extractive colonialists come to harvest and go back home. For the sake of clarity, let us make a clear distinction between these two types of colonialism.
6. Differences between "exporter colonialism" and "settler colonialism"
We recall that, from 1492 to the end of the 1939-45 war, the Europeans invaded and colonized territory across the globe. The first 250 years, from 1492 to around 1750, were focused primarily on the Americas including the islands of the Caribbean.
The lands were invaded and settled by the Europeans of the invading country. Agricultural plantations were the primary form of settlement, these were the days before industrialization.
The early Colonies from 1492 onwards were all ruled and settled by "white settlers." The areas settled included the Americas and to a small extent the Portuguese colonized Africa, and the Dutch settled in Southern Africa in 1652. All of these can be characterized as "settler colonies."
However, after the 1760s, settlers were not a necessity for white colonizers. The latter colonies included the continents of India, China, Africa and the Middle East; all were all invaded and colonized after the middle 1700s. Rule without a dominant settler population was often common.
This distinction between settler colonialism and exporter colonialism, which is now conspicuously missing in our civics curriculum for our secondary schools. The gap must be filled here and now. And our point is that, colonialism falls into two broad categories: exporter colonialism and settler colonialism.
On one hand, traditional “exporter colonialism” is a type of colonialism in which few foreign migrants move to and temporarily reside on a foreign land already inhabited by indigenous residents, thereby exerting exogenous domination, under the support of a foreign imperial authority, conquering territory to exploit its population as cheap or free labor and its natural resources as raw material.
The profit generated this way is evacuated and transferred to the metropolitan colonial government, hence temporarily causing the displacement, replacement, or reduction of existing native population and its culture, meaning that, “extractive colonialism” does not last indefinitely, as the colonizers come to stay temporarily, harvest and go back home.
On the other hand, we have “settler colonialism,” which is a form of colonialism in which settlers create societies that are distinct from the indigenous population and seek to control the indigenous population, land and resources and establish their own economy and system of governance.
Since the settler society is primarily concerned with control of land, it seeks to eliminate or forcibly remove the indigenous population and replace it with members of the settler population. This makes settler colonialism different from the other form of colonialism which focus on exploiting the labor or resources of the colonized country.
Settler colonialism can be used to describe what has taken place in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, America Canada, Palestine, Zanzibar, and what France attempted but ultimately failed to achieve in Algeria.
Specifically, “settler colonialism” is a type of colonialism in which many foreign migrants move to and permanently reside on foreign land already inhabited by indigenous residents, thereby exerting exogenous domination, under the support of a foreign imperial authority, conquering territory to exploit its population as cheap or free labor and its natural resources as raw material.
The profit generated this way is retained in the colony and used as a tool of cementing political, social and economic domination of the natives, in a away that, causes permanent displacement, replacement, reduction or elimination of existing native population and its culture, meaning that, “settler colonialism” lasts indefinitely, as the colonizers come to stay permanently, harvesting and fortifying themselves against the subjugated natives.
Under chapter three which is entitled "Genocides of Indigenous Peoples," inside the book, "Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (London/New York: Routledge)," by Adam Johns (2006), an inseparable connection between settler colonialism and the policy of native displacement and elimination, has been graphically portrayed.
Thus, we observe that, under “settler colonialism,” certain societies are created by settlers implanted in a foreign territory, either directly by or with the consent of an imperial power. These colonists then dominate and eradicate the indigenous population. They develop bellicose cultures that eliminate the natives from historical, literary, and other grand narratives.
Colonial genocide was most common in the case of settler colonialism where the central conflict is between an outside labor force and an indigenous occupier over access to land and resources. Here, in the absence of a need for an indigenous labor force, there is a “logic of elimination” which in some circumstances could develop into genocide.
This is evidenced by examples of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, South Africa and Rhodesia, and Israel.
The key point here is that, since settlers can never succeed in their effort to become native, on their view, the only way to end settler colonialism is to erase the political significance of the settler–native dichotomy, by either eliminating the natives or assimilating them into a foreign culture.
7. The disquieting ideological dynamics of settler colonialism
To understand the experiences of indigenous peoples, who have experienced settler colonialism, say in Zanzibar, South Africa, Southern Sudan, America, Northern Ireland, Rhodesia, Canada or Australia, one must also understand the ideological framework that underpins settler colonialism.
White settlers use various settler colonial ideologies to justify the exclusive control over the dispossession and exploitation of indigenous lands.
Most of these settler colonial ideologies can be broadly understood within a Social Darwinist evolutionary perspective that conceptualizes indigenous peoples in racialized terms, with Indigenous peoples cast in the role of primitive others compared to more advanced, evolved, or civilized settlers, racialized as White.
This dichotomy is usually characterized in a conceptual shorthand, as the “civilized-savage dichotomy," where, settlers are civilized and indigenous peoples are savages, primitive, backward, even prehistoric figures, no matter their actual contemporaneity with settlers.
Within this general “civilized-savage framework," the following two key recurring settler colonial ideologies, each with diverse expressions, persist: an ideology of "terra nullius" and an ideology of “a Vanishing Race.”
Let us discuss "Terra Nullius" ideology first. This ideology asserts that settlers arrived in literally empty lands, or alternatively and more commonly, in lands that are figuratively empty due to the normatively inappropriate occupation of those already there. Thus, it denies meaningful Indigenous presence both at the moment of the colonial invasion and subsequently.
In the eighteenth century, some influential lawyers and Enlightenment philosophers, following the liberal philosophy of John Locke, elaborated the "agricultural-productivist argument" that land title requires its efficient use. This meant that, one cannot claim land in a manner that excludes those who could make more productive use of it.
On this view, the following conclusions follows logically: That, those who still pursue a primitive mode of life, usurp more extensive territories than, with a reasonable share of labor, they would have occasion for; that, the people of extensively idle land tracts appear to be ranging through them than inhabiting them; and that, because of this under utilization of land, they have no reason to complain, if other nations, more industrious, and too closely confined, come to take possession of a part of those lands.
Based on this "productivist account" the following conclusions necessarily follow: Before the European invasion, Africa, America, and Australia were not literally empty, but effectively empty of civilized peoples, whose productive use of the land would justify their occupation, and who might therefore claim natural rights to territorial sovereignty.
In these areas, by the twentieth century, racist ideologies about primitive versus supposedly more evolutionary and civilizationally advanced peoples were invoked to simultaneously acknowledge native presence but deny that this implied any right to territorial sovereignty and self-determination.
Accordingly, the "terra nullius" ideology justifies the denial of meaningful indigenous religious existence, political-economic existence and relatedly civilizational existence. All these three are justified against the standards of settler colonial norms and practices, narrowly and exclusively equating European / Arabs and their ways with rights-bearing humanity.
Next let us talk about an ideology of "a Vanishing Race." This ideology sees indigenous peoples as doomed, because they are ontologically or culturally ill-adapted to the contemporary civilized world.
It posits the following thesis, alleged to be a “scientifically” known and inevitable principle: That, the indigenous peoples are remnants of a bygone age, destined to be extinguished, superseded by a superior European/Arabic race and civilization.
The purpose of these ideological claims and their variations is to legitimate settlement. The political, moral, and sometimes juridical claim of these ideologies is that colonization is an inherently non-violent activity; that, the settler enters a new, empty land to start a new life; that, indigenous people naturally and inevitably vanish in accordance with the Darwinian principle of natural selection which prefers the survival of the fittest species; and that, it is not settlers that displace or eliminate them.
So, the "Vanishing Race" ideology is underpinned by the theory of evolution, as proposed by Charles Darwin, according to whom, there has been a March of Progress along the road of history, from chimpanzee state to the modern Homo Sapiens state, an evolution that presents 25 million years of human evolution.
On this view, everything alive today are survivors of 3.6 billion years of evolution and natural selection. This evolution is more like a tree. It starts with a thicker branch that represents a common ancestor. Then, new species branch outwards. Each branch is pruned and clipped by natural selection.
This is to say that, all species crawling around today are a product of it. Evolution takes time, it is claimed. Thus, all organisms evolve and adapt. Natural Selection theory shows that the “most adapted” species survives in an environment. Those species that survive can also reproduce. At the end of the day, evolution is about fitness and offspring.
Accordingly, the assertion of European/Arab sovereignty in the New World, even if morally unjustified, it appears to have been historically inevitable. Civilized societies are so much more powerful than uncivilized that it is only a matter of time until the civilized societies extend their sway over the uncivilized societies, it is added.
So, given the “civilizational gap” between the Europeans/Arabs and the other World at the time of contact, it is explained that, it seems almost beside the point to raise questions about morality, since what matters is efficacy.
Then, according to the "Vanishing Race" ideology, to complain about the immorality of the evolutionary social process, is like complaining about the fact that childbirth is painful, or complaining about the fact that everyone eventually has to die, or complaining about the fact that floods and droughts do occur and harm people.
So, even if "terra nullius argument" is not morally persuasive, the "Vanishing Race argument" comes into play, to save the situation, making such moral concerns moot.
The conclusion is that: settler colonialism is as inevitable as pain, natural disasters, even death. In effect, the inevitable march of civilization means that today, many natives in Africa, America, Canada and Australia, have adopted the civilized mode of life, through revolutionary natural selection.
Their evolution is described as follows: Now they work, buy and sell, and invest in the economy; they acquire literacy and education, both basic and advanced; they vote and in other ways participate in political decision-making.
Then, the conclusion follows: In order to become self-supporting and get beyond the social pathologies that are ruining their communities, native people need to acquire European/Arab skills and attitudes that bring success in a liberal society, political democracy, and market economy.
Call it assimilation, call it integration, call it adaptation, call it whatever you want: it has to happen, according to social evolutionary theory, the promoters of the "vanishing race theory" say.
Taken together, the two settler colonial ideologies identify European/Arab political, social and economic practices with civilization and civilization with the future.
In familiar "terra nullius arguments" they deny politically meaningful indigenous presence and combine this with an evolutionary "teleological narrative" that imagines settler colonialism as triumphant, and therefore, indigenous peoples as necessarily vanishing.
8. The anatomy and pillars of a settler state
Settler colonial ideologies form an interpretative framework of cumulative historical analogies, one that enables the examination of a series of societies that have been shaped as settler societies from the early modern period until today.
These include but are not limited to the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Algeria. While specific settler colonial practices differ from society to society and in different historical constellations, the outcomes of the settler colonial processes are commensurable because of their similarities, especially given the focus on labour exploaitation and land expropriation as the central dynamic.
Accordingly, the above discussion of settler ideological dynamics logically leads to the question of settler state anatomy, which we discuss briefly here.
Weitzer (1990:24-41), has discussed at length “the pillars of settler rule.” He proffers that settler societies are founded by migrant groups who assume a superordinate position versus native inhabitants and build self-sustaining states that are de-jure or de-facto independent from the mother country and organized around the settler’s political domination over the indigenous population.
On his view, a settler state has three key attributes. The first pillar of a settler state is autonomy from the metropole in the exercise of political authority and coercive power. The greater the degree of autonomy, the greater the settler’s room for maneuver in molding economic, social and political structures.
Under de-jure independence, as it was the case in Liberia, South Africa, and Israel, the metropole relinquishes its juridical authority to interface in issues such as native political rights, land expropriation, labour exploitation, and the fundamental constitutional status of the territory.
This freedom from imperial intervention does little, however, to shield a settler society from internal conflicts and international pressures, as the recent history of Israel, Liberia,, and South Africa attests.
Under de-facto autonomy, as it is the case in Rhodesia,, Northern Ireland, and Taiwan, the imperial power loses control over political and coercive institutions but continues to claim sovereignty over the territory. It may assert this residual authority against the wishes of the settlers, with or without success.
Both cases of de-facto and de-jurei autonomy illustrate, first, how concerted and protracted defiance by settlers may expose the limits of metropolitan leverage over a settler state; and, second, how precarious de-fato state autonomy can be in keeping the metropole at bay during rises.
The second pillar of a settler state is consolidated settlers control over the indigenous population. Effective control is necessary to prevent or contain natives’ political mobilization, unrest, and threats to the system’s stability and also to discourage metropolitan interference on their behalf.
The scope, intensity, and substance of control vary over time and place. Controls may be extensive and intensive in political, economic and social spheres (as in South Africa) or less comprehensive (as in Israel and Northern Ireland). Variation is also evident in the relative importance of ideological, coercive, administrative, and co-optative mechanisms.
And the third pillar of a settler state is the maintenance of settlers’ caste solidarity and the state’s cohesion. Although the great divide is that between settlers and the native population, settler unity is never a foregone conclusion.
Internal conflicts within the state and dominant community, along class, ethnic, political, or cultural lines, can be dangerous in so far as they compromise the state’s capacity to deliver repression or if cracks in the settler monolith present an opportunity for natives to mobilize against settlers.
Ideological glue and material incentives promote cohesion. In their ideological regimes, settlers often dramatize communal differences by marshalling the folk wisdom of native “paganism,” “barbarism,” “animalism,” “untrustworthiness,” and “subversiveness.”
As for material incentives, settlers commonly dispense privileges to the lower echelons of the settler caste, where they exist in significant numbers, so as to avert the growth of class alliances with natives. Hence, the emergence of “labour aristocracies” of Protestant workers in Northen Ireland and white workers in South Africa and Rhodesia.
Generally, settler societies are extreme examples of “plural societies” or “communally divided societies.” Unlike societies integrated along universalistic lines, a plural society is characterized by persistent and mutually reinforcing cleavages, typically ethnic, racial, or religious, between two or more sections of the population. By virtue of their cultural diversity, communal interests, and ascriptive socio-economic inequality, the separate communities are differently incorporated in the social order.
And specifically, the model settler society is typically structured along caste lines. That is, a hierarchical structure of endogenous, hereditary groups, with pronounced social distance in intergroup relations, differential socialization, and a caste etiquette governing contacts between dominant and subordinate groups, where, the following key attributes apply:
One, intermarriage is discouraged across the caste line, but sexual unions often obey a double standard, that of sexual apartheid for native and settler women but not for settler men and native women, this pattern being exemplified in Rhodesia and South Africa.
Two, social distance between the settlers and natives is relatively high in the areas of friendship, leisure activities, and work.
Three, inter-communal interaction in everyday life may be superficially cordial, as members of each caste keep their prescribed places. Caste etiquette requires differential conduct toward superiors, expressed in speech, body movement, and general demeanor, the behavior that reaffirms dominant or subordinate status,, reduces friction, and defuses dominant member’s fears of the subordinate group.
And four, such patterned interpersonal relations are reinforced by economic and political inequality and by the dominant value system. In Rhodesia, South Africa, Israel, Liberia, and Northern Ireland, dominant stereotypes portray the subordinate population as backward, primitive, sub-human, child-like, irrational, lazy, and immoral. These attributes help to justify the privileges of the dominant caste and work against social assimilation and political incorporation of the “uncivilized” caste.
However, there are some variation in the degree to which, actual settler state cases approximate these caste patterns. Variations may be found in the following variables as well;
One, the ratio of settlers to natives, where, the dominant group may be a minority or a majority. For example, according to Weitzer (1990:32): in Israel, up to the present, the percentage of settlers in population is 86 percent; in Liberia until 1980 it was 3 percent; in South Africa, up to the present it is 15 percent; in Northern Ireland, until 1972 it was 63 percent; in Rhodesia, until 1980 it was 5 percent; in Taiwani, until the present it is 14 percent; in Algeria, until 1962 it was 12 percent; in Kenya, until 1963 it was 1 percent; in Namibia, until 1990 it was 7 percent; in Zambia, until 1964 it was 3 percent; and in Zanzibar, until 1964 it was 17 percent.
Two, the ratio of racial, ethnic, or religious similitude between castes. Three, the degree of assimilation and miscegenation allowed. Four, settlers’ and natives’ attitudes toward one another. And five, the balance between coercive and other forms of social control.
Although these variations are often significant in the settlers’ and natives’ lives, the universal sine qua non remains the preservation of settler power and privilege.
Because of these dynamics, Weitzer (1990:37) portrays Zanzibar in the following terms: During most of the period when Zanzibar was a British protectorate (1890-1963), British officials consistently endorsed the Arabs’ political and economic domination over the African majority.
Arabs received preferences for top governmental positions; while a minority of the population dominance amounting to 17 percent only. So, their power was conditioned by the British Colonial Office’s control of the core of state power, namely, the police and the ministries of defense, finance and internal security. The Arabs’ failure to gain control of these vital organs underscored the fragility of settler rule in Zanzibar which collapsed in the 1964 revolution.
9. How to terminate settler colonialism
So, against this ideological background, given the desire to promote national identity, national unity and national security, how should natives deal with settler colonialism?
Generally, under Settler colonialism, settler colonial societies do not stop being colonial when political allegiance to the founding metropole is severed. Instead, settler colonizers can cease to be colonizers if the settler-native dichotomy ceases. And this can happen in one of the following ways:
Either when the minority settlers become assimilated into the culture of the native majority; or when the majority natives become assimilated into the culture of the minority settlers; or when the political identities of both settlers and natives cease to exist as separate identities after a new common identity has been forged; or when the settlers become the majority of the population because it has outnumbered the natives through natural population growth; or when the settlers become the majority of the population because they have strategically reduced or eliminated the native population; or when the natives become the majority of the population because they have strategically reduced or eliminated the native population.
So, native labour and land are crucial to a settler colonial framework, as the primary object of settler colonialization is the blend of labor and land rather than the surplus value to be derived from the blend, as surplus is never exported.
They are the two most important factors that divides export colonialism and settler colonialism. They have to be factored into any national struggle for territorial sovereignty and a unified national political identity.
Specifically, Kelley (2017:269) points out that the African encounter with settler colonialism was primarily marked by exploitative processes. He demonstrates this not only through the case of enslaved African population, but also through the centrality of exploitation in the case of settler colonialism in South Africa.
He shows convincingly how, in the construction of white settler social relations in the country, the expropriation of the native from the land was a fundamental objective, but so was proletarianization.
The settlers wanted the land and the labour, but not the people. That is to say, they sought to eliminate stable communities and their cultures of resistance. The attempted elimination of collective peoplehood, Kelley shows, is here a political goal pursued through exploitation.
Similarly, Speed (2017:784) argues that, Spanish settlers did not "either" exploit or eliminate but did both, in different ways, depending on time and place. So, the issue of labour alongside that of land defines much of these experiences, as does indigenous labour resistance:
He indicates that, in places like Mexico and Central America, such labour regimes were often the very mechanisms that dispossessed indigenous peoples of their lands, forcing them to labour in extractive undertakings on the very land that had been taken from them.
But, it was the very dependence of settler colonial regimes on native labour, which laid the foundation for their destruction. It was the ability of indigenous resistance movements in Zanzibar, Algeria and Southern Africa to shut down the settler economy as well as challenge the colonial states militarily that made decolonization possible.
When the State House and the Parliament decide to collude and side with Arab settler colonists, to the disadvantage of the native population, by partially transferring our territorial sovereignty to Dubai, through a bogus treaty, is there anything that can stop the natives to learn something from this history?
10. Summary, discussion and conclusion
We have seen that, the term “colonialism” conjures historical memories of exploitative European and Asian empires militarily or fraudulently invading other empires called their colonies, implanting their citizens in the colonies through the use of force, subjugating the native and indigenous populations and stealing their natural resources.
It can mean “settler colonialism” or "exporter colonialism." While “settler colonists” come to exploit, establish a permanent home, and stay for ever, "exporter colonists" come to exploit, establish a temporary home, and stay up to a given deadline.
So, this means that, under "exporter colonialism" the terminal of the decolonization process is the departure of a colonist, while under “settler colonialism” the terminal of the decolonization process is a compromise between natives and colonists.
In the latter case, they are both citizens of a new nation, having a single national identity, forged around an overlapping cultural consensus, which is an intersection set premised on comprehensive cultures of the respective natives and colonists.
Accordingly, colonization is a process by which one empire aims at forming a new society in a foreign territory by changing the ownership and control of the foreign territory and the subsequent creation of new settlements for the new society, over and against a free, informed and just consent of the native people.
On this view, Tanganyika is a typical example of a former "European exporter colonial state" while Zanzibar is a typical example of a former "Arab settler colonial state." In effect, the union between Tanganyika and Zanzibar, in 1964, created a new "hybrid post-colonial state" called the United Republic of Tanzania.
However, the events leading to the signing and ratification of the Tanzania-Dubai Treaty, in their unevenness and complexity, have revealed a key security weakness in our strategies to manage such a "hybrid colonial state."
Our institutional framework of national security management has loopholes which entail our vulnerability to new forms of "settler colonialism," which are now exposing us to dangerous exploitations by Americans, Europeans and Arabs coming in the name of foreign direct investors. We have to fix these leakage points today.
For example,, we are mindful of the recent past Masai evictions. We have seen the Tanzanian government siding with the United Arab Emirate (UAE) firm, one Ortello Business Corporation (OBC), as it planned to evict Maasai from their ancestral lands in Loliondo. OBC is a hunting firm said to be owned by the UAE royal family. Finally, the Tanzania’s Maasai lost their Loliondo land to OBC under the pretext of spurious reasons of environmental conservation.
Masai community taming their domestic animals amid water scarcity
Not only that. As we write today, on Tanzania Mainland, many mines are in the hands of Europeans, Our forests have been given to Arabs, Our Postal Corporation is being run by an Arab, the Natural gas has gone to Europeans, and the same logic of natural resources sovereignty transfer to foreigners extends to TPDC. As per investment contracts, the stay of these investors is not less than 33 years from the commencement of the contracts. Settler colonialism is now a reality in Tanzania.
And we should not forget that, Upanga East, in Dar es Salaam, is now an "Indian settler colony" which has been effectively occupied by Indians for years now. They systematically displaced natives through consensual resettlements, under enticements of huge sums of money to them, and now they have their own schools, hospitals, recreation centers, banks, and an own "President."
On the other hand, the Zanzibar government, under President Hussein Mweinyi, has already opened up some of the smaller islands falling outside Zanzibar’s main islands of Unguja and Pemba, for high-end investment and development opportunities. The programme, which is being implemented by the Zanzibar Investment Promotion Authority (ZIPA), is intended to build on Zanzibar’s government strategy of attracting foreign investment by granting interested parties Strategic Investment Project (SIS) status.
Among the incentives are a residency permit that authorizes real estate buyers, along with their partners and a maximum of four children under the age of 20, to live in the country after purchasing a property.
There is also a 50 percent exemption on capital gain on purchased properties, 100 per cent foreign ownership, 100 percent exemption from worldwide income for foreigners and the added benefit of no minimum stay being required.
The islands include: Chumbe Island, Kwale Island, Misali Island, Njao Island, Matumbini, Pamunda A, Pamunda B, Chapwani, Lupita Island, Thanda Island, Mnemba Island, Fanjove Island, Bawe Island, Changuu Island.
11. Why we have decided to write a letter to you
In light of the above settler colonial ideologies, given the professional study reports, that reached your office as our former President, plus security intelligence memos that accompanied them, we believe that, the Tanzania-Dubai Treaty poses a clear and present danger of “Arab settler colonialism” in a modern neo-colonial Tanzania, which, if successful, will have succeeded “European extractive colonialism” that happened in traditional colonial Tanzania before the Independence Day in 1961.
Given your education, political and historical backgrounds, we have no doubt that you really know and accept this conclusion very well. It is the very reason why you decided to leave office without implementing your ambitious vision of maritime reforms through Foreign Direct Investment from America, the Middle East and the Far East. Until then, our Prime Minister Cassim Majaliwa had a synchronous mind with you in this regard.
12. A polite call for action from Jakaya KIkwete
But, there is circumstantial and credible evidence to show that you have now made a U-turn on this matter, as the picture below shows.
Jakaya Kikwete in Dubai under a common photo along with Dubai Sultan plus Maulid Kitenge
Now, given that, you have changed your minds, in a way that makes you overtly support the Tanzania-Dubai Treaty, as proved by the above picture, the public now requests you to come forward and tell us the reasons for your U-turn.
The same plea goes to PM Majaliwa, who all along, while working with the Late John Pombe Magufuli, showed a stable stand against settler colonialism, but has recently made a U-turn, as his recent utterances prove.
Otherwise, both of you are requested to advise President Samia Suluhu Hassan and her team to cause the de-ratification of the Tanzania-Dubai Treaty, with immediate effect.
We insist that, the most holy duty of each and every President is to protect our territorial sovereignty, as constitutionally defined under articles 1, 2(1) and 8(1)(a) of the 1977 constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, a violation of which clauses amounts to the most heinous crime against a state, specifically called treason.
Hitherto, we are of settled minds that, in October 2022 the state house committed treason by signing the bogus Tanzania-Dubai Treaty and that on 10 June 2023, the Parliament similarly committed treason by ratifying the bogus Tanzania-Dubai Treaty.
Dear Jakaya Mrisho KIkwete, can you fail to facilitate the undoing of these horrendous political mistakes in Nyerere's, Mwinyi's, Mkapa's and Magufuli's Tanzania? Your silence or belated answer won't be useful to Tanzanian Bantus for the following reason:
“Arab settler colonialism in Africa began with the Arab invasion of Egypt in 640 A.D. and persists today in Mauritania, Sudan and all of North Africa. The Arab settler colonies in East Africa, at Zanzibar and Mombassa, predate by centuries the Dutch settler colony in Cape Town. Also, from 1821-1956, Egypt was a classic, European-type colonial ruler in Sudan. Thus, Arab colonialism in Africa is no figment of the imagination. And it persists today in different guises. Unlike European colonialism, it is not even in nominal retreat. The Arabs in Africa are colonialists and are even now, with great determination, expanding their territories.”—By Chinweizu Ibekwe (2007c)
In fact, you have to run, since you are already late. Under your Presidency you handed Tanzania to two Arab Presidents, one on Tanzania Mainland and the other on Tanzania Zanzibar.
This means that, the "Arab Settler Agenda" of migrating and staying in a foreign colony, while dominating the natives, is almost done by 51 percent. The Arab settler colonists are now ruling Tanzania because of your oversight. The two, Samia Suluhu Hassan and Hussein Mwinyi, who are descendants of the said Arab settler colonists, are now strategically recalling their Arab relatives to come back and take land in Tanzania.
In Zanzibar 16 islands have already been transferred to Arab investors in style. On Tanzania Mainland Samia is transferring 88 Ports to her Arab relatives, just as she is busy appointing Arabia originating Zanzibaris to various posts in Tanzania mainland. You have a case to answer if you do not undo your mistake now.
On this sad point, we want to conclude our letter by quoting the Armenian President Sarkisian, who according to Chinweizu (2007c), once said that:
“The denial of a crime constitutes the direct continuation of that very crime. Only recognition and condemnation can prevent the repetition of such crimes in the future”.
One word to a Wiseman suffices!
13. Key references
- Adam Johns (2006), Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (London/New York: Routledge).
- Chinweizu Ibekwe (2007a), “Racism: Arab & European Compared,” in Comparative Digest: Black Power Pan Africanism (BPPA), Tract No.1.
- Chinweizu Ibekwe (2007b), “Black Enslavement: Arab & European Compared,” in Comparative Digest: Black Power Pan Africanism, Tract No.2.
- Chinweizu Ibekwe (2007c), “Colonialism: Arab & European Compared,” in Comparative Digest: Black Power Pan Africanism, Tract No.3.
- Felician Komu (2014), "Conceptualizing Fair, Full and Prompt Compensation – the Tanzanian Context of Sustaining Livelihood in Expropriation Projects," Journal of Land Administration in Eastern Africa, 2.2:252-267.
- Joanne Barker, “For Whom Sovereignty Matters.” In Sovereignty Matters: Locations of Contestation and Possibility in Indigenous Struggles for Self-Determination; Contemporary Indigenous Issues (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press).
- Joanne Barker (2005), ed. Sovereignty Matters: Locations of Contestation and Possibility in Indigenous Struggles for Self-Determination; Contemporary Indigenous Issues (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press).
- Joane Barker(2012), "Locating Settler Colonialism," Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History
- Joane Barker and Emma Battell Lowman (2015), Settler: Identity and Colonialism in 21st Century Canada (Halifax: Fernwood Publishing).
- Lorenzo Veracini (2010), Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).
- Lorenzo Veracini (2011), “Introducing Settler Colonial Studies.” In Special Issue: A Global Phenomenon, Settler Colonial Studies 1.1: 1–12.
- Lorenzo Veracini, (2015), The Settler Colonial Present (London: Palgrave Macmillan).
- Morri and Benedetto (2019), Commercial Property Valuation: Methods and Case Studies (UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd)
- Patrick Wolfe (1998), Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event; Writing Past Colonialism (London: Cassell)
- Patrick Wolfe (2006), “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8.4: 387–409.
- Robin Kelley (2017), "The rest of us: Rethinking settler and native," American Quarterly 69(2):267–276.
- Ronald Weitzer (1990), Transforming Settler States: Communal Conflict and Internal Security in Northern Ireland and Zimbabwe (California: University of California Press Ltd).
- Scott Lauria Morgensen (2011), “The Biopolitics of Settler Colonialism: Right Here, Right Now.” In Special Issue: A Global Phenomenon. Settler Colonial Studies 1.1: 52–76.
- Sergey Ripinsky and Kevin Williams(2008), Damages in International Investment Law (London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law)
- Shannon Speed (2017), "Structures of settler capitalism in Abya Yala," American Quarterly 69(4): 783–790.
- Sulle, E., & Nelson, F. (2009), Biofuels, land access and rural livelihoods in Tanzania (London: IIED).
- Taiaiake Alfred (1999), Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto (New York: Oxford University Press).
- Tanzania Ports Authority (2009), Tanzania Ports Master Plan: Final Report (as Prepared by Royal Haskoning Consultants).
- Tijjani Muhammad Naniya (2000), "Arab Settlers in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Survey of their Influence on Some Central Sudanese States," Kano Studies New Series, Vol. 1, Issue No. 1.
- Tracey Banivanua Mar and Penelope Edmonds (2010), eds, Making Settler Colonial Space: Perspectives on Race, Place and Identity (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).
“Sumbawanga Town”
Tanzania.
07 July 2023
-Tanzania HAS never
