Ronald Reagan described a Tanzanian delegation as "monkeys" in a call with then-President Richard Nixon

[Proved]

Kujiona yeye ndio binadamu kamili hakukumuepusha na kifo huyo fedhuli!!

 

[Mzuvendi]

Tanzanian economy was booming back in the seventies but after the fall of the EAC and the war with Uganda, our economy was brought to it's knees.

Nyerere desperately trying to recover the economy, he needed money to run the country but he was denied loans by those institutions (IMF/WB).

When Dr. Salim (one of the person called monkey in 1971 call) was the front runner to win the seat at the UN, it was the Reagan administration that vetoed him out . If that was the case what makes you think they didn't instruct the IMF/WB to denied Nyerere, some loans?

Nyerere did not see eye to eye with the Reagan administration and you can tell by the tone of the letter sent to Reagan by him. He had a good relationship with president Carter though, just like he did with Kennedy.

If the disintegration of EAC and the Uganda war brought the Tanzanian economy to its knees, why do you blame Reagan when the sources of your problems were your fellow Africans?

Furthermore, if you compare the performances of other african economies in late 70s, you will find out that almost all africans countries were experiencing the same economic issues. These countries faced shortage of foreign reserve, they were highly indebted, they had unsustainable public sector, higher level of corruption, low productivity etc etc. Thus, if you take everything into consideration, you can calmly conclude that the Tanzanian economy didn't experience boom throught 70s. There was a boom in earlier 70s when foreign aid packages were in full swing, but that was it.

 

[Mzuvendi]

Ubaguzi na hasira ni sehemu za maisha... hata nyie majumbani mwenu wadada wa kazi au mashamba boy hamuwatendei kama wanafamilia zenu sawa sawa.

There you. Tanzania used to call the leaders of Kenya Manyang'au. But they can't take it if somebody turns the heat in the opposite direction.

 

[Chamoto]

If the disintegration of EAC and the Uganda war brought the Tanzanian economy to its knees, why do you blame Reagan when the sources of your problems were your fellow Africans?

Furthermore, if you compare the performances of other african economies in late 70s, you will find out that almost all africans countries were experiencing the same economic issues. These countries faced shortage of foreign reserve, they were highly indebted, they had unsustainable public sector, higher level of corruption, low productivity etc etc. Thus, if you take everything into consideration, you can calmly conclude that the Tanzanian economy didn't experience boom throught 70s. There was a boom in earlier 70s when foreign aid packages were in full swing, but that was it.

It is true what you said about that time, may be I didn't clarify exactly what years in the 70's.There were two scenarios that caused the downfall of economies of the African countries around the mid 70's. One was famine that was caused by the climate patterns change and the other was the oil embargo.

Having said that, it would be naive of you to deny that fact that IMF/WB is used by the west as a tool to twist the arms of "trouble makers" as they do with sanctions.

 

[Mzuvendi]

It is true what you said about that time, may be I didn't clarify exactly what years in the 70's.There were two scenarios that caused the downfall of economies of the African countries around the mid 70's. One was famine that was caused by the climate patterns change and the other was the oil embargo.

Having said that, it would be naive of you to deny that fact that IMF/WB is used by the west as a tool to twist the arms of "trouble makers" as they do with sanctions.

IMF/WB could have been used to unstable the economy of Tanzania and other trouble makers. But, again you have to remember that the same organizations engineered massive social and econimic changes in many poor countries, Tanzania included, between 1968-1974. So the point here is if somebody inflate you, he can also deflate you at will and that's what happened.

Historically, The IMF/WB were established to help the countries in Western Europe recovery from the upheavals of the Second World War. By late 60s, the recovery was done and the mission was changed toward poverty elimination in Third World and as a matter of fact, for this,Tanzania received substantial amounts of money from the West to support its social and economic programs.

So if you take what I have just said above into consideration, you will see that Tanzanian government was trying to bite the hand that supported the existance of the country. It didn't work well.

So I am not looking at this issue naively. But rather, I am trying to be pragmatic. My view is this world of our isn't angelic and everything has its own price. Nyerere and Tanzania paid dearly for miscalculations.

 

[Chamoto]

IMF/WB could have been used to unstable the economy of Tanzania and other trouble makers. But, again you have to remember that the same organizations engineered massive social and econimic changes in many poor countries, Tanzania included, between 1968-1974. So the point here is if somebody inflate you, he can also deflate you at will and that's what happened.

Historically, The IMF/WB were established to help the countries in Western Europe recovery from the upheavals of the Second World War. By late 60s, the recovery was done and the mission was changed toward poverty elimination in Third World and as a matter of fact, for this,Tanzania received substantial amounts of money from the West to support its social and economic programs.

So if you take what I have just said above into consideration, you will see that Tanzanian government was trying to bite the hand that supported the existance of the country. It didn't work well.

So I am not looking at this issue naively. But rather, I am trying to be pragmatic. My view is this world of our isn't angelic and everything has its own price. Nyerere and Tanzania paid dearly for miscalculations.

If those economic programs were that good, how come after 30 years of practicing, African countries are in a much worse position socially and economically than they were in the 70's?

Those programs suggested we should privatize everything, we all know what happened. They wanted us to open our markets, so we imported used clothes and the whole local tailoring industry we used to have, gone the way of the dinosaurs. It wouldn't need much brain to realize, our people were conned into a new era of neo colonialism.

 

[Nyaru-sare]

yaani huwa nacheeka!




Nywele za mzungu na nywele za muafrica zipi zinakaribiana na nyani kwa mtelezo?

Lips nazo je pana na nyembmba.

Neandetahal ni nyani, ni chembe chembe za nyani kwa wazungu tu.

 

[Mzuvendi]

If those economic programs were that good, how come after 30 years of practicing, African countries are in a much worse position socially and economically than they were in the 70's?

Those programs suggested we should privatize everything, we all know what happened. They wanted us to open our markets, so we imported used clothes and the whole local tailoring industry we used to have, gone the way of the dinosaurs. It wouldn't need much brain to realize, our people were conned into a new era of neo colonialism.

Sir, your question above is a title for a PhD dissertation in Economics or International development programs. However, as a concerned citizen, I have my two cents. Personally I think that poverty elimination was a noble quest. However, donor countries and recipients didn’t have enough experience or no experience at all to deal effectively with the problem at hand.
This because, historically, before IMF/WB realign its core mission from the recovery of European economies to poverty elimination in third worlds, there was no organization or country which had practical experience in helping poor countries move up the ladder. For example, if I ask you, what experience did the Tanzanian government had in 60s, 70s and 80s to run successful business enterprises? You will say none. Remember this was the country that had one of the best development blueprints in the African continent, but lacked the know-hows.

Again, if I ask you, what experience did Sweden, Denmark, or for that matter IMF/WB had in 60s. 70s, and 80s helping at least one poor nation move out the abyss of backwardness. You answer will be none. So generally, you had a group of donors with financial resources and a group of recipients with ambitions; however, that was it. Both groups had no viable programs and enough experience to execute mission.

Take for example the program which was intended to eliminate illiteracy in Tanzania. The theory in the World Bank corridors and in international developments agencies was that if you teach people how to read and write, one day the will open books in agriculture or husbandry and learn from them. Tanzanian government took that theory to heart and with the help of Sweden, the country massively implemented universal primary school education (UPE) and adult education in every corner of the country. It was seen back them that education was shortcut to glory. However, ten years down the road, the net outcome of this program was almost zero. What’s worse it diluted the quality of education in the country.

With regard to industrialization, I will put it this way. You don’t build industries for the sake of having them. Rather, you build them to fulfill business needs of the consumers. The problem is the people at the IMF/WB and the Tanzanians who were in charge of making business and economic requirements for industrialization weren’t business people. They were politicians and economics. Therefore, they didn’t know business circles, and more importantly they looked at the industrialization from a political point of view. Take for example the textile plants in Mwanza and Musoma. Certainly, both regions used to produce cotton; however, the electric power supply wasn’t sufficient. Do you blame IMF/WB for that?

 

[Mkongwee]

Hahahahaha wabongo wenyewe tangu kuzaliwa tukiwaudhi wazazi wetuu na hayo huwa ndo majibu yaoo
Mbwaa mkubwaa weee
Nyani kasoro mkia weee

 

[Chamoto]

Sir, your question above is a title for a PhD dissertation in Economics or International development programs. However, as a concerned citizen, I have my two cents. Personally I think that poverty elimination was a noble quest. However, donor countries and recipients didn’t have enough experience or no experience at all to deal effectively with the problem at hand.

This because, historically, before IMF/WB realign its core mission from the recovery of European economies to poverty elimination in third worlds, there was no organization or country which had practical experience in helping poor countries move up the ladder. For example, if I ask you, what experience did the Tanzanian government had in 60s, 70s and 80s to run successful business enterprises? You will say none. Remember this was the country that had one of the best development blueprints in the African continent, but lacked the know-hows.

Again, if I ask you, what experience did Sweden, Denmark, or for that matter IMF/WB had in 60s. 70s, and 80s helping at least one poor nation move out the abyss of backwardness. You answer will be none. So generally, you had a group of donors with financial resources and a group of recipients with ambitions; however, that was it. Both groups had no viable programs and enough experience to execute mission.

There is a big difference between Scandinavian donors and the IMF/WB when it comes to helping the poor, the former have really good intention, the later I'm not so sure about that.

Problems in Africa are much bigger than one aspect of economy, there is a huge cultural issue in the continent. The Europeans lumped us up like one big tribe not understanding just because we have darker skin, we're different people among ourselves. So we cannot expect them to have a solution of our problems. We have to come up with our own ways to solve all social, cultural and economic problems. But then again when we try to work things out like building our economy, someone will bring chaos (boko haram, al shabab,) just so to put us back to where we were.

We have no friends.

Take for example the program which was intended to eliminate illiteracy in Tanzania. The theory in the World Bank corridors and in international developments agencies was that if you teach people how to read and write, one day the will open books in agriculture or husbandry and learn from them. Tanzanian government took that theory to heart and with the help of Sweden, the country massively implemented universal primary school education (UPE) and adult education in every corner of the country. It was seen back them that education was shortcut to glory. However, ten years down the road, the net outcome of this program was almost zero. What’s worse it diluted the quality of education in the country.

I don't understand how you came up with that "almost zero" conclusion, if I remember correctly that program increased literacy rate to more than 90%. When you have those numbers, in any country, it's easier to communicate with the masses and save time as messages can be conveyed precisly and exactly as intended without diluting it's content.

With regard to industrialization, I will put it this way. You don’t build industries for the sake of having them. Rather, you build them to fulfill business needs of the consumers. The problem is the people at the IMF/WB and the Tanzanians who were in charge of making business and economic requirements for industrialization weren’t business people. They were politicians and economics. Therefore, they didn’t know business circles, and more importantly they looked at the industrialization from a political point of view. Take for example the textile plants in Mwanza and Musoma. Certainly, both regions used to produce cotton; however, the electric power supply wasn’t sufficient. Do you blame IMF/WB for that?

What you said about the problem of politicians making decisions of the law of demand and supply is true but this notion of putting IMF/WB and governments of poor countries on the same basket, as having a common goal, doesn't sit well with me. The intentions of these institutions in Africa is not the same as in Europe, there is always an ill feel when it comes to deal with Africans. What they do is to put poor countries into debt and when they default their payments they twist their arms even more.

Western institutions always play unfairly with poor countries, one example of that is in the aviation industry where airlines that conduct business in Africa get charged much higher insurance premiums than their European counterpart, just because. This makes it harder for the airlines in Africa to break even which affects tourism industry and local economy in general.

Lastly, I must say that I agree with the lack of understanding of business practices among leaders but there is still too much pressure from the financial world institutions.

 

[Mzuvendi]

There is a big difference between Scandinavian donors and the IMF/WB when it comes to helping the poor, the former have really good intention, the later I'm not so sure about that.

Problems in Africa are much bigger than one aspect of economy, there is a huge cultural issue in the continent. The Europeans lumped us up like one big tribe not understanding just because we have darker skin, we're different people among ourselves. So we cannot expect them to have a solution of our problems. We have to come up with our own ways to solve all social, cultural and economic problems. But then again when we try to work things out like building our economy, someone will bring chaos (boko haram, al shabab,) just so to put us back to where we were.

We have no friends.

I don't understand how you came up with that "almost zero" conclusion, if I remember correctly that program increased literacy rate to more than 90%. When you have those numbers, in any country, it's easier to communicate with the masses and save time as messages can be conveyed precisly and exactly as intended without diluting it's content.


What you said about the problem of politicians making decisions of the law of demand and supply is true but this notion of putting IMF/WB and governments of poor countries on the same basket, as having a common goal, doesn't sit well with me. The intentions of these institutions in Africa is not the same as in Europe, there is always an ill feel when it comes to deal with Africans. What they do is to put poor countries into debt and when they default their payments they twist their arms even more.

Western institutions always play unfairly with poor countries, one example of that is in the aviation industry where airlines that conduct business in Africa get charged much higher insurance premiums than their European counterpart, just because. This makes it harder for the airlines in Africa to break even which affects tourism industry and local economy in general.

Lastly, I must say that I agree with the lack of understanding of business practices among leaders but there is still too much pressure from the financial world institutions.

I am a result-oriented person. And if I have to evaluate the performance of IMF/WB and that of Scandinavian donors, I will give them the same bad grade. They have done a terrible job in helping Tanzania.

Why do I put the Scandinavian donors in the same bucket as IMF/WB? They have helped us the way you help a beggar. You help a beggar to survive the next day, not necessary to become independent person. I am sorry to say that is what they have done. They have operated in Tanzania for over 50 years. If they have a good intention, probably, we would have been in a better position by now. For example, they aren’t among our top trading partners. If they really like us, instead of giving us the leftover of their budgets, they should have invested in the country.

Take this example. In earlier 90s, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the same Scandinavians did a great job to help their brothers in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Today those three countries are flourishing, socially and economically. They have been in Tanzania for 50 years; but they haven’t shown the same commitments.

Certainly, we have some serious issues in Africa. But we, especially in Tanzania, should stop generalizing these issues to the point that we can’t champion the wellbeing of our nation or the point we are afraid to be bold. This is because, the fault lines which exist in other parts of Africa don’t exist in Tanzania. As such if we fail in our national initiatives big or small, we should blame nobody but ourselves. In Tanzania, there’s no such thing as boko haram or al Shabab. Since the British took over from the German in 1918, the government of Tanzania have operated without any interruption. So, when it comes to our country, we Tanzanians we owe ourselves, the African people and the entire world an explanation. We have to explain why we fail when we have better social and environmental conditions to excel than others.

With regard to literacy rate, the mistake was made to equate enrollment rate with literacy rate. What Tanzania achieved in mid 70s was enrolment rate of 90% or above. However, this didn’t translate to a modest or above average literacy rate and that is a fact. The literacy rate goes in hand with reading comprehension. That’s to say people should read and decode what they have read. Therefore, when I say almost zero, I mean the return of investment in UPE and adult education programs didn’t pan out the way it was intended to. In other words, the revolutionization of education sector in Tanzania in 70s didn’t change the way Tanzanians interact with environments. They have continued to pursue the same activities the way their ancestors who didn’t touch classrooms did.

Now with regard to industrialization, my backgrounds aren’t in Economics or social science. However, the literature I have devoured indicates that IMF/WB and donor countries use models and theories when they try to help us. Unfortunately, some of these models or theories are outdated or don’t work very well in our environments. Take for example, the lost decades of 80s, and 90s, and 2000s. Tanzania was highly indebted country at that time, and there was no way the government of Tanzania could sustain its debt obligation while supporting the well-being on its people. The question is what did the Scandinavian countries do to help us?

Implicitly, they brought in their own model. In Scandinavian countries, of for that matter in Northern Europe and America, when they face economic hardship, they elect fiscal conservative politicians who aim to reduce government spending through austerity measures. In these rich countries, austerity measures work because they have the resources to bounce back. However, the austerity measures weren’t good fit for us because we don’t have the know-hows to bounce back. For example, between 1991-1994, the Swedish government was under moderate conservative party which introduced measures to cut government spending, and taxes. At the same period, the mentality of Tanzanians, especially those in power about Swedish remained the same as if Olof Palme was still the prime minister.

It’s true that Western institutions play unfairly with poor countries. However, the airline example you used above is a bad one actually. Can you explain why Ethiopian Airline flourishes; whereas, the rest of African Airlines struggle to break even? I am not trying to defend these institutions, but the truth of the matter is when you engage with them, make sure that you have done your homework first. We have 50 years of experience dealing with those institutions, can we find an alternative?
Western institutions use risk analysis tools when they with any borrower, where that be a small municipality in the US or a country in Africa. When I look at the rating of these institutions, I don’t see the name of Tanzania there and when I see the rating is so bad. The question is if your borrowing patterns is bad, why should Western institutions treat fairly?

My point is life is a chess game. The best way to play this game entails the ability to read the moves of your opponent.

 

[Chamoto]

Mzuvendi, you raise some good points, I'll be back for this, I'm also tagging Malcom Lumumba he's an expert on this matter.

 

[Mlaleo]

There you. Tanzania used to call the leaders of Kenya Manyang'au. But they can't take it if somebody turns the heat in the opposite direction.

i never heard of it before... can you prove it please...

 

[Mzuvendi]

i never heard of it before... can you prove it please...

The truth can be inferred by proving or unproving the statement. Can you unprove my statement?

 

[Mlaleo]

The truth can be inferred by proving or unproving the statement. Can you unprove my statement?

Its sound lies to me or others since when Tanzanian Call any Kenyan Leader are Nyang'au or Manyang'au?

 

[EvilSpirit]

kuna ka ukweli mbona nikumuangalia *$#@)(( naona kaunyaninyani bado akajatoweka

 

[Mzuvendi]

Its sound lies to me or others since when Tanzanian Call any Kenyan Leader are Nyang'au or Manyang'au?

You are the only one disputing the statement. Probably there is truth to it. Just try to dig deeper or ask the elders.