By Kellys Kaunda
THE KAUNDA DOCTRINE AND TANZANIA TODAY
Kenneth Kaunda was fiercely and unapologetically committed to the liberation of all colonized states.
He was so committed, he was willing to accept to compromise his own country’s economic wellbeing if that were the price to be paid for the purchase of other nations’ freedom.
Indeed, critical infrastructure was bombed and some lives lost.
On two occasions, Singapore’s founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, visited Zambia during meetings of the Non Aligned Movement.
In his book, From third world to first world, he said he saw expensive China Ware around dinner table while the country was desperately poor.
He attributed this to Kaunda’s seemingly disproportionate commitment to the liberation struggle which he believed robbed Zambians of economic prosperity.
But other commentators have attributed Zambia’s poor economic situation to factors such as poor management on the part of the Kaunda government and external economic shocks.
There is no doubt that the commitment to the liberation struggle had a costly effect on the Zambian economy.
Therefore, it was such a relief that colonized nations eventually became independent.
This paved the way for economic independence. To underscore the shift in this direction, from MMD to UPND, every government has publicly committed itself to economic diplomacy.
This would be the centerpiece of the country’s foreign policy going forward.
However, when Zambia is confronted with a human rights question in the process of dealing with countries she maintains diplomatic relations with, what should she do?
Ignore the human rights question now that the country is pursuing economic diplomacy?
Ignore economic diplomacy in preference for the wellbeing of the victims of human rights violation?
Or, is there a middle way? What would Kaunda have done?
Remember, the Kaunda doctrine focused on ending foreign rule. After independence, he preached humanism as his way of expressing his commitment to the wellbeing of human beings and their centrality to everything government did.
It’s therefore tempting to assume that he would have been concerned with the current situation in Tanzania.
He was concerned with the situation in Zimbabwe at the beginning and height of land grabs.
I know this because I interviewed him on this subject.
Is this good enough to provide guidance to the Zambian current leadership regarding their policy towards Tanzania in the face of current events there?
Certainly, how past leaders appeared to have conducted themselves in situations that seem similar is worth reflecting on but not necessarily replicating.
We elect different individuals to leadership positions because there are potential benefits to be derived from different individuals.
Sometimes a complete departure from the past may be deemed necessary by new leaders depending on their individual view of the circumstances confronting them.
The world of Kaunda is not the same world today. If Kaunda rose to power today, his decisions may differ from the decisions he took in the 60s and 70s.
But one thing that looks consistent is the direct engagement of the major players in a conflict which Kaunda did.
To some extent, this was exemplified by the Chiluba government when it mediated in the Angola and DRC peacetalks.
It would appear, we do not shun parties, we engage them.
How we engage is likely to be a point of contention because of the strong opinions that different individuals hold on the subject.