Ukraine war: Tanzania’s choices have consequences

On March 2 and April 8 the United Nations General Assembly passed two resolutions against Russia. In the first resolution, the UN condemned Russia for invading Ukraine and in the second, it suspended Moscow from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

In the two resolutions, 140 nations voted in favour, and 40 either abstained or voted against the resolutions.

Based on the analysis by the author of Why Africa is Poor, Greg Mills, the 140 nations that voted with Ukraine represent over 70 percent of the global economy, despite comprising only 40 percent of the world’s population, while the 40 nations that didn’t represent only 25 percent of the global economy, despite comprising the bulk of the world’s population.

The choices that nations make have serious economic implications.

Given the lists of nations showing how African nations voted, one can reasonably determine the development trajectories those nations are likely to take in the future. When a nation finds itself with the likes of North Korea, Syria, Belarus, Russia, Eritrea, Central African Republic, Mali, Zimbabwe, South Sudan, and Burundi, is there a good reason to suggest that this is not the lot that the country deserves?

Unfortunately, that is the group where Tanzania is found, having abstained from both resolutions. In both cases, the Tanzanian government attempted to explain its choices by invoking the Cold War-era concept of “non-alignment”.

Non-alignment is an ideology that was conceived in the 1950s to keep developing nations from serving the interests of the then big powers – the US and the USSR. In 1961, non-alignment was formalised into an organisation – the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) under the leadership of, among others, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana. That said, with the fall of the USSR, it has become increasingly difficult to define what non-alignment is, and what purpose it serves in this post-Cold War world.

Today, Russia, its machismo aside, is clearly not the power it used to be. Russia faces so many internal contradictions that, barring its gas reserves and nuclear arsenals, it would have barely registered in many nations’ radars otherwise. This means that, in practice, there is very little to align to on the Russian side. Non-alignment then becomes what nations align from, that is, the US. That, unfortunately, has a word – anti-Americanism.

A sample list of recent secretaries-general of NAM underscores that NAM character – Fidel Castro, Mohamed Morsi, Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, and Nicolas Maduro! If that doesn’t turn NAM into an anti-American humdrum chitchatting group, it is difficult to know what will.

Much has been said about the complexity of the Ukraine war, mostly to present it using Nato-Russia powerplay language, but the facts on the ground are simple – a sovereign nation was invaded, part of its land was annexed, then it was invaded again with the objective of curving out two of its regions as independent states. What does Tanzania’s non-alignment mean here apart from withholding support from the victim, Ukraine? In fact, it may be worse. The so-called non-alignment works to shield the aggressor, Russia.

Furthermore, given that non-alignment is founded on the core ideologies such as national independence, territorial integrity, and the struggle against colonialism and imperialism, doesn’t that imply that support for Ukraine was not only expected but also required?

There is a question about Russia’s interests, particularly its concern that if Ukraine is to join the EU and Nato, Moscow would be around 700km or so from Nato’s reach – probably not enough distance to leave room for a response in case of a surprise attack. The Russians versus Nato military doctrines may be a bit too lofty for humble mortals such as I to fully comprehend, but isn’t that the very reason Russia possesses nuclear deterrence, and that any aggressor understands that war will end in a MAD scenario – mutually assured destruction?

But, assuming that the concern is valid, does that justify Ukraine being held in a perpetual state of subservience to its big brother in the north?

Ukraine can look at the likes of Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, considered by many as Russia’s vassal states, and conclude that that is not a future it desires for itself. Europe, instead, with a GDP per capita that is ten times that of Ukraine and systems that stand for political freedoms, provides far greater prospects for its future. Wouldn’t non-alignment here imply support for self-determination?

Finally, why would Tanzania wish to be non-aligned today, whatever that means? Is the government saying that it has considered Putin’s Russia and Biden’s America and concluded that the two systems are morally equivalent, that autocracy and democracy, oligarchism and liberalism, militarism and trade, FDIs, and aid to the continent that exceeds $110 billion are just the same thing? I am not suggesting that Tanzania should surrender its international rights to some power, but that it should align itself to global progressive and potentially rewarding movements.

Tanzania’s abstentions in UNGA and its conceptualisation of non-alignment ideology say a lot. It says that principles are compromised for expedience, that worthless friendships are valued more than profitable alliances, and that the nation isn’t aware of what its interests, are and how to go about safeguarding them.

Non-alignment is not synonymous with neutrality or passivity, and therefore Tanzania’s invocation of an archaic concept doesn’t relieve it of its duty to the people within and those without.

Once again, the choices nations make have economic consequences.