The news on the ground is that by May 2026, 53 African countries will have zero per cent tariffs with China. Tanzania is one of them. Amid the backdrop of broader sanctions, rising protectionist policies, and a tightening trade regime in countries like the United States, the opportunity from China appears unbounded.
After all, zero tariffs—which essentially mean removing taxes on trade—make it cheaper to export, easier to access markets, and more attractive to trade. This sounds like a win for us, right? If there is something to remember, it is this: zero-per cent tariffs offer access, but they do not transform economies nor create development—production does.
In all those articles discussing the zero per cent tariffs, my eyes honed in on the recurring term LDC: “Least Developed Country.” Perhaps this is where I begin to sound like a post-colonial romantic, but isn’t it true that we are? Here is the thing: labels do not sit on their own; they show up in the numbers.
Trade imbalance
The Economic Consulting Group found that bilateral trade between Tanzania and China reached approximately US$8.88 billion in 2024, growing at over 20 per cent annually.
Exports to Tanzania were US$8.17 billion, whilst imports from Tanzania were US$710 million. That is a trade deficit of roughly US$7.5 billion, meaning Tanzania imported about 11.5 times more than it exported.
This means the vast majority of the trade relationship is defined by imbalance. On average, Tanzania imports far more than it exports, so it must be true that we are a Least Developed Country. Or perhaps more accurately, we are a country that develops everyone else.
Whilst the instinct is to look outward—to blame tariffs or China—the truth is simpler and harder to accept: the problem is not at the border, but at home. This means the real question is not about access, but about what we are building and producing locally.
READ MORE: TAZARA: China Deal to Revive Historic Railway Sparks Fierce Debate
Tanzania does not lack access to the Chinese market; in fact, near tariff-free access already covers all eligible Tanzanian exports before this latest expansion.
Also, remember that tariffs are only a small part of the overall cost of trade, as there are still transport, logistics, production, and financing costs that shape how goods actually move.
Dilemma
The real question is whether we are producing high-value goods demanded in the market to actually benefit from policies such as zero tariffs. The pattern is unmistakable: Tanzania moves raw inputs, whilst China captures value, scale, and complexity.
Chinese imports are not just goods being brought into Tanzania; they are signals of what we are not yet producing, and in many cases, the very tools needed to build that capacity for industrialisation.
The real question is whether these inflows remain final goods we consume only, or whether they become tools we use to learn, produce, and eventually compete with ourselves. With stronger technology and local manufacturing capacity, Tanzania could import less, export more, and begin to close the current imbalance.
Unless that changes, the imbalance will remain. Tariffs create pressure; by making imports more expensive, they push some countries to find alternatives, build locally, and innovate. China’s zero tariffs will remove that pressure, making Chinese goods cheaper and easier to access.
READ MORE: China Sends Geology Experts to Assess Tanzania’s Geological Survey Needs
In doing so, they also reduce the urgency to build and to innovate. After all, why build if importing is cheaper and easier? Unfortunately, zero tariffs are not one-sided; greater access does not only apply to Tanzanian exports entering China, but it also determines how easily Chinese goods enter our own markets.
When a mature manufacturing economy like China—the “factory of the world”—supplies those markets with scale, efficiency, and cost advantage, the question becomes whether we can realistically compete. More importantly, are we positioned to?
Without tariff protection, Tanzanian consumers will naturally shift toward cheaper imports, reducing demand for domestic production.
Unfortunately, local firms are pushed into competition before they have had the chance to develop. The incentive to build weakens, and importation becomes the default. It is also worth asking why this model is being extended so broadly across the continent; when 53 African countries are offered the same terms, it is unlikely to be accidental.
Capturing value at home
China understands scale, production, and value capture much better than we do. More importantly, if Chinese machinery and industrial inputs are entering Tanzania, are Tanzanians being trained to use, maintain, and eventually produce around them?
Are local firms becoming partners, suppliers, and co-owners, or simply end-users in someone else’s value chain?
READ MORE: Tax Authority Meets Chinese Business Community Amid Growing Tensions
Whilst consumers benefit from lower-priced Chinese imports in the short term, these gains do not guarantee long-term industrial development, especially if imports begin to replace, rather than support, local production.
And it is not just China. In 2024, South Africa exported approximately US$556 million to Tanzania, largely in manufactured and industrial goods like semi-finished iron, delivery trucks, and processed inputs.
Tanzania, on the other hand, exported US$2.29 billion to South Africa, but overwhelmingly in raw gold, which alone made up over 97 per cent of those exports. The numbers may favour Tanzania in volume, but the structure tells the real story of who captures value and who simply supplies it.
Honestly, how many Tanzanians are actually capturing the value of this one single commodity?
Cultural shift needed
I can tell you now that Tanzania’s major gold mines—including Geita, North Mara, Bulyanhulu, and others—are largely operated by foreign firms such as Barrick (Canada), AngloGold Ashanti (South Africa), and Shanta Gold (UK), with only limited state participation through STAMICO.
That alone tells us enough. Nyerere spoke of “kujitegemea”—self-reliance—and of “ubunifu”—creativity.
READ MORE: Electricity, Freight and Credit: The Real Deal
These were not just slogans, but a way of building a nation that locally produces and ideates, not just consumes. For example, when he pushed Swahili in government, education, and public life, it was not just about language; it was about ownership.
It was about building a nation that could think, communicate, and organise itself on its own terms.
We learned to speak our own language, but we stopped building our own systems. It is time we begin to see ourselves as producers of our own goods, industries, and values. We need to define ourselves culturally so we can define ourselves economically, and ultimately position ourselves strategically.
Somewhere along the way, we became comfortable simply importing what we could actually be making, and that has to change. No trade policy, no agreement, no tariff—zero or otherwise—will transform an economy that does not produce. The question is not whether China will fully open its markets to us, because by May 2026, it will.
It is whether we are building an economy where what we export are finished goods. We need an economy built on what is Made in Tanzania. And that is not decided at the border; that is decided at home.
Husnah Mad-hy is a lawyer and writer. She’s available at husnahmadhy@outlook.com. The opinions expressed here are the writer’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of The Chanzo. If you are interested in publishing in this space, please contact our editors at editor@thechanzo.com.
One Response
I truly enjoyed this article—it was insightful, well-written, and very impactful. I highly recommend the writer, Husnah Madhy, for her excellent work. Her writing is thoughtful, engaging, and reflects a strong understanding of the subject. She presents ideas clearly and with purpose, making the article both meaningful and inspiring to read.