| It is without question that a very relevant issue influencing our times concerns relations between Africa and China, in an increasingly competitive political and economic world order*. Specifically, this often violently competitive system of production generates stark realities and weary opinions. According to the historical heritage of China and the experience of its African’sovereign’ counter-part, Tanzania, if more people were living the good life, the better the future of the nation. The economic and political initiatives undertaken by both sovereign states such as China’s Cultural Revolution and Economic Reforms, Tanzania’s Arusha Declaration, China Friendship Textile Mill LTD.(CFTM) or Tan-Zam Rail Project (TZRP) represented actions of pro-active change in most historical calendars. However, Chinese and African historians have generally described the period (1968-1985) in China and Tanzania to have had a strong influence on contemporary contention of ideas and action. Therefore the meaning and well-being of this productive exchange has been and will be continually challenged.Under certain laws, production needed to fulfill the needs of the national population. This provided an opportunity for the people of Tanzania and China to express and exchange ideas and support. Understanding Western historical science, the inevitability of violence and certain modes of production were apparent parallels. For F. Engels and K. Marx, Mwalimu Nyerere and Chairman Mao, it was about breaking down deception and oppression, and truly providing for material need. They all championed inclusive society under certain conditions. The inception and implementation of the various policies and projects represented the collectivization of ideas and material procreativity. These challenges and actions generated differing opinions and consequences; such that the politics of change in both Tanzania and China have taken on specific meanings respectively. The meaning of reform in its many forms has had fundamental implications for contemporary industry and government in both China and Tanzania. From common to private ownership, as well as courting both communist and capitalist aspirations, the impacts inevitably highlight many unconstructive and constructive patterns of change. This study is broken down into five chapters, excluding the introduction and the fifth chapter being the conclusion. A ’linear’ timeline serves as the descriptive backbone of this research in order to unravel the underlying relationships between ideology, education and technology. However, illustrating the multi-dimensional aspect of influence and impact serves as the primary reasoning behind any conclusion found in this research. The introduction briefly takes into account current references to the historical record of societal change in China and Tanzania (between purposefully chosen junctures in historical records) respectively. The aim is to establish a brief narrative context of the inherited and influencing societal tensions that existed in the two regions.To begin with, in a current world order in which words/phrases such as ’harmony’ and ’inclusive dialogue’ speak to the widest audience, conceptions of development take on specific meanings. Thus to begin a historical analysis of a particular reality, it is important for one to agree that perspective and the type of respect accorded is a fundamental equation in the production and reproduction of knowledge. In China, after the Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed (1898), emancipatory dialogue and action was swiftly recognized as a necessary factor in stimulating the freedom of indigenous voice. It was also understood that the influences, methodologies, aims and consequences of perspectives all contribute to the success of developmental paradigms. Popular history in China reminds the reader that by the turn of the nineteenth/twentieth century, the monumental, collective attempts (Opium War, Taiping Heavenly Movement, Reform Movement, Yihetuan Movement) at freeing China from imperial design ushered in a new epoch of change.The consciousness of national, political freedom thus was a strong feature of moral will and pragmatic inclination by the beginning of the twentieth century in China. In one sense, it was exogenous or endogenous interests that determined the product and consequence of development. Local intellectual and productive capacities within the national political struggles against semi-colonial rule and revolutionary ideology brought to boil the struggles between Local administration and citizenry. In another sense, it was the politics of social organization that swayed the nature of development discourse. It was therefore in light of short-term and long-term ’objectives’, and important policy statements such as the ’five principles of co-existence’(1954), and the Bandung Conference (1955) that saw the establishment of a Chinese embassy in Cairo (1956). The main aim was to sway the tide of revolutionary struggle in Africa, as well as propelling African counterparts in ’developing’ and nurturing material needs.However, for the ’Western Eye’ in recent historical record, K. Marx and F. Engels were very clear in critiquing and understanding particular sensibilities. With mechanical clarity, they canonized a critical discourse on the nature and interests of what is now popularly known as a capitalist world order.The economic and political realities between1946and1968consciously emboldened the struggling masses world-wide to adopt revolutionary sentiments that spoke to their emancipatory aspirations. For one observer,’moral regime’,’factionalism’ and ’tradition’ were inevitable determinates in the dialectic of global revolution.毛泽东(trans. Mao Ze Dong) encapsulated these sentiments in the following manner;"... the present world situation is such that the two major forces, revolution and counter-revolution, are locked in final struggle. Each has hoisted a huge banner:one is the red banner of revolution held aloft by the Third International as the rallying point for all the oppressed classes of the world, the other is the white banner of the counter-revolution held aloft by the League of Nations as the rallying point for all the counter-revolutionaries of the world." It was the resulting physicality of such viewpoints, in the mid-twentieth century that ushered in eras of revolution both in Africa and China. Struggle for some was as a result of ’abstruse philosophical language’ or ’constraints’, and for D. W. Nabudere about "the release of the enthusiasm of the people to undertake new tasks of a revolutionary character." Therefore as one commentator understood these struggles for change, an ’African-rooted’ science and policy was aimed at re-establishing a reality based on’self-reliance’ that was authentically constructive. Self-reliance seemed to encapsulate the motivations Tanzanian and Chinese domestic/foreign policy in a way that later concretely determined their development trajectories.With the establishment of formal relations between China and Tanzania in December1961, Ho Ying was the first Chinese ambassador to arrive in Dar-es-Salaam (April1962). Self-reliance as a socio-political motivation manifested in a tentative beginning regarding political and economic relations between China and Tanzania. Through the studies of one observer, it was noted that initially Mwalimu Nyerere might have been weary of Chinese contribution to Tanzania’s domestic challenges-thus stating that "China’s close relations with Tanganyika itself developed essentially as a byproduct of its links with Zanzibar and the necessity of working with Nyerere after Tanganyika and Zanzibar formed a united republic in April1964.Following the logic of this perspective, chapter one explores the challenges of ideology and practice, and avenues of change adopted by Tanzanian and Chinese authorities before1968. The chapter highlights aspects of economic policy that attracted favourable attention from state institutions in Tanzania and China. For some observers the trend of social organization was, by CE.1964, heavily indebted to Marxist-Leninist observations, conclusions and practice. Moreover, there was a growing insistence that in order to realize’authentic’political and economic harmony, historical awareness and relevance of intellectual and political realities was necessary in both China and Tanzania. China’s Cultural Revolution brought into sharp focus the ambiguities of ideological reference, and challenges of implementation and practice. However, the international community in its rapidly militarized, industrial pursuit to acquire material wealth and global political control assured that while Chinese and Tanzanian socio-economic interests where similar in motivation, diverging domestic realities and policies resulted in a continuing distortion of what it meant/and means to attain political and economic harmony. As China began experiencing the momentous political and economic impacts of the Cultural Revolution between1967and1968, Mwalimu Nyerere also deemed it necessary to draft a policy document that would address what he saw to be the growing discrepancies and divide within Tanzanian society at large. The Arusha Declaration "reiterated the basic principles of his own formula for independence and then restated them in the form of specific guidelines for a transition to democratic socialism."In an effort to reflect and manifest the developmental aspirations of the Tanzanian’proletariat’, Mwalimu Nyerere and the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU) embarked on an ambitious socio-economic plan. In a speech delivered to the Uganda People’s Congress (7June1968), Mwalimu Nyerere stated that "an African government in the year1968, which wishes to act in accordance with the aspirations of its people, must take an active part in the economy of the country; it must organize institutions of trade, commerce, manufacturing." In retrospect and in particular perspective, the intellectual and material response was two-fold. On one hand, systemic dependencies under the rubric of aid became trend. On the other, development based on an ’African Socialism and Ujamaa’ in general was meaningless without its colonially-inherited, antithetic reality-industrialization. The consequences were such that as one commentator observes, groups of people found more diverging than converging ways to bend the existing systems of political and economic organization. For Nabudere, understanding certain versions of an ’imperial’ dialectic regarding economic control was most important regarding its eventual deconstruction. Chinese historians thus charted an economic history that highlighted how the China-Tanzania relations that developed were based on the necessities of mass-participation. China’s East African, foreign policy initiatives between1968and1971bore testament to this commitment. Road works, army barracks, water projects, the Ubungo Farm Implements and Tools Factory all re-affirmed China’s support for the logistical and infra-structural development of Tanzania’s industrial and productive capacities.Chapter two provides a rough platform for highlighting the circumstances that facilitated/prompted socio-economic change in Tanzania (1968-1980). This chapter seeks to illuminate the nature of relationships between state-political organs and industry; and the technological benefits accrued. In light of the meaning of words like urban and rural, and the reconciliation of monetary philosophy with material exchange and production, words like investment and Aid abstractly defined often complex human interactions. In perspective, the urban and rural landscape became very stark realities, primarily driven by the growing mass of human labour available, and their competitive struggle with profit-driven mass-trade. General logic amongst the intelligentsia and government defined domestic (motivated by the dialogue of sovereignty) demand for material resources as being the major driver behind technological progress and exchange; whether the state’s developmental strategy represented imperial motivations or not. The resulting investment strategies and technological transfers ultimately bore semblances and eventually realities of inequality. The pressures of global industrialization within the global political rivalries that inspired and stimulated action collectively impelled Tanzania’s peasant majority to mobilize their abilities. Each sector of the economy needed to serve varying groups based on expertise. Some studies suggested that it was worldwide demand that forced and changed the Tanzanian productive reality. Nevertheless, Tanzania’s major industries played a major role in sustaining livelihoods. Tanzania as a state and its development aims, with China as a major source of capital and technological knowledge, needed to be reviewed as worldwide pressures changed. It was clearly understood by Tanzanian leadership that in order to realize the reality of self-reliance, certain policy measures had to be in place. Two of the three measures generally adopted stated that there needed to be a diversification of foreign trade and a diversification of sources of aid. However the problem of mechanized industrialization under certain motivations produces certain consequences. Furthermore, as G. T. Yu explains,"...Tanzania, like most other developing societies, had few workers with previous industrial experience.’Chapter three utilizes oral testimony to describe the period under study. It serves to position personal experience as a crucial indicator of political, intellectual, and economic realities. Chapter four continues the narrative by reflecting on the continuities/discontinuities in the political and economic development project, in the two countries. It also highlights the motivations and implications of policy reform around1985. The chapter ends by argumentatively highlighting historically-linked impacts, largely influenced by converging or diverging domestic realities between Tanzania and China respectively. In summary, as the realities of Western rejection regarding what became commonly known as the Communist/Socialist agenda manifested, the ideas of reform and structural adjustment became a necessary corollary. Chinese and Tanzanian sovereign rules of law buffering them against global consumption trends indirectly shaped the thinking and actions of the financial, academic and military elite. This invariably created an unbalanced bilateral relationship. Both the Chinese and Tanzanian state had to employ the financial services and technological know-how of foreign, multi-national institutions and state private companies, which consequently outlined the processes of change up to the present day. However it should be noted that for as long the politics of national identity (and its material future) occupied the motivations of policy formulation, conflicts of interest were a common occurrence amongst state or private-owned companies in both Tanzania and China. The totality of these schisms manifested in specific developmental trends in the two countries.The imposition of structural adjustment policies and the gradual acquiescence of political organization under Western paradigms radically altered the social landscape of the Tanzanian populace. The bureaucratic nature of enforcing a system, whether it is about economy, religion or education immediately contributed to the social and economic cleavages inadvertently created by local and ’foreign’ pressures. Therefore in most of what is commonly (and perhaps even controversially known) as sub-Saharan Africa, settler-colonialism, or indirect rule through imperial decrees, hardwired the nature of reform, and for the most part neatly fell into Marxist evaluations of material economy and ’modes of production’. This was despite the ’conscientious’ aims of the international institutions in charge of safe-guarding the interests of the international community. For many observers, it was China, with a present population of approximately1.5billion people that ’excelled’ at organizing its masses to address some of their socio-economic and political challenges. A deft mixture of aggressive capitalism and Marxist social organization catapulted its sovereign status to that of ’Super-power’ by the late twentieth century. Chapter five studies the material force of politics and how this ultimately impacted the welfare of both nations. The conclusion of this research aims to settle at a narrative that brings out a particular reality of history, as well as emphasizing the need for constant review and understanding. In the words of Mwalimu J. K. Nyerere, China-Tanzania relations was "a friendship between most unequal equals."... |
PDF Full Text Request