Analysis: Kawale’s ‘triumph for diplomacy’ highlights poor policy judgement, costly trade fallout, and the power of dialogue

By Burnett Munthali

Hon. Sam Kawale’s diplomatic statement “A Triumph for Diplomacy and Dialogue” reflects two competing truths.

It is a commendable moment of reconciliation between Malawi and Tanzania.

It is also a sobering reminder of a self-inflicted crisis rooted in poor policy foresight.

While the Dodoma meeting on 2nd May 2025 ultimately yielded critical outcomes in easing trade tensions, it is difficult to ignore the unnecessary suffering and economic disruption caused by a hasty and ill-conceived decision from Malawi’s leadership just weeks earlier.

At the heart of the issue was the Malawi government’s issuance of the Control of Goods (Import and Export) Order in March 2025.

This directive effectively barred the importation of certain goods.

The motivations behind this move remain opaque.

Its consequences were immediate and severe.

Tanzania responded by imposing its own Prohibition Notice on Malawian plant and plant products.

This was a retaliatory step that escalated what became an avoidable trade standoff.

Kawale’s pride in being part of the delegation that went to Dodoma to resolve the fallout is understandable.

Diplomacy and dialogue were, indeed, effective tools in de-escalating the conflict.

However, the need for such diplomacy emerged only because of what can be fairly described as a reckless domestic policy move.

The government of Malawi, by unilaterally disrupting trade, underestimated both its economic reliance on Tanzania and the human cost of such restrictions.

As of the writing of this analysis, traders and small business operators, particularly in markets like Mchesi in Lilongwe, remain stranded.

Their livelihoods have been jeopardized by decisions made in high offices without adequate consultation or impact assessment.

Jobs have been lost.

Perishable goods have gone to waste.

Families depending on cross-border trade have suffered.

These are not theoretical consequences—they are painful realities for many Malawians whose only crime was economic dependency on Tanzanian agricultural imports.

The key outcomes of the Dodoma talks, while laudable, serve as a post-crisis recovery plan rather than a proactive economic strategy.

Malawi’s promise to implement an Administrative Instrument to smoothen trade, and Tanzania’s reversal of its Prohibition Notice, show that both sides were willing to de-escalate.

But the damage had already been done.

One must ask: was this diplomatic victory really a triumph—or a necessary clean-up after a preventable mess?

The commitment to harmonize Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Standards is a step in the right direction.

When aligned with international norms, such measures can prevent future misunderstandings and promote safe, predictable trade.

Similarly, the renewed push to finalize the Simplified Trade Regime (STR) by the end of May 2025 is a positive sign that both governments recognize the need for structural, long-term solutions to facilitate trade.

However, this entire episode illustrates a broader governance flaw in Malawi.

It shows a top-down policymaking approach that often disregards the lived realities of ordinary people.

Had there been broader stakeholder engagement before the March ban, it is highly likely that less disruptive alternatives could have been explored.

The fact that such high-level interventions had to be made to undo the damage underscores a lack of foresight in Malawi’s initial policy framework.

Kawale quotes President Lazarus Chakwera’s philosophy: “Engagement, not estrangement, builds bridges.”

While true, it begs the question—why wasn’t this philosophy applied before launching a trade order with serious diplomatic repercussions?

Why wasn’t there engagement before estrangement?

Nonetheless, the tone of cooperation and mutual respect between the two delegations signals a renewed commitment to regional unity.

The praise for Presidents Chakwera and Samia Suluhu Hassan is also notable.

It reflects leadership that recognizes the importance of diplomacy in Africa’s future.

Africa’s integration depends on such dialogue and mutual trust.

This is especially true among neighbors with deep historical and economic ties.

In conclusion, “A Triumph for Diplomacy and Dialogue” should be read both as a victory for constructive engagement and as a cautionary tale about the cost of unilateralism and reactive governance.

The lesson for Malawi—and indeed the entire region—is clear.

Diplomacy works best not as a remedy for avoidable mistakes, but as a foundation for thoughtful, inclusive policymaking.