President Samia Suluhu Hassan’s recent trip to Moscow should not have raised eyebrows, yet it has. The visit sparked questions about whether it signals a fundamental realignment in Tanzania’s foreign relations, a shift that warrants careful analysis beyond the immediate headlines.
In 2024, my colleague Tim Zajontz and I published a paper exploring the concept of omni-alignment in East Africa, a growing trend where governments exploit the political economy of connectivities by engaging all competing major powers equally.
Unlike the old-style non-alignment that was decolonial in nature, omni-alignment occurs when the region is firmly integrated into the global capitalist economy and its extractivist and competitive logics.
The paper noted that President Samia has been exemplary in this trend. Since taking office in 2021, she has travelled to nearly all major capitals—Beijing, Brussels, Paris, Washington, Doha, Muscat, and Nairobi—as part of her government’s economic diplomacy.
Her recent Moscow visit, therefore, should have been seen as the continuation of a trend she started. The timing, however, tells a different story.
Mounting pressure
President Samia’s Moscow trip came at a time when Tanzania faces mounting pressure from Western actors following the disputed October 29, 2025, elections, which were marred by violence. The government’s heavy-handed response to protests has drawn widespread criticism from local and international actors.
READ MORE: President Samia to Make Historic State Visit to Russia Amid Mounting Western Pressure
The election was merely one episode in a longer stretch of political repression that has included media crackdowns, persecution of opposition politicians, and a worrying trend of abductions by “unknown abductors.”
As a result, relations with the West are gradually cooling. A bipartisan bill in the United States calls for reassessment of US-Tanzania relations and awaits review at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Already, the US government has imposed travel restrictions on a senior Tanzanian police official, accusing him of gross human rights violations. The US remains Tanzania’s largest single bilateral development partner.
On the other hand, the European Union has moved closer to suspending €156 million in aid to Tanzania through the Annual Action Plan, citing human rights violations and fraudulent elections.
Both Brussels and Washington, however, are not entirely driven by human rights or democratic agendas. Behind the rhetoric lies a clear urge to gain the upper hand in the geopolitical and geoeconomic competition occurring on the continent.
Sino-Tanzanian ties
The US bipartisan bill explicitly sounds off about deepening Sino-Tanzanian ties, claiming they help intensify anti-American and anti-Western sentiments inside and outside Tanzania.
READ MORE: Putin Calls for Stronger Russia–Tanzania Trade as Samia Visits Moscow
There is no mention of Russia in the bill, perhaps given its lesser role in Tanzania compared to China. However, increased Russian involvement is something the Europeans will see as another reason to intensify pressure on Tanzania.
Scholars of African international relations such as Oscar M. Otele agree that the ongoing competition among major powers in Africa has granted African governments agency of choice.
By agency, scholars adopt Amanda Coffie and Lembe Tiky’s definition as “the ability of African actors to negotiate and bargain with external actors in a manner that benefits Africans themselves.”
In practical geopolitical and geoeconomic terms, agency of choice involves weighing many available options, negotiating and striking deals at one’s advantage. African governments face relatively less pressure to accept proposals they are unhappy with.
If they see no benefit in one proposal, they can easily look elsewhere for a more favourable one. If the US is not offering something, China may well do so, and vice versa. That extends to other actors increasingly active on the continent, such as the Gulf States (Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE), Turkey, and India.
An afterthought?
If her earlier travels signalled President Samia’s priorities, the Moscow visit looks less like a priority and more like an afterthought. After all, it was Russian President Vladimir Putin who extended the invitation to her.
Russia also sent a special delegation to meet President Samia three days after she was sworn in following the disputed 29 October elections.
Russia’s expanding footprint in Africa was predicted following its costly war in Ukraine and subsequent Western sanctions. Yusuf Bangura wrote in 2022 that a beleaguered Russia would be transactional, aggressive, and highly opportunistic.
There is a strong suggestion that the trip is an attempt to cope with the ensuing reality, one where Euro-American actors either withdraw or downsize their assistance to Tanzania.
That is why it is difficult to describe the visit as an example of agency of choice. Agency is deliberate and strategic, not reactive. The timing suggests a response to tightening Western pressure rather than a confident act of diversification.
If the trip was driven by necessity, it says less about Tanzania’s bargaining power and more about the shrinking room for manoeuvre.
Omni-alignment paradox
One must be mindful that the rationality of economic diplomacy in its current design is that Tanzania intends to exploit omni-alignment by not leaning heavily on one bloc or venturing into non-alignment of a decolonial nature.
READ MORE: Tanzania Turns to Domestic Borrowing as External Financing Becomes More Uncertain
Upon her return, the president reiterated this very point. In that regard, whatever benefits the Russia trip brings to Tanzania should be aimed at adding to the existing benefits that the West brings, not replacing them.
There will be no shortage of those who see President Samia’s Moscow trip as a commendable strategic move. That is fair and worth the debate. Others will interpret it through the lens of defiance, suggesting that Dodoma is unbothered by the noise coming from Brussels and Washington. This group will be greatly disappointed.
Despite the anti-imperialist rhetoric in some quarters, the Tanzanian government has been working behind closed doors to try to mend relations with the same “imperialists,” locally known as mabeberu.
President Samia has previously spoken about the West in strong nationalistic language. In her viral “Who are you?” speech, the president defended Tanzania’s sovereignty against external interference and criticism, rhetorically asking, Who are you?
That tone has not been reciprocated by senior government leaders. To the contrary, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and East African Cooperation has revealed that special envoys were dispatched to different parts of the world (including the Vatican!) in an attempt to present the government’s side of the story regarding October 29.
The CCM-dominated parliament has also deliberated on the US bipartisan bill, and few appear willing to confront the West directly.
In fact, many who spoke at a parliamentary session placed the blame on internal actors for misleading “our good friends in the West.” The mood was that Brussels and Washington are key to Tanzania’s development trajectory and that measures should be taken to reverse the current trend.
If the Moscow trip was indeed a statement of intent of realignment, one wonders if there is enough political resolve to withstand the consequences.
Dr Muhidin Shangwe is a lecturer in the Department of Political Science and Public Administration at the University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM). His research area focuses on China-Africa relations. He can be reached at shangwejb@gmail.com or on X at @ShangweliBeria. 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.
