By Adonis Byemelwa
A recent article published in Tanzania Political Review claims that Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu Hassan’s visit to Russia is an unaffordable geopolitical mistake for the country.
The article argues that engaging with Russia would sacrifice Tanzania’s relations with the United States and Europe, and it also ties the country’s domestic governance challenges to its foreign policy choices.
However, the core assumptions underpinning this view are fundamentally flawed, and its rigid either-or binary foreign policy logic is untenable.
Successful countries can engage with multiple major powers simultaneously, balance these relationships to advance their own national interests, and do not need to align exclusively with a single bloc.
This black-and-white, all-or-nothing choice is in itself a false proposition. That said, there is exactly one reasonable dimension within these criticisms that merits serious attention: the related concerns about Tanzania’s domestic governance.
These concerns, raised by international observers, foreign governments, civil society organisations, and legislators from major partner countries, centre on issues that may arise after the 2025 general election, including a lack of democratic accountability, risks of political violence, restrictions on opposition party activities, and the overall deterioration of the country’s democratic environment.
We agree that such concerns should not be categorised as foreign interference. A confident country will not fear external oversight; implementing accountability for its own improper actions will only strengthen, rather than weaken, the country’s legitimacy.
Domestic affairs and foreign policy are two entirely separate issues. Tanzania can fully address governance-related concerns through dialogue, institutional reform, and strengthened accountability mechanisms, while also pursuing economic diplomacy opportunities in markets such as Russia.
The new dilemma created by tying domestic governance improvements to Tanzania’s engagement with Russia is, in essence, identical to the false choice cited earlier.
We also acknowledge that the critics’ judgment that “the United States is one of Tanzania’s most important partners” aligns with facts, and we maintain a neutral and credible line of argument throughout.
This think piece first draws on the findings of research institutions REPOA and AidData to lay a neutral foundation for its argument: U.S.-Tanzania cooperation generates approximately 2.8 billion USD in economic value each year, spanning six key areas including aid and trade; over the past two decades, the U.S. PEPFAR program has invested 3.8 billion USD, enabling more than 1.5 million people in Tanzania to access treatment; for the 2021–2027 programming cycle.
It adds that the European Union will allocate hundreds of millions of euros to cover five core development areas, including infrastructure and governance. The importance of Western cooperation to Tanzania is beyond dispute.
On this premise, this article puts forward its core claim: even with established Western partners, Tanzania is fully capable of developing cooperation with Russia. Overreliance on a small number of partners will increase the country’s development vulnerability, and diversifying partners is a strategy to reduce risks and expand options, rather than a rejection of existing partners.
The article then addresses three core criticisms in sequence: first, in response to the devaluing claim that “Russia-Tanzania trade is nothing more than small grocery transactions”, the paper first acknowledges that this narrative is widely circulated, then points out that wheat and fertiliser exported by Russia directly shape Tanzania’s food security, agricultural productivity, inflation levels, and household purchasing power, and such core livelihood-related trade is by no means worthless.
Second, in response to criticisms of the trade deficit between Russia and Tanzania, the article first recognises the deficit’s objectivity, then argues that trade relations should not be assessed solely by numerical symmetry. Most developing economies follow the model of importing core inputs and exporting a small range of raw materials.
The core goal of Tanzania-Russia cooperation is to optimise rather than terminate the partnership. Tanzania’s diplomatic visits to Moscow should aim to secure expanded market access for Tanzanian products in Russia, increase high-value-added exports, attract investment in processing sectors, and expand cooperation in science, education, and technology as strategic targets.
This will drive a shift from exporting primary commodities such as tobacco and coffee to high-value-added goods, to maximise the benefits of bilateral cooperation.
Third, in response to the criticism that “Russia’s economic footprint in Tanzania is far smaller than that of Western countries”, the article first acknowledges that current data supports this judgment, then argues that foreign policy should not be determined solely by present-day statistical metrics.
The core motivation for all countries to cultivate strategic relationships has always been to secure trade, investment, technology transfer and market access to support long-term growth, and Tanzania’s trip to Moscow follows this same underlying logic.
Tanzania’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Mahmoud Thabit Kombo explicitly stated that the goal of this visit was to help his country seize the cooperation opportunities Russia has expanded across education, agriculture, tourism, trade and investment in Africa, to advance its own development.
Some critics argue that this strategy is logically confused, but we maintain that it has a consistent economic logic. The core principle for judging the success or failure of this policy is measurable, real outcomes, not assumptions or isolated symbolic gestures.
Specific benchmarks include the number of new scholarships, increases in trade volume, the amount of investment mobilised, and the number of new markets opened up for Tanzanian producers: if these outcomes are delivered, the strategic rationale of the policy will be greatly strengthened; if they fail to materialise, the critics’ doubts will gain persuasive weight.
Russia is currently facing comprehensive Western sanctions and international criticism, so the timing of this visit carries inherent symbolic meaning.
We acknowledge the role of symbolism in international relations. However, interpretations of the visit’s message differ sharply across audiences: some observers claim Tanzania is shifting alignment toward Russia, while others view the trip as a reflection of the country’s commitment to independent diplomacy, which rejects formal alliances with any major power, and pursues equal engagement with all major global powers.
Many countries around the world practice this model: maintaining close economic and political ties with competing global powers at the same time, engaging with the United States while doing business with China, cooperating with Europe while engaging with Gulf states, always centring national interests and rejecting rigid bloc politics.
This approach also aligns with Tanzania’s long-standing diplomatic tradition. Regarding the domestic political controversy sparked by the inclusion of the president’s son in the presidential delegation, we first acknowledge that transparency in public spending and official representation is always important in democratic governance.
However, the strategic value of a state visit is ultimately judged by whether it advances Tanzania’s national interests, not by the accompanying political controversies. The core benchmark always remains whether the visit serves the country’s core interests.
Many articles discussing Tanzania’s foreign policy choices suffer from a core fallacy. Their most critical flaw is the assumption that Tanzania can only choose exclusively between Moscow and Washington. In fact, Tanzania’s real current foreign policy challenge is to simultaneously maintain five-dimensional cooperation with the United States, Europe, its African regional partners, emerging economies, and Russia.
Successfully pursuing this balanced diplomacy requires skill, policy coherence, and careful management of expectations across all partners. In an increasingly fragmented world, countries that preserve multiple foreign-policy options enjoy greater resilience and bargaining power than those dependent on a single relationship.
As debate continues over President Samia’s Russia visit, legitimate questions on governance, accountability, and the visit’s tangible outcomes deserve serious answers. However, these concerns do not diminish Tanzania’s sovereign right to choose its international partners.
Finally, the visit should be judged not by the controversy it generated, but by the economic, educational, and strategic benefits it delivers for Tanzanians in the years ahead.
