MALAWI: Going to war with Tanzania would be foolish

MALAWI: Going to war with Tanzania would be foolish

Check your facts. We are fishing in Lake Victoria. It is s marine transport way. We are using the water for irrigation and human utility. No comparison with the Malawi claims. The Lake is shared with Kenya and Uganda.

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app

Utilizing it with Limitations: Your Foreign Minister admitted in the Parliament that "Egypt is Nile and Nile is Egypt"
Let alone the fact that you can't conduct any substantial project without notifying the Egyptians.

Unfortunately , you didn't get my point and you are unlikely to get it any time soon;
If Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia and Kenya respect the Imperialistic Nile Treaty of 1929 why can't they respect the Imperialistic Heligoland Treaty of 1890 which gave Lake Nyasa to Malawi?

President Nyerere was a staunch advocate of The Doctrine of Uti Possidetis urging newly Independent African nations to honour the Colonial boundaries demarcating their countries and Colonial Treaties creating them. But, shockingly him and his comrades were the first ones to trammel on the right of the tiny Malawi through Sabre-rattling and Big Stick Diplomacy.

Check your facts before pointing fingers......
Facts speak for themselves..........
 
Tanzania should never sit with these idiots to discussion anything relating to Lake Nyasa. there is nothing to discuss.
 
Malcolm Lumumba google Uti Possidetis and Marine Customary International Law to find answer for that.

The term "territorial waters" is used to refer to any area of water over which a state has jurisdiction, including internal waters, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and potentially the continental shelf.

Territorial waters is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) from the a coastal state. The territorial water is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state. Tanzania is claiming what is belong to her, nothing more, nothing less.

I think Malawian Government made mistake by granting exploration right to British company to explore oil and gas on Tanzania side of the lake (Look at Block 2 and block 3 on the map) without talking or obtaining Tanzania Government permission.

What would Malawian Government think if Tanzania were to grant exploration right to Block 1 on their side of their lake without their permission.

The reason:- the place is full of riches and they want all the riches for themselves regardless of the fact that majority of people who live around the place are Tanzanians because of simple reason it is on Tanzanian side.

My friend sorry to burst your bubbles but THE LAW OF THE SEA does not apply to Internal Waters(Rivers and Lakes).
Lakes don't have Territorial Waters, Contiguous Zones, Economic Exclusive Zones or High Seas.
 
My dear this doesn't exist any more! Lake Victoria water are being used in any way! Come this side & see big water projects at the lake!

If you know your enemy than yourself you shall never suffer a defeat

To what extent do they utilize the Victorian Waters?
Can they utilize it without notifying the Egyptians?
And, who told you that the Egyptians derogated from The Nile Treaty of 1929?
 
Have you heard of Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA)? This agreement will form basis of how the countries will use their own water (e.g irrigation and hydroelectric power production), it will effective replace the Colonial era Nile Basin Initiative of 1929. It has Already signed by six countries Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi.

But the point is these countries are grown up, free and independent and have applies common sense and come up with this agreement.

Surely Tanzania and Malawi can apply common sense and come up with agreement to use Lake Nyasa for mutual benefit of both countries.

Be it as it may,
The bottom line is "If Tanzania respects the Imperialistic Treaty of Nile 1929, why can't she respect the Imperialistic Treaty of Heligoland 1890? " ; Can't you see the Double Standards portrayed by Tanzanian Leaders?
 
if you ask me Malawi can have big potion but not the whole lake!
 
As Africans we are still suffering from many of our internal disputes that are worsening and threatening our affairs, Dear Malawians do you think that Tanzania will one day admitt and comply with your foolish claims? it is better to solve this problem before it explodes to the Arsenals and military measures which will bring out destruction and losses of innocents lives. Think twicely dear neighbours, don't rely on feelings, rely on mutual utilization among the bordering states of Tanzania, Mocambique and Malawi itself.

its bizzare to conclude that you can own the whole lake alone and stop other human beings from your neighbouring country from fishing, irrigating, transporting and exploring oil, that level will be solved by military tactics.
lets build a beautiful and stable Africa for our coming generations!!
 
The naked truth is, Malawi claim to own the whole lake when their election is around the corner but after, the lake is shared. Be wise and let these foolish claims of you thrown away.
 
My friend sorry to burst your bubbles but THE LAW OF THE SEA does not apply to Internal Waters(Rivers and Lakes).
Lakes don't have Territorial Waters, Contiguous Zones, Economic Exclusive Zones or High Seas.

There is no bubble to burst here bro, Territory waters does include internal waters, check you fact, do some research.
 
There is no bubble to burst here bro, Territory waters does include internal waters, check you fact, do some research.

Not all Internal Waters are subjects to the scrutiny of the Law of the Sea.
Waters from the landward side of the baseline are strictly under the control of the Sovereignty.
The Law of the Sea does not apply in the case of Malawi and Tanzania: If it was applicable then they could have resorted the matter to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea and not The International Court of Justice (ICJ)

NB: Please read, The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982.
 
Be it as it may,
The bottom line is "If Tanzania respects the Imperialistic Treaty of Nile 1929, why can't she respect the Imperialistic Treaty of Heligoland 1890? " ; Can't you see the Double Standards portrayed by Tanzanian Leaders?

It doesn't, not only Tanzania but also Ethiopia, Burundi, Rwanda, Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia and Congo DRC do not accept this treaty.

It is only Egypt and Sudan who respect this treaty because it favour them. All these countries are tired of being dictated to always ask permission from Egypt to use their own waters. Remember this treaty was signed between Egypt and British to protect interest of Egypt while not taking into account interest of the rest of the countries in Nile basin.

This is why they have come up with new agreement as i have mention before in my previous post, here it is again:- Cooperative framework agreement (CFA)
Cooperative Framework Agreement | Nile Basin Intitative (NBI)
 
Not all Internal Waters are subjects to the scrutiny of the Law of the Sea.
Waters from the landward side of the baseline are strictly under the control of the Sovereignty.
The Law of the Sea does not apply in the case of Malawi and Tanzania: If it was applicable then they could have resorted the matter to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea and not The International Court of Justice (ICJ)

NB: Please read, The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982.

It does apply here. Read that document careful ( The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982). 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea requires international borders to be erected on the middle of the water bodies encountered on their courses.

Which court they take this case to is the matter for Malawi. Tanzania does not claim the whole lake, she is claiming what is rightly belong to Tanzania. By the way why did Malawi pull out on negotiation table? was it because they realize they are not going to win and common sense will prevail?
 
The only solution on the matter in dispute, is the union of both countries, let's us unite and form one big, strong State. I'm sure, it is not Malawians we are disputing with, somebody is behind this, let's unite and ashame them. Africa must unite for the betterment of Africans, no more no less.

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
 
To what extent do they utilize the Victorian Waters?
Can they utilize it without notifying the Egyptians?
And, who told you that the Egyptians derogated from The Nile Treaty of 1929?

Nobody recognised or accept this treaty except Egypt and Sudan. New agreement will be reached soon with or without egyptian signature. For you to base your whole arguments on this silly 1929 treaty is unfortunate to say the least. So Malawi want to follow Egypt example. Will Egypt go to war with all these countries to enforce 1929 treat? Will Malawi follow Egypt example and go to war with Tanzania to enforce treaty between Germany and Britain instead reach agreement between Malawi and Tanzania.

History of the Nile Waters Agreements


These disagreements over the use of the Nile are not recent and, in fact, have a long history because of these countries’ high dependence on the waters of the Nile. In 1929, an agreement was concluded between Egypt and Great Britain regarding the utilization of the waters of the Nile River—Britain was supposedly representing its colonies in the Nile River Basin.

The Anglo-Egyptian Treaty covered many issues related to the Nile River and its tributaries. Of particular relevance to the present discussion is that it granted Egypt an annual water allocation of 48 billion cubic meters and Sudan 4 billion cubic meters out of an estimated average annual yield of 84 billion cubic meters. In addition, the 1929 agreement granted Egypt veto power over construction projects on the Nile River or any of its tributaries in an effort to minimize any interference with the flow of water into the Nile.

The 1929 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, did not make any allowance for the water needs of the other riparian states, including even Ethiopia, whose highlands supply more than 80 percent of the water that flows into the Nile River.

Upstream riparian states such as Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Ethiopia, have argued that they are not bound by these agreements because they were never parties to them. In fact, shortly after independence from Great Britain in 1961, Tanganyika’s new leader, Julius Nyerere, argued that the Nile Waters Agreements placed his country and other upstream riparian states at Egypt’s mercy, forced them to subject their national development plans to the scrutiny and supervision of Cairo, and that such an approach to public policy would not be compatible with the country’s status as a sovereign independent state. All the upstream riparian states have since argued in favor of a new, more inclusive legal framework for governing the Nile River Basin.

1999, the Nile River riparian states, except Eritrea, signed the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) in an effort to enhance cooperation on the use of the “common Nile Basin water resources.” Under the auspices of the NBI, the riparian states began work on developing what they believed would be a permanent legal and institutional framework for governing the Nile River Basin. The Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA), as this agreement is called, formally introduced the concept of equitable water allocation into discussions about Nile governance, as well as a complicating concept called “water security.”

The CFA was ready for signature beginning May 10, 2010; Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda have signed it; and the Ethiopian parliament has ratified it.

However, arguing that their “acquired rights” to the waters of the Nile River would not be protected, Egypt and Sudan immediately registered their intention not to sign the agreement because they objected to the wording of Article 14(b): “Nile Basin States therefore agree, in a spirit of cooperation: . . . (b) not to significantly affect the water security of any other Nile Basin State.” They then proposed an alternative wording for Article 14(b): “Nile Basin States therefore agree, in a spirit of cooperation: . . . (b) not to significantly affect the water security and current uses and rights of any other Nile Basin State,” (emphasis added). This wording was rejected by the upstream riparian states, who argue that “the current uses and rights” phrasing would entrench the concept of prior rights, including those created by the Nile Waters Agreements and effectively retain the inequity and unfairness that has characterized the allocation and utilization of water in the Nile River Basin since the 1920s.

While it is true that Egyptians rely totally on the waters of the Nile River for all their needs, they must be sensitive to the development needs of the upstream riparian states, especially given the fact that the latter, particularly Ethiopia, are in a position to cause significant harm to the quantity and quality of water that flows into the Nile. Hence, the practical and more accommodating attitude taken by Egyptian leaders in their decision to endorse Addis Ababa’s Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam project (GERDP), should be welcomed. However, Cairo needs to go further and sign and ratify the CFA without insisting on changes to Article 14(b) to guarantee Egypt the rights created by the Nile Waters agreements. With the CFA in place, all 11 riparian states can negotiate in good faith to agree an allocation formula that is acceptable to all of them and considered fair, equitable, and reasonable. As Africa becomes more and more affected by climate change, the continent’s various groups must agree to cooperate in the development of institutional structures that can enhance their ability to live together peacefully and allocate their natural resources, including water, in a fair and sustainable manner.

The limits of the new “Nile Agreement”
 
That lake belongs to three countries: Tanzania, Malawi and Mozambique. In Tanzania we call it Lake Nyasa and it has been there time immemorial! Tanganyikans and later Tanzanians have been using it all along as theirs. At school we have always been taught that it belongs to all the three countries and boundaries have shown that there is a part on its north and north east that belonged to Tanzania, its east belonged to Mozambique and the rest belonged to Malawi. Let's all grow up, share it and let the boundaries stay like that. No need for war. Peace[emoji111]

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
 
Malawi needs to be proactive and not just reactive on the Lake Malawi boundary wrangle with its north-eastern neighbour, Tanzania. But while I am on this, let me warn that resorting to wresting the part of the lake Tanzania claims is its territory will only worsen the matter. To be brutally frank, and without underrating our military prowess, Malawi will be the bigger casualty in any military undertaking with Tanzania. Tanzania, geographically bigger than Malawi—is no match for us military-wise.

To begin with, we need the lake more than Tanzania needs the part they are claiming to belong to them. Unlike Tanzania, which also has lakes Victoria and Tanganyika and a long seashore on the Indian Ocean, Lake Malawi is our only biggest water resource body spanning all the three regions. As a result its economic importance to Malawi cannot be overstated.

We need the lake for transport purposes—which to say the least—we have underutilised. The lake’s fish resources are an economic lifeline for 90 percent of the people along the lakeshore who subsist as fishermen. Take away the lake and see what would become of people in Karonga, Nkhata Bay, Likoma and Chizumulo, part of Rumphi, Nkhotakota, Salima, Mangochi. In short, the lake is actually synonymous with their livelihood.

At national level, Lake Malawi is the main source of water for the Shire River, which is again the source of 90 percent of our hydro-electricity from Nkula, Tedzani and Kapichira hydro-power stations.

Agriculturally, Illovo and Dwangwa Sugar company—probably the country’s biggest employers—depend on water bodies from the Shire and Lake Malawi, respectively. And if we had visionary leaders, they would long have transformed lakeshore districts into breadbaskets for the entire country producing rice, maize and cassava.

Blantyre Water Board’s main source of water—Walker’s Ferry—is the Shire River (whose main source of water is Lake Malawi), meaning that the whole Blantyre city and parts of Chiradzulu and Thyolo are serviced by the Shire River.

As a tourist destination—which again I must state we have grossly underdeveloped—Lake Malawi’s importance cannot be overstated, contributing a good percentage to the tourism’s gross domestic product (GDP).

In short, Lake Malawi’s importance should not be something any caring government should only talk about when there are no elections in the country. In Tumbuka we would have said navyose vyamthengere.

If truth be told, since 2014 the DPP-led government has been in a power-drunken stupor on this important issue and is only being awakened now that Tanzania has published maps showing part of the eastern part of the lake as belonging to them.

Going to war with Tanzania over the lake would be foolhardy (Uchindere wakufikapo). They have both the military and economic might to annihilate us within a short period of time.

With the issues I have outlined above, not even the elections should have stopped us from getting the mediators to continue the talks. Why should everything else come to a standstill when there are elections? After all, it has been two years and six months since Malawi held its elections and one year since Tanzania went to the polls.

The problem on the part of Malawi is the ‘let sleeping dogs lie’ mentality. It is naïvity at its worst that the Malawi government only wants to do something when Tanzanians are on the offensive. That is not the way to go. Government should quickly get this issue to a logical conclusion.

It is a well-known fact that Tanzania wants half of the eastern part of the lake because of the oil exploration activities underway in the lake. And it is unlikely that the Sadc mediators—led by Mozambique former president Joachim Chissano—will side with Malawi on the issue, the Anglo-Heligoland Treaty notwithstanding. That is why it is important for Malawi to be proactive and take the issue to the International Court of Justice. That part of the lake is for Malawi to lose.

I would side with Malawians on this issue, Lake Nyasa belongs to Malawi - if you look at old maps the boundaries were in Malawi/Nyasaland - it is also fascinating to see that, on same old maps the border on Lake Tanganyika cuts across in the middle, so it cant be a coincidence;

Tanzania should accept this fact.
 
I would side with Malawians on this issue, Lake Nyasa belongs to Malawi - if you look at old maps the boundaries were in Malawi/Nyasaland - it is also fascinating to see that, on same old maps the border on Lake Tanganyika cuts across in the middle, so it cant be a coincidence;

Tanzania should accept this fact.
So tanzanian should not allow water from their rivers to eneter into lake malawi and should pay for use of lake malawi
 
Kwa sababu hujazoea hiyo lugha ukadhani kila anaeongea hivyo ni mmalawi!
Nimeongea hiyo lugha ili kila mtu aelewe hasa malawi,
Ukiwa na uelewa mzuri utaona kuwa nimesisitiza justice by facts hapo, siitetei Tanzania wala malawi bali nimewachagiza wasomi hao wanadiplimasia wakafukunyue madocument ili hayo yawe ushahidi wa nani anaishia wapi, hiyo sio ushabiki maandazi kama unaoongea wewe ni kuelekeza haki zaidi ili amani iwepo na atakaebishana na hiyo haki yenye ushahidi bila kuwa na back ya ushahidi wenye mashiko basi akichapwa asilie,
NASISITIZA HAKI ITENDEKE!
Kwenye hii issue si suala la haki, hawa watu wanakorogwa na mabeberu ili walazimishe mambo kwa ajili ya resources. Hii ni kama Sudan ilivyo katwa kipande kwa ajili ya mafuta. Ni kama Zanzibar inavyotiwa fitna ya kuvunjwa muungano ili mabeberu wanufaike.
 
Back
Top Bottom