Ujumaa & 毛主义
African Familyhood & Maoism

As China sought to build political alliances with postcolonial states, Amman Stadium marked the starting point of what would later be recognized as ‘stadium diplomacy’. China had started providing aid to other countries early in the 1950s after Mao Zedong took power, often in the forms of industrial buildings and workers’ dormitories in an effort to develop recipient countries' manufacturing capabilities and allow them to achieve self-reliance. Following the 1955 Bandung Conference, Chinese leaders increasingly framed their foreign policy as part of a shared Third World struggle against imperialism, positioning China as a fellow postcolonial state rather than a donor power. This South–South solidarity resonated strongly in Africa, where newly independent states were seeking development partners that did not replicate colonial power dynamics. 

​

In the 1960s China was heavily involved in Tanzania through the construction of the Tanzania–Zambia Railway (TAZARA), one of the largest foreign aid projects in Chinese history. Built with Chinese financing, technical expertise, and tens of thousands of Chinese workers, the railway enabled landlocked Zambia to bypass apartheid-controlled routes in southern Africa, directly supporting liberation movements and economic sovereignty. Funding TAZARA cemented China’s reputation as a committed partner in African independence struggles and created deep institutional ties between Chinese and Tanzanian ministries. By 1970, Tanzania had become one of China’s closest African allies and its largest market on the continent. 

​

Julius Nyerere’s socialist Tanzania was an especially natural partner. Nyerere’s policy of Ujamaa emphasized collective agriculture, state-led development, and anti-imperialism. These principles closely mirrored China’s own positions during the Cultural Revolution, particularly with Mao’s emphasis on the countryside as the revolutionary base and the rejection of Western development models..  Both governments framed their political projects as rooted in the peasantry, national self-determination, and resistance to external domination. This ideological symmetry made Tanzania not just a strategic ally but a symbolic one.

​

Constructed as a gift of solidarity, Amaan Stadium functioned as an instrument of soft power that projected political solidarity and reinforced China as a partner in postcolonial Africa’s mission of self-determination. This form of influence operated through visibility, symbolism, and everyday association rather than direct political messaging. As a highly public civic structure, the stadium became embedded in social life, hosting sporting events, ceremonies, and national gatherings. Its association with Chinese assistance linked Beijing to moments of collective pride and modernity, reinforcing perceptions of China as a benevolent development partner. Unlike extractive or military involvement, the stadium represented a tangible, positive contribution to daily life, differentiating China from both Western and Soviet actors and cultivating goodwill at the societal level.

​

The stadium’s high visibility and monetary value made it an effective diplomatic gesture, signaling alignment without formal political conditionality. Unlike contemporary infrastructure projects, which are typically financed through a mix of grants, concessional loans, and tied procurement agreements, Amaan Stadium was constructed entirely with grants. There were no repayment obligations, no policy conditions, and no long-term financial dependencies. It was fully intended as a gift with no purse strings attached. This lack of conditionality reinforced China’s self-presentation as a fellow postcolonial state rather than an external power seeking leverage, strengthening its credibility among African leaders and publics alike.

​

Tanzania’s experience thus represents the ideological and institutional origins of China’s stadium diplomacy. While this early model emphasized symbolism and shared political identity, it established infrastructure as a privileged channel of influence. Over time, as China’s economic capacity expanded and its strategic ambitions sharpened, this model was scaled and financialized.