Opinion
Analysis
We understand from the powers that be that tourism to this country is expected to boom from now on, which is not surprising since Tanzania is one of the few places on this planet that is safe and friendly to outsiders, as well as being interesting from the point of view of what is found here.
Floods of people are due to arrive, proceeding to Serengeti, Selous and Arusha for example, but at some point most of them will hit Dar es Salaam. “Ay, there’s the rub!”, as the poet said. For Dar is a phenomenon all on its own.
To give an example: Coming to the office this morning we arrived at a zebra crossing just as a group of men in tribal clothes stepped onto it. We speeded straight across. “But that was a zebra crossing!”, I said horrified to the driver, “You’ll get yourself arrested if you do that in Europe…” “I’ll have somebody run into me if I don’t do that in Dar!”, he countered. Then I added that I was sure that in Dodoma or Mbeya, for example, drivers didn’t ignore the rights of pedestrians on zebra crossings. He thought it was very likely, but this was Dar. He told me a tale of Manzese, of how so many people were killed while crossing there that the government had built a bridge across that accident black spot. People continued to cross the road, ignoring the bridge, and continued to get themselves killed. So the government built a fence along the sides of the road, leaving just a space for the bridge. People climbed over the fence and continued to cross the road and to get themselves killed…Perhaps it’s a local sport like bullfighting in Spain.
Another thing in Dar which I’ve never noticed elsewhere is that people just chuck rubbish about as if they don’t even know they’re doing it. Someone opens a packet of biscuits on the pavement and drops the wrapping as they walk along. People in vehicles lob empty plastic bottles out of the windows. Visiting any street market means tip-toeing your way around piles of garbage. It has been said before in this column that the roads of Kariakoo are paved with old bits of plastic lying in the dust or mud, rather than with gold.
Leaving all that aside, it’s to be hoped that the inhabitants of Dar always keep their good humour, their graceful welcoming behaviour and nice, friendly manners, which any visitors will greatly appreciate.
More efforts needed to market tourism
TANZANIA expects to attract over one million tourists by 2010, compared with the estimated 800,000 tourists by the end of this year. From the visiting guests, the country will earn Tshs. 1.2 billion by this year’s expectations.
Tourism is one of Tanzania’s fastest growing sectors and a major foreign exchange earner.
It accounts for 17 per cent of gross domestic product. A quarter of the country’s export earnings are generated from tourism. Natural Resources and Tourism Minister Shamsa Mwangunga is upbeat.
Finance and Economic Affairs Minister Mustafa Mkulo forecasts the economy will grow by 7.8 per cent this year - seven per cent more than last year’s growth rate and nine over the 2006’s level of 6.9 per cent.
He said last week that short - and medium-term plans would see the growth rate rise to 8.1 per cent next year, 8.8 in 2010 and 9.2 per cent in 2011.
These projections show that there is still a lot to be done to reach the level that will make concrete inroads towards fighting poverty.
Economists say the economy will have to grow by 10 per cent and above to bring about meaningful welfare and income changes in the country.
So far only a few members of society have enjoyed the macroeconomic gains made since economic liberalisation with the majority of people hardly managing two meals in a day.
In her 2008/2009 ministerial budget presentation, the minister said the government and other relevant institutions have embarked on various promotional drives aimed at attracting more tourists. These include extensive multi-media advertising campaigns on tourist attractions available in the country.
Implementing economic diplomacy, the ministry spent 450,000 US dollars in financing embassies in 28 countries to advertise the country’s tourist attractions.
Analysis
US MUST CHANGE POLICY TOWARDS IRAN
By Evarist Kagaruki
Sometime in December 1997, the then Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, whom the West regarded as a “moderate” among the Shi’ite Moslem clergy, broke the taboo and talked about talks with the Americans. Talking to the media in Tehran, he said: “….. I declare my respects to the great people of the United States and I hope that in the close future I may have a dialogue and talk with the people of America…… and I hope this will not take long”.
Khatami, however, did not say how such dialogue, which previously had proved impossible (because the preceding successive Iranian governments, just like the current one, maintained an unwavering stand vis a vis America), would come about. But, obviously, the Americans were amused. They considered this to be the most “reconciliatory” gesture by any Iranian leader towards them since the Islamic revolution of 1979 which ousted the despotic Shah regime. To the chagrin of the Iranians, Washington immediately contacted Tehran for talks!
For their part, the Iranian people did not see how dialogue with the Americans could be possible when the US had not changed its attitude and was still making preposterous accusations against their country. They saw, for example, that as Khatami made the gesture of talks with America, the Clinton administration was still referring to Iran as a “rogue state”, saying it was “sponsoring terrorism” abroad. As most pundits had expected, Khatami relinquished office without putting his rhetorical remarks into practice.
As we may all be aware, America severed relations with Iran in 1980 at the height of a crisis in which revolutionary-minded students stormed the US embassy in Tehran, captured Americans and held 52 of them hostage for 444 days. The students were demanding that the US hand over the Shah who had fled into exile. The hostages were released on January 20, 1981 – the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as US President. But, the two countries have ever since remained implacably hostile to one another. The hostilities have worsened during the Bush (junior) administration.
All along, the US has been working hard through the CIA (but without success) to try and destroy the Iranian Islamic system of government and put in its place a “Western type of democracy”, supervised, as it were, by a puppet regime. All the hullabaloo we have been hearing from Washington concerning Iran’s nuclear development programme was just a manifestation of that fundamental problem.
Now, you might ask why am I making this resume of the historical background of the antagonism between Washington and Tehran? I am doing so for the simple reason, that in November this year Americans will go to the polls to elect a new President. The result of that election will determine whether or not there will be any constructive changes in the chemistry between the US and Iran. The two presidential candidates, Barak Obama (Democrat) and John McCain (Republican), espouse diametrically opposed positions on Iran.
While Obama says he believes talking to Tehran and Damascus (Syria) would be the right approach for defusing tensions and resolving the crisis in the Middle East, McCain is for maintenance of the status quo. That is to say, he would follow the same kind of policy orientation in the Middle East as currently being pursued by the Bush administration.
And that gives us two possible scenarios: One is that if Obama wins, we might see a change of policy in Washington towards Tehran, which could lead to the US and Iran warming to one another. A thawing of relations would result in rapprochement between the two countries, which would open avenues for peace, stability and security in the region.
The other scenario is that if McCain becomes president, he would certainly respond to the neo-conservatives’ wish to see the Iranian issue resolved militarily. In that sense, assuming President Bush does not bomb Iranian nuclear facilities before leaving office next January (remember he has repeatedly said “all options are on the table”), we should expect to see a worsening of relations between the US and Iran, and, possibly, military confrontation.