On a crisp Nairobi morning, the air around Gigiri hums with the rumble of cranes and cement mixers. The United Nations complex—already sprawling across 140 acres—is undergoing its most significant expansion since 1945. A new 9,000-seat conference hall is being built, the largest constructed by the UN since 1949.
This isn’t just construction; it’s the birth of a global diplomatic node. Nairobi is being cemented, beam by beam, as one of the UN’s global capitals.
About 250km south, in Arusha, the mood is different. The African Court and the EAC stand as monuments to pan-African justice and regional unity. Yet beneath the calm, there is unease. This is more than a change of address.
It is a strategic win for Kenya in its long, exaggerated rivalry with Tanzania for regional influence. The question is no longer if Kenya is winning, but what this means for this region.
For Nairobi, the relocation is an unambiguous victory. The numbers speak for themselves. The UN already contributes over $350 million annually to Kenya’s economy. The inflow of three additional agencies, staff, and dependants—an estimated 20,000 people by 2026—will turbocharge this impact.
The economic effects will ripple across sectors. Real estate is already booming around Gigiri and the neighbouring areas. Hospitality is thriving, from luxury hotels hosting diplomats to restaurants catering to expatriates.
Professional services—law firms, banks, media, IT—will expand to service UN contracts. Even domestic staff, drivers, and caterers will find new opportunities.
At the diplomatic level, Kenya is already in an exclusive club—a mandatory stop for world leaders. With 86 UN offices and 6,500 staff already on the ground, the city’s profile is only set to grow with this expansion.
The government is investing heavily in infrastructure, security, and transport to support this status. Jomo Kenyatta International Airport, already one of Africa’s busiest, will see expanded connectivity, further cementing Nairobi’s role as a premier aviation hub.
The UN’s decision also delivers immense soft power. Kenya will enjoy a louder voice in global debates, having unrivalled access to international decision-makers. This amplifies Nairobi’s “Silicon Savannah” status, positioning the city not just as Africa’s diplomatic capital, but also as its innovation laboratory—a powerful dual identity few rivals can match.
From the Tanzanian viewpoint, this must be seen as a strategic setback. The narrative of competition is deeply ingrained: the rivalry between the ports of Mombasa and Dar es Salaam, the battle for air supremacy between JKIA and JNIA, and Kenya’s liberalism versus Tanzania’s more cautious, state-led approach.
The narrative is that Kenya wins on efficiency and connectivity — the currencies that matter most to international bodies — while Tanzania leans on stability, natural beauty, and historical political weight.
The UN’s choice was a cold, hard calculus: Nairobi’s existing massive footprint, superior air links, and vast pool of local professional talent outweighed Arusha’s undeniable charms and lower crime rate.
The risk for Arusha is not loss, but irrelevance. As Nairobi solidifies its role as the mandatory stop for global diplomacy in East Africa, Arusha could be relegated to a peripheral outpost—respected yet sidelined.
The fear is that prestige and influence are finite. Will Nairobi’s rise lift the entire region, or consolidate power for itself?
The Kenyan argument is one of synergy, meaning that a stronger hub benefits the entire region. Easier access to decision-makers can help Tanzanian, Ugandan, and Rwandan businesses and advocacy groups. A consolidated UN presence makes East Africa more attractive to FDI.
The counterargument, whispered in Tanzania, is that power abhors a vacuum. The concentration of diplomatic and financial capital in Nairobi could divert attention and investment from other regional centres, thus entrenching Kenyan hegemony.
What can Tanzania do? Tanzania must act decisively to carve out its own indispensable niche.
First, it should double down on Arusha’s Pan-African identity by aggressively pushing to host more AU commissions and organs, firmly establishing the city as the heart of African governance.
This political effort must be backed by significant investment in world-class infrastructure—upgrade conference facilities, digital connectivity, and housing to world-class standards.
Second, Tanzania should leverage its natural treasures—the Serengeti, Ngorongoro, and Kilimanjaro—to position Arusha as the global capital for conservation.
This means courting major NGOs like WWF and IUCN, and seeking to host secretariats for international environmental treaties, creating a niche Nairobi cannot replicate.
Third, pursue a “sister hubs” strategy by proposing a diplomatic corridor between Nairobi and Arusha. Frame it as complementary: Nairobi as the global financial hub, Arusha as the centre for conservation and African policy.
Investing in an SGR link between the two would turn competition into collaboration—a narrative win for the whole region.
The UN’s move to Nairobi is not an accident; it’s a verdict. It confirms where the world sees East Africa’s nerve centre—and it isn’t Arusha or Dar. Kenya is playing to win, and it is winning.
Tanzania, meanwhile, risks sleepwalking into irrelevance unless it stops clinging to nostalgia and starts building real competitive muscle. The uncomfortable truth is this: if Tanzania doesn’t act now, Nairobi won’t just lead the region—it will own it.
Charles Makakala is a Technology and Management Consultant based in Dar es Salaam.
Register to begin your journey to our premium contentSubscribe for full access to premium content
