je tunahitaji tanganyika kwa misingi ipi?

katika mijadala inayoendelea sasa juu ya rasimu ya katiba ya tanzania ni umwamba na ubabe lakini pia yapo mawazo yenye msingi kabisa ambayo wannchi wanhitaji kuyasema lakini mimi leo nataka kujadili umwamba unaendelea katika rasimu hii.

wapo wanaojadili haya kwa umwamba tu kuwa tunataka sisi tuitwe tanganyika na wengine tunataka sisi tuitwe zanzibar, huu ni umwamba tu kwa sababu msingi wa majina ni ule ujinga wa kuwa nikiitwa fulani ndo watu huko nje watniona mimi mjanja kweli. hivi mfano mtoto ukimbatiza jina la juma ikatokea mtoto huyo akabadilisha jina hilo je mtoto huyo ataacha kuwa mwanao?

sasa kusema tunataka tanganyika au zanzibar ni kutaka uvifua hasa wa wansiasa na walevi wachache. kimsingi jina tanganyika ni mazalia ya ukoloni na zanzibar vile vile. sasa ukibadilisha mhaya na mkurya na mjita wataacha kuoleana, mamni ataacha kunywa mbege, au mpemba ataacha kuvua samki. ili suala kwa kweli halina maana yoyote. nakumbuka mwalimu nyerere aliwa kudokeza kuwa "mipaka ya afrika haina maana" vivyo hivyo majina ya matifa ya afrika hayana maana pia.


naomba niishie hapo kwa leo ila mjadala huu sioni kama unamsingi sana kwa taifa

WAS OBAMA AND BUSH MET IN TANZANIA AN INCIDENT?

some of the local and international newspaper held a greatest discussion on what they coined as "coincidence for bush and Obama to meet in Tanzania  these are two statesmen of USA and remember this two respected president was involved in unknown war of terrorism. in several occasion president Bush during his time, saying " weather your with us or terrorist" this was intentional to say this. in international politics the debate still hot on realy what is terrorism but they experience as been used to associate terrorism with mass killing with political intentions.
leave out the definition as it hold nothing to our discussion. the issue here is the coincidence of the two great men of USA to meet here. remember in 1998 there was an attack on US Embassy Dar es Salaam Tanzania. This was the period followed by September 11 were world trade center was bombed by Osama bin Laden. Both bombing was equited to terrorist act  and being charged under terrorist laws and anti terrorist movement.

the other issue we should remember concerning Tanzania is, after these bombing and terrorist act one citizen of Tanzania was arrested  charged and found guilty of terrorism. this also the action marked the nation with terrorist picture to international affairs.

the last issue was on who initiated the war on terrorism particularly fighting the advent of Osama and Al quida ? in general and who killed Osama?  this has one answer Osama was fought in serious by George W Bush and killed by Obama. to know why do they meet in Tanzania and why at the killed US graves. In one way it may sound as to tell  Americans that we are hero and we have finished the war against terrorism.

on Tanzania we need to remember that president Obama come with his security and his troop of his service officers, of course its US policy to protect their president outside the country by on the other side is to tell the world that America has so many enemy outside America.

the meeting made us Tanzania to be among the insecure country.

NIMESOMA HAPA NIKAPENDA SOMENI POLITICAL SCIENTIST

A Brief Introduction to Theories on International Relations and Foreign Policy

POLI 468

Bill Newmann

The selections we will be reading have one main focus.  They seek to answer the big question in international relations and foreign policy: Why do states behave the way they do in the international system?  Some people argue that this is a question of international relations theory and others say it is a question of foreign policy theory.  For our purposes, we can consider them the same issue.  Why do states behave the way they do is the question that theories of international relations and theories of foreign policy are trying to answer.  The fact that these are treated as separate bodies of theory says more about political scientists than it does about the nature of state behavior. 

Since political science is concerned with theory building, each of these books focuses on theories.  As stated in the syllabus, the search for theory is a search for rules to explain social science phenomenon (in this case foreign policy behavior).  Each author is developing a theory to explain the behavior of all states, not just one state.  That is the trick here.  Can you find universal patterns of activity, universal rules that can used to explain how any state behaves? Each author is developing a theory (a rule about state behavior) and then testing it with case studies.  You are assessing those theories and the evidence that supports them.  So think in those terms. Don’t be confused by scientific jargon.  Just remember that theories are statements about cause and effect.  When I heat up a liquid, it will boil.  That’s cause and effect.  To become a scientist, you start to experiment – you heat up different liquids to see if they all boil at the same temperature, then you try to make rules about the different types of liquids you heat up, say types of juices vs. types of oil.  That’s science.  Now, since this is social science and we’re dealing with nations, we can’t run experiments.  You can’t invade several nations to see what their different reactions to invasion might be.  So you use historical data to test your theories. That’s what you’re examining in your papers.  An author has developed a theory or tested two theories.  How well does the author’s argument hold up when tested against the historical data?

The authors might use terms that you are unfamiliar with.  I am going to provide a brief introduction to some of the key ideas in international relations that will give you a starting point and a quick reference for dealing with the theoretical issues.  The authors are very good at illustrating their theories, but this might help just in case.  Also, these are starting points for the authors.  They take some of these basic notions and redevelop them.  So their views of each of these theories might be slightly different from the way I describe them.  Theories evolve and below I’ve given you the basic starting points for each theory.

           

Levels of Analysis

One of the key questions in international relations and foreign policy is the question of how you examine state behavior.  This is the level of analysis problem.  Scholars see several levels of analysis through which state behavior can be examined. 

System level analysis examines state behavior by looking at the international system.  In this level of analysis, the international system is the cause and state behavior is the effect.  Characteristics of the international system cause states to behave the way they do.  Change in the international system will cause change in state behavior.  The key variable in the international system is the power of a state within the system.  Some states are powerful; others are weak.  So for example, the cold war had two powerful states.  Therefore the central cause of all state behavior in the cold war was the fact that the US and USSR were the two powerful states in a bipolar system.  Today, there is unipolar system – one superpower (or hyperpower) -- and that defines the behavior of all other states in the system. (See neo-realism below).  So this level of analysis might explain the US intervention in Iraq as a matter of the US, the one and only powerful state, flexing its muscles to police the world against states that threaten it.  The US wants to preserve its dominance and therefore crushes all challengers.

State level analysis examines the foreign policy behavior of states in terms of state characteristics.  For example, some scholars say that all democracies behave a certain way; they don’t fight with other democracies.  Some scholars might look at the different behaviors of weak or strong states; states that live in rough neighborhoods (Germany or France) vs. states that live in more benign surroundings (the US).  Some scholars might say that the foreign policy behavior of every state is a cultural characteristic, defined by the historical legacy of the state, the religious or social traditions, or the economic and geographic nature of the state itself (see constructivism below).  State level of analysis might explain the US intervention in Iraq as a function of the missionary quality of US foreign policy.  The US has always had an idealist streak in its foreign policy (some disagree with this) and sees “bad guys” out there in the international system.  The US is compelled by the nature of its political system and its belief that some day all states will be like the US.  It has a drive to remake the world in its own image.  The job of US foreign policy is not done until all states are democratic and all nations have free market economies.

Organizational level analysis examines the way in which organizations within a state function to influence foreign policy behavior.  States don’t make decisions.  Organizations bargain with each other to create a foreign policy that is a compromise between competing organizations.  This level of analysis for example, might look at the Iraq war and try to explain it by examining the interests of the US military, the department of defense, the state department, and central intelligence agency.  How did these organizations create US foreign policy would be the key question at this level of analysis.

Individual level analysis focuses on people.  People make decisions within nation states and therefore people make foreign policy.  Scholars might look at the roles of different leaders. This level of analysis might explain World War II by examining the role of Hitler.  It might look at the end of the cold war by studying Gorbachev.  It might suggest that the economic reforms in China are a result of the transition from Mao Zedong’s leadership to Deng Xiaoping’s rule.  This level of analysis also includes cognitive theories --- theories that explain foreign policy by looking at the way leaders perceive the world. Larson’s book is an example of this. This is a focus on perception, misperception, and communication.  Individual level analysis might ask questions such as these: Are there aspects of George W. Bush’s character and belief systems that have defined the US response to the 9/11 attacks?  Would Al Gore or John Kerry have behaved any differently in a similar situation? How do Bush and his senior decision makers perceive the world and their role in it?

           

The books that we have for this class, examine foreign policy behavior from several different levels.

Theories of State Behavior

The following list illustrates some of the theories that you’ll be reading about.  Each one is a specific theory that tries to explain the way states behave.  You’ll get plenty of ideas within the books, so I’ll give you the brief outline.  Remember though that the authors will take these basic ideas and modify them.  Again, these are starting points for theory and the authors are modifying them to build better theory.

Classical realism is a state level theory that argues that all states seek power.  That is the first and last principle of state behavior.  States seek to increase their power; they seek to decrease the power of their enemies; and everything they do is in the name of amassing power.  States see other powerful states as rivals because power, when it is not in your hands, is threatening.  People are greedy, insecure, and aggressive, so the states they govern will have those same characteristics.  This doesn’t mean war, however.  There can be peace, but a durable peace is based upon a stable balance of power – the big players in the international systems are roughly equal in power resources, so therefore no one thinks they can win a war.  If you don’t think you can win a war, you generally don’t start one.  The US and USSR were rivals in the cold war because they were the two most powerful states after WW II. They were both wary of each other’s power and became enemies.  But they did not go to war because they were roughly equal in power.

Neo-realism is a system level theory that is an offshoot of classical realism.  It argues all of what classical realism does.  However, it sees the cause of all the power struggles and rivalries not as a function of the nature of states, but as a function of the nature of the international system.  States are out there alone.  There is no world government, no one looking out for states, no rules that can’t be easily broken.  The world is anarchy and states do what they can get away with to gain power and they do what they must to protect themselves.  Power creates rivalry because it is threatening by its nature.  If some other state is more powerful than your state, you have no way to protect yourself but to defend yourself or attack your rival first.  A neorealist might say the cold war was caused by the fact that there were only two powerful states that survived WW II.  Sine there was no world government or rules of behavior to restrain the rivalry it became the cold war.  This theory dominates scholarly thinking today and will be discussed in a lot of the books.

Neo-classical realism is a sort of revival of classical realism.  It accepts all of the above about power rivalries, but it suggests that state characteristics (state level variables) play a large role in the behavior of states.  States don’t just seek power and they don’t just fear other powerful states, there are reasons that states seek power and there are reasons that states fear other states.  It’s a sort of combination of classical and neo-realism that factors in both system level and state level variables.  For example, a neo-classical realist might look at the cold war and say that the differences in ideology between the US and USSR was a factor in the US-USSR rivalry that exacerbated the tendency for two powerful states to form rivalries.

Liberalism adds values into the equation.  It is often called idealism. It is a state level theory which argues that there is a lot of cooperation in the world, not just rivalry. States don’t just compete or worry about power.  States try to build a more just world order.  They often do so because they have learned that in many instances cooperation is a better strategy that conflict.  States try to create enforceable international law.  States are progressive forces for social justice.  Liberalism might look at the cold war and examine the different values of the US and USSR and point out the repressive and murderous nature of the Soviet state as the key to the US andUSSR animosity.  It also might look at the decades-worth of US-USSR cooperation in the midst of the cold war (arms control, the lack of direct conflict).

Neo-liberalism is an offshoot of liberalism. It is a system level version of liberalism and focuses on the way in which institutions can influence the behavior of states by spreading values or creating rule-based behavior.  Neo-liberals might focus on the role of the United Nations or World Trade Organization in shaping the foreign policy behavior of states.  Neo-liberals might look at the cold war and suggest ways to fix the UN to make it more effective.

Cognitive Theories are those mentioned above which examine the role of psychological processes – perception, misperception, belief systems – on the foreign policy behavior of states.  It can be state, organization, or individual level of analysis depending on whether the research is focusing on the psychological dynamics of a state decision maker or the shared perceptions of an organization, or the shared belief systems of a nation.  Cognitive theorists might look at the shared images of the US andUSSR political leaders had of each other and explain the cold war as the product of these negative images and the inability of either state to reshape the perceptions of the other. 

Constructivism is a theory that examines state behavior in the context of state characteristics.  All states are unique and have a set of defining political, cultural, economic, social, or religious characteristics that influence its foreign policy.  States have identities and those identities define their behavior in the international system. The US has a foreign policy character.  Russia has a foreign policy character.  The cold war is a product of the clash of those identities.  The end of the cold war may be a function of changes in the Russian identity.

KUHUSU RASIMU YA KATIBA MPYA-TANZANIA

Mjadala wangu leo naona huwe kuhusu rasimu ya katiba mpya ya tanzania mabaraza na mijadala imeanza kwa kasi sana japo macho yaliyomengi yamejikita katika suala la muungano, hasahasa namba ya serikali wengine wakipendekeza serikali tatu, mbili, mkataba (bado sijajua nini maana ya mkataba), na serikali moja au kuvunja kabisa muungano.
Naona mjadala wangu ujikite katika masuala ya muungano lakini katika namna ya pekee kidogo. nianze na ibara ya 62(2) na (3) vifungu hivi vinahusu mahusiano ya kikanda na kimataifa.

ibara ya 62 (2) inasema bila kuathiri mipaka iliyowekwa na katiba    hii , kila mshirika wa muungano atakuwa na uwezo na uhuru wa kuanzisha mahusiano na ushirikiano na jumuiya au taasisi ya kikanda na kimataifa kwa mambo yaliyo chini ya mamlaka yake kwa mujibu wa katiba ya mshirika wa muungano.

62(3) inasema : mshirika wa muungano anaweza wakati wa kutekeleza majukumu yake chini ya ibara ndogo ya (2), kuomba mashirikiano kutoka serikali ya muungano kwa ajili ya kufanikisha mahusiano na jumuiya au taasisi ya kikanda au kimataifa, na serikali ya jamhuri ya muungano inaweza  kutoa ushirikiano kwa mshirika huyo kwa namna itavyohitajika.

kimsingi vifungu hivi vina maneno ambayo yanutata na maneno yayoweza kumfanya mshirika wa muungano kufanya mambo yake yeye mwenyewe anvyo jua kwa sababu maneno yaliyotumika haya mbani mshiriki huyo. mfano unaposema "anweza" na "inaweza" maneno haya haya mlazimishi mshirika yeyote kubanwa na kifungu hiki labda kumruhusu kufanya analoweza.  Pengine kuomba ushauriano utatengemea busara za mshirika wa muungano.

pili vifungu hivi vinaingilia mambo ya muungano mfano " suala la mambo ya nje ni la muungano" unaporuhusu mshirika kuwa na mahusiano au mashirikiano maana yake huko utakuwa na watu wawili wa naoliwakilisha taifa moja. kwa sababu pia mambo ya nje ni pamoja na mahusiano ya kibiashara, kiimani, kimisaada na mikopo ya kimataifa. mfano nchi mshirika wa muungano inataka kuanzisha ubalozi na ukaona kuwa jambo hili serikali ya muungano italizuia basi mshirika huyo atakuwa tiyari kuomba ushirikiano, sasa katika hali kama hii itakuwa na mabalozi wawili. au mshirika antaka kuwa na kiti katika umoja wa mataifa na akungwa mkono na matifa mengine huko nje basi mshirika huyo atataka kuomba ushirikiano kutoka muungano.

suala hili ukiliangalia kwa namna nyingine utaona kabisa lisipoangaliwa litavunja muungano kwa sababu matifa mengine huko nje wanweza kuzitambua serikali za washirika kama matifa kamili suala linalo sabbisha double sovereignty na pengine itategemea na ni nani aliye tambua serikali hiyo anweza aktengeneza over sovereignty.

kwa kutambua uwepo wa urafiki na ujirani mwema sipingi serikali za washirika kuwa na marafiki au majirani ila sasa napendekeza maneno yaliyotumika yabdilike na yawe na hali ya kumlazimisha mshirika wa muungano kupata ridhaa ya serikali ya muungano kabla hajafanya mahusiano au mashirikiano ya kikanda na kimataifa.

AMANI NI SUALA LA NAFSI KURIDHIZIKA

Kume kuwa na mijadala mingi sana kuhusu amani hapa tanzania ambayo kimsingi lengo lake limeendelea kuwa ajenda ya wale wanojadiliana.  suala hili limekuwa kwa mara nyingi likihusishwa na mitizamo ya kisiasa, dini, kabila , na mali.

lakini suala la kujiuliza amani inasababishwa na nini? kwa hali ya kawaida hakuna nafsi inayokuwa na amani kama haijaridhika. mfano mdogo ni pale unapokuwa na shida ya namna yoyote nafsi yako inakosa amani, na tumezoea kuwa tunatumia maneno haya "jambo hili linaiigharimu nafsi yangu, linanyima amani". maneno haya maana yake ni sawa na hali ya unafsi kutoridhika.

nafsi kimsingi huwa inakuwa na shida zake kama yenyewe inapokuwa peke yake yaani haina washiriki wengine wa nafsi kama hile. lakini inapokuwepo au zinapokuwepo nafsi nyingine mara nyingi zinaridhika kwa kuwa na misingi ya vitu vya pamoja. mfano mnaweza mkasema kuwa nafsi zetu zitaridhika pale wote tukapo kuwa tumesinzia, basi sote tutatakiwa kusinzia ili turidhishe nafsi zetu na kuwa na amani.

Mkisha kuwa na muungano huo sasa mnakuwa na nafsi ya umoja ambayo ni jamii na nafsi za jamii zinaridhika pale misingi ya jamii inapotekelezwa na kuonekana inatekelezwa. Na msingi mkubwa wa jamii ni usawa sio wa kila mtu bali wa kila mwana jamii kutegemeana na ridhiki ya wanjamii wengine. hivyo msingi wa kuridhika hautakuwa utashi wa mtu bali ridhaa ya mtu kwa misingi hile.

hivyo kama jamii imekubaliana usawa, utu, umoja, ubinadamu na misingi mingine ya hivyo basi jamii hiyo haitakuwa na amani mpaka misingi hiyo itekelezwe na ionekane kabisa inatendeka. na pengine vinaweza kutokea vikundi vingine vyenye nguvu na pengine visivyo na nguvu na kuanza kugombana ili kurudisha hali ya kuridhiki kwa nafsi zao.

lakini pia kama vikundi hivyo vitatumia nafsi hiyo kutengeneza jamii nyingine ambayo kimsingi haikuwa misingi ya eneo lile basi vitatengeneza vita nyingine ambayo itavitaka kuwa na nguvu ili kuleta misingi mipya.

hivyo utakuwa wajibu wa kila mwanjamii husika kutunza misingi hile ya kuridhisha nafsi za jamii ambayo ndiyo msingi wa amani ya jamii hiyo. na matokeo yake ni amani.

HIVI NINI MAANA YA GREEN GUARD?

Napata shida sana na matamshi ya Mh JK ( raisi wetu), aliyoyatoa siku ya maazimisho ya miaka 50 ya JWTZ. raisi alikemea na kusuta watu wano andaa au vyama vya siasa vinavyo jipanga kufanya mafunzo ya mgambo kwa vijana wao? 

suala hili kwa tafsiri ya haraka haraka tunaweza kusema mhe Raisi anataka kuondoa shida ya kuja kuwa na majeshi ya waasi hapa nchini . au kuwa na kile wataalamu wa masuala ya sasa wankiita sub state within a state, ambaloni jambo la hatari kwa taifa.

lakini ukijiuliza kwa kina unajiuliza kuwa mbona upande wake kuna kikundi kinachofanana na kile cha upande wa pili? lakini pia tumeshuudia katika vipindi vy achaguzi hapa nchini hawa grreen guard ndio huwa wanhusika katika ulinzi wa shughuli za chama chake, pili hwa green guard wamepatiwa semina mbalimbali za mafunzo ya mgambo ambao kimsingi yanatengeneza kikundi ambacho ni jeshi lachama japo kuwa halina silaha ila lina utaalamu.

suala la kujiuliza hapa ni je ni msingi hupi inaomfanya raisi akemee vyama vingine kuwa na vijana wa namna hii. na kama upande mwingine wapo, je hii inathibitisha maneno ya gazeti la mawio la mjini moshi  lilokifanananisha chama cha mapinduzi na utawala wa faraho? kwamba kwa chama tawala suala ni utawala tu hata kama unaweza au huwezi, au jambo lolote litapimwa usafi kulingana na upande linakotoka, mfano utakuwa huna kosa kuwa na vijana wanopewa semina za mgambo kama wewe ni CCM lakini litakuwa kosa kuwa na vijana wa namna hiyo kama wewe unatoka upande mwingine.

mimi sio mtaalamu sana wa mambo haya lakini haya nimeyaona na nimeona sio vyema nia yaache yapite bila kuyajadili kwa kina.

WHY AU IS SKIPPING ITS RESPONSIBILITY

Few days past AU has suspended EGYPT AND CENTRAL REPUBLIC's membership from the union following the crisis that happens in these countries  the allegation to these countries was on unconstitutional transformation basically coined by western and America. 

But this is not the case to suspend or not to suspend is not our business the issue here is what are the responsibility of the union in relation to continental peace?

The acceptance that the revolution which they named it as coup was unconstitutional is the western clime without focus on Africa and African future.

Among the responsibility of AU from its successor OAU it was to restore peace and harmony within the continent, fight against all forms of oppression discrimination and torture, and generally to struggle for continental freedom.

To discuss on continental peace basically focusing the EGYPTIAN crisis is that the Union had the responsibility to take part in the crisis and engineer common consensus among parties in conflict. if we can call back the stance the military offered 48 hours altimultum to president to reconcile with his opponent and restore peace, what  we may argue as the good start for AU.

But the union decided to close the eyes and think in the eyes of the foreign and suspend on of the historical African giant country from the union. the question here is how will the AU intervene in the crisis? the answer is probably no way because of non recorgination of the parties in power. if that is the case then can we agree that AU as skipped the responsibility ? and therefore blessed killing and unrest in Egypt? if that is the case then whose union for?

Some people may think that the decisions by union is proper because it impose sanction to the government in power, but is that sanction effective?  the effectiveness and non effectiveness is not that issue to discus but does it help?

i think the union should go back and uncover the challenges ahead of them. because in most stances the union has been reacting passively to remember the Libyan crisis, kenya after election crisis, central republic crisis, Congo DRC and other part of the continent.