Economists, policymakers and border disputes
In the Newsletter magazine of the Royal Economic Society dated October 2016, British economists engage in soul-searching as to why the majority of voters in June 2016 had voted for Brexit despite the almost unanimous advices by economists against Britain leaving the European Union (EU).
Some economists blame the media, including the BBC, for not giving weighted coverage to the opinion of economists; some say it was the fault of both academic and professional economists that they were ineffective in communicating with policymakers and the public at large. A third view is that though voters understood the opinions of economists, they gave greater consideration in matters such as Britain’s sovereignty and immigration.
The British experience is of interest to economists in other countries who want to influence policymakers when very important issues are at stake. In Malawi, one such issue is the border dispute with Tanzania over the north eastern part of Lake Malawi.
Official communications and some private commentaries say Malawi should take an uncompromising stand on the issue. It seems to me those who take this stand are guided exclusively by the Helgoland treaties and African Union’s (AU) resolution that independent African countries should treat borders made by colonial powers as binding and sacrosanct.
But has the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation which handles the border dispute ever sought the opinions of economists as a body such as the Economics Association of Malawi (Ecama) or eminent academicians and professionals.
Malawi’s pressing problems at present are perpetual food deficiency, endemic poverty and stagflation. Our relationship with Tanzania should not aggravate these problems. They will be aggravated if we unwisely engaged in jingoism. I like the advice given by an ancient Roman or Greek sage: “If you are a dwarf and in dispute with a giant, spare yourself. If you are a giant in dispute with a dwarf, spare him.
Economists have a duty to speak to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation on the consequences of being jingoistic about the border dispute. Our most reliable outlet to the sea is the port of Dar es Salaam. Though Beira and Nacala in Mozambique are the nearest, recurrent civil wars in Mozambique interrupt our export and import business. We must not, therefore, do anything that sours our relationship with Tanzania.
We should take a cue out of the tactics of those nations which have come out of wars successfully. They avoid fighting on a variety of fronts simultaneously. Hitler could have fared better in World War II if he had not attacked the Russians and the Americans while he was already finding it difficult to crash Britain.
When Britain was fighting Germany, she gave way to Japan in its Far East colonies, Singapore, Malaysia and Burma, she decided to concentrate on the greater threat to Britain’s survival. When the Nazis were defeated, Britain and colonies went back to the Far East and recovered its colonies from Japan.
Similarly, let us first solve the problems which have driven our country to the lowest rung on the ladder of development. Tackling these problems while locked in dispute with Tanzania is to court disaster.
Am I saying let us surrender part of our lake to Tanzania? Not at all. If Tanzania draws a border line different from the one that existed during the colonial days, this is not a matter that should result in a war between the two countries.
When Britain and Germany put finishing touches in the Helgoland treaties, Britain allowed German East Africa to ply its ship on the north eastern side of the lake. The German ship was called Von Wissman.
Our vehicles travel on Tanzania roads all the way from the border to Dar es Salaam and back. Why should Tanzania not be plying its ships on our waters? n
