Geography, Areas & Climate of Tanzania

A Brief Overview of Tanzania

The United Republic of Tanzania, the largest in the East African Community, spreads out from the western shore of Lake Tanganyika stretching east to Dar es Salaam on the coast of Indian Ocean. Along its western border is the trough in which the great lakes of Africa lie, at the north being Lake Victoria, on the west Lake Tanganyika – the longest freshwater lake in the world – and south Lake Nyasa, almost as long. Both are very deep and are more like mighty rivers than lakes. The greater part of Tanzania is a high and comparatively healthy plateau with a low plain bordering the ocean. The back of this the land rises, opening up to woodlands and magnificent savanna plains covered with grass and bush. One of Tanzania’s most remarkable geological features is the Great Rift Valley in the north-eastern regions of the country. Two branches of the Rift Valley run through Tanzania: The western branch contains Lakes Tanganyika, Rukwa and Nyasa; while the eastern branch ends in northern Tanzania and includes Lakes Natron, Manyara and Eyasi. Mount Kilimanjaro lies on the northern border of Tanzania, halfway between Lake Victoria and the Indian Ocean. It is only a few miles south of the equator, yet, its top, the highest in Africa, is always covered by snow. Kilimanjaro is one of the highest of the world’s mighty mountains. It ends in two peaks, which viewed from a distance resemble a saddle, the taller one (known as Kibo) rising far above the other and each peak is a crater. Once the most valued of the German territories in Africa, and about twice the size of Germany in Europe, it is fairly well-populated, with well over 120 tribes. Administratively, the mainland of Tanzania is divided into 20 regions and Zanzibar into 5 regions. Each region is subdivided into districts. Republic of Tanzania borders Kenya and Uganda in the north; Congo, Rwanda, Burundi and Zambia in the west; and Malawi and Mozambique in the south.

Salient Features of Tanzania

• Surface Area: 940,000 km2
• Number of Districts: 169
• Major Lakes: Victoria, Tanganyika, Nyasa, Rukwa, Natron, Eyasi, Manyara
• Date of Independence: December 9th, 1961
• Current Population: 57 million
• Official Languages: Swahili and English

A Look Into Selected Districts of Tanzania

1. Kagera Region

Bukoba is the chief town on the western side of Lake Victoria and the capital of Kagera Region. It is situated in the most north-westerly part of Tanzania, 1,400 kms from Dar es Salaam by road. Its position and the impaired communication means that it is isolated from the rest of the country. In spite of that, Bukoba District is an important part of Kagera Region and Tanzania because it is very productive. Tin is mined at Kyerwa and several cash crop are grown including coffee. Bukoba is made up of the east facing escarpment near Lake Victoria and plateau country inland. Between the ridges and the flat topped plateau are flat floored and sometimes marshy valleys. Along the lakeshore there are occasional rocky highlands, but mostly it is an area with relatively narrow lake plain with few deltaic areas, where rivers have deposited their alluvium at the edges of the lake. Located just south of the equator and lying close to an enormous water body, the climate of Bukoba could be described as equatorial with temperatures modified by altitude. It lies at an altitude of 4,000 feet (or 1,220 metres) and more, and it is, generally speaking, wet, since it receives over 2,000 mm of rain each year. More important than the total figure, as far as the coffee growing is concerned, is the fact that no month is dry, so that it rains throughout the year. Even so, there are two salient periods of heavier rains in March-April-May and November-December. These two wetter seasons are the ‘Long and Short’ Rains.

What gives Bukoba its very high rainfall is its closeness to Lake Victoria and the direction taken by the main winds. The short rains are the easiest to understand since they caused by the north-east trades, which have blown across part of the Indian Ocean and Kenya. When they reach the north-eastern edge of the Lake Victoria, these warm winds evaporate moisture from the surface of the lake. By the time they reach Bukoba, on the western side, the winds are saturated with moisture and heavy rainfall occurs as soon as land is reached. The Long Rains of March, April and May are caused in a different way. Most of the rain during these months is convectional. The strong heat of the sun causes air to rise; as it rises the air cools and rain may fall. Because Bukoba is very near the lake, the air that is made to rise will be saturated with moisture. Hence the local heating by the sun causes convectional storms which bring heavy rainfall. In addition, the south-east trade winds blow during these months. As these winds cross the lake from the south-east they evaporate moisture as rain when they reach the western side of the lake. If we now look at the temperature, the area is almost always hot year-round (24-28 degrees Celsius), reflecting an equatorial climate.

The Turkana of North-Western Kenya

On the west of Lake Turkana (in north-western Kenya) live the Turkana tribe, a fierce, arresting, war-like folk that have had to co-exist with several other gutsy neighbours. It is, perhaps, their considerable scrimmages with Suk or Pokot – “a people who might be described as halfway between the Maasai and Turkana” – and the Matheniiko tribe of Uganda, that have brought to the forefront their venerated warriorship. The Turkana tribe are often depicted as a race of giants, prodigious even, if you add the elaborate hair-dress with a circlet tuft of ostrich feathers that add to their imposing appearance, being certainly taller than many tribes of the north, and appear very big when compared to the compact Bantu people. A man of six feet is more the rule than the exception here, and as a race are as tall as some of the people in Sudan. All the same, the Turkana tribe of North-Western Kenya are a genial, hospitable people, who live much after the manner of the Maasai and talk the same. The Turkana girl wears her elaborately beaded necklace(s) which attests to her beauty, culture, and her father’s wealth.

Brief Overview of the Turkana Tribe

Against many odds, the Turkana tribe of North-Western Kenya have developed means of living in the desert and have maintained their way of life for centuries in a place where many could not. Their homeland lies in the eye of the sun, the altitude rarely rising over 1,000 metres, and the day temperature hardly falling under 35 C year-round. Except for the shores around Lake Turkana and along River Kerio, much of the country is semi-arid and in sizeable places wasteland; with no better example than the Suguta Valley in the southern area of Turkana County. Although there are many river beds in the Suguta Valley, which might suggest that rivers flow here, none of them is faintly permanent. They are all intermittent, that is, they flow immediately after a period of rain, but dry up completely. This obviously indicates a very dry climate. The total population of the vast Turkana County is still less than a million, with a population density of 12 people per square kilometre. The Turkana dwell in small groups, each group many kilometers distant from its neighbour. Their huts closely resemble those of the Maasai; usually several huts grouped within a surrounding wall of bush.

The huts consist of only a close framework of sticks, sometimes covered with skins when it is wet. The chief occupation of the Turkana tribe is herding of stock, and, it may be added, the acquiring of it by fair means or foul. There is a saying used in Turkana County when there’s a parlay on the latter: “Angatun aite apei ejok edwangit abongun kogin”: “Gaining one cow on a cattle raid is better than gaining none.” Raiding and counter-raids with their neighbouring communities, that have been ongoing for well over a century, may be described as an occupation, which has brought much trouble among the tribe. They own and take pride in their herds and packs of camel, cattle, donkey, sheep and goat.

Settlement in Turkana County

Many Kenyans have a blind spot about the inequality and existence of life in the North of Kenya. The disparity between communities in the Central and Western Regions of Kenya, that account for twenty of the well-to-do Counties of Kenya, instead view the Northern Frontier of Kenya as a thing-a-majig monolith with only occasional thriving business opportunities but nonetheless a broad brush of inequalities, in the past utterly marginalized and neglected by even its own Government. The surprising truth is there’s as much opportunities among these marginalized Counties of Kenya as there is among the fertile highland counties.

As recent development have brought to proof, the gilded mineral endorsement of Turkana in terms of oils reserves. Still and all, the North exists as a stressed out quadrum, unable to keep up with the rapidity of development in the rest of Kenya, while pressure by the harsh and inhospitable environment renders them victims of the desert. The predominant tribe on the western side of the Lake is the Turkana. Some of the minority tribes include the Luo, Kisii, and Luhya who have migrated from other regions. Turkana are by and large pastoralist, notable for raising camels and weaving baskets. The rely unsettlingly on few rivers, such as the Turkwel River and Kerio River. When these rivers flood, new sediment and water extend onto the river plains that’re cultivated after heavy rainstorms, which occur infrequently. When the rivers dry up, open‐pit wells are dug in the river beds, which are put to use for watering livestock and human consumption.

If you write-off Ilemi Triangle from Turkana County – that disputed triangular piece of land separating Kenya, Ethiopia and Sudan – then Marsabit County which covers an area of 70,961 km2 is the largest County of Kenya. As a whole, Turkana County, covering 77,000 km2 and accounting for 42.4% of the total area of the old Rift Valley Province, is split into 7 sub-counties: Turkana North, Loima, Turkana West, Turkana Central, Turkana East, Turkana South and Kibish. The settlement patterns in the county are determined largely by climate, soil fertility, availability of water, pastures, infrastructure and social facilities; mainly found in urban and peri‐urban centres. Katilu has the largest number of people, owing to its proximity of Katilu Irrigation Scheme along the Turkwel River. Hence, the most populous region is Turkana Central with a population of 253,777 in 2012. Lodwar Town the principal town and capital of the county has the highest population projected to be 54,978 in 2012. Population density in the county varies from 24 persons per km2 in Turkana Central to 5 persons per km2 in Turkana East; averaging to 12 persons per km2. Majority of households in the Turkana County sustain a family size of five upto fifteen people per home.

The Turkana tribe of North-Western Kenya under normal situation settle in the plains. Considering variations in weather, very few of them settle permanently in one place. So that during and shortly after the rains, the Turkana people are concentrated at the plains. As the drier season starts, they move mostly to high mountain areas and even to neighbouring countries of Sudan and Ethiopia in search of pasture and water for their livestock. Permanent and semi‐permanent settlements in the county are to be found along Turkwel and Kerio rivers where small‐scale irrigated farming is practiced and along the lake shores of Lake Turkana, with some social infrastructures like schools and health facilities that support human settlement. Along these areas there exist peri‐urban market centres or fish trading centers. Majority of houses belonging to communities around the lake reflects their traditions. A typical Turkana house along the lake is made of mud floor with almost 90% houses made of stick/poles and reed or poles/stick and mud walla. Variations include use thatch to roof their houses, roofing with corrugated iron sheets. The typical hut is doom shaped with walls made of sticks/poles, and then covered with pieces of cloth, skin/cloth material.

Urban Revitalization & Nairobi Community

Brief Overview of Urban Revitalization

Every city has a distinctive social fabric stitched together slowly over the life of its existence. Urban infrastructure, landscaping plan, buildings and cultures are hence intermingled with the ways of life and the main components of the social fabric. The social fabric is not instantaneously built, it is a product created over time. The deep rooted socio-economic sustainability of Nairobi requires more than just environmentally sound approaches to modernization, urban planning and development. It is overdue for an urban revitalization project that blends in the social fabric with components of modernity. Urban revitalization may be defined as the process of rebuilding thriving economically, environmentally and socially sustainable urban areas and populations, and in areas that have been in decline and in those urban areas that are stressed from the continuing influx of people in urban areas.  Into that bargain, urban revitalization is conservation of heritage, and its meaning to public wealth and common good, which is helpful to improve people’s quality of life, enhances ownership and sense of belonging; which evokes people’s feelings. The concept of urban revitalization is growing internationally, with many projects as part of government’s effort to introduce new activities into economically and physically declining neighborhoods’ from which private sectors shy away. Essentially, it encompasses improving housing condition for the poor, upgrading housing stock, reducing density of crowded neighborhoods’, providing more open space and community facilities as well as changing residential land into more economical and profitable commercial use.

Nairobi, Africa’s green city under the sun, became the capital of Kenya in 1907, just 43 years before it was declared a city. Hitherto, Mombasa, Kenya’s second largest city, was the main centre and port of call for Kenya. It was the placement of the Kenya-Uganda Railway that exogenously led to its growth. Soon after the arrival of the railway line, Europeans were allowed to settle in the undulating area west of the city centre.  Later on, Asian traders were settled in the north-east (Eastleigh).  By 1963, Africans who formed a major part of the population, lived in the eastern parts, while Europeans and Asians lived in the western and northeast areas with access to better services. The early framers and planners of the city endeavoured to set proper development and outlines of the city. Take for instance Uhuru Park, that invaluable 13-hectare recreational park adjacent to the central business district, whose impact in urban welfare and happiness of the people remains one of the monumental urban revitalization projects to date in Kenya. It was opened to the general public by the late Mzee Jomo Kenyatta on May 23rd, 1969, and is still indubitably the most patronized public outdoor space in Kenya. Other examples of urban renewal projects in Nairobi include the 30-hectare Nairobi Arboretum, City Park, Jevanjee Gardens and Karura Forest. The undertone to all these projects is that they were expensive to put into place. Try building a public outdoor park in the middle of the city. More often than not, this will run into tens of millions, with the cost of maintenance carrying an equally forbidding cost. What is more, the return on investment of such urban revitalization projects is hard to compute. Their impact becomes an interrupted conversation. As the city grows, as space for development becomes less, these revitalization projects become exposed to the development elements, and suddenly even the supporters don’t know what to do with them. Have you not noticed it? Nairobi is growing at a faster rate than ever before. One only has to look at the tower cranes across the skyline and the proposed developments to lend the idea of its future look to mind. Yet, ideas of urban revitalization seem to have been conveniently shelved by the modern framers and planners of the city. But what’s the opportunity cost for a big city with less urban revitalization.

The Case for Urban Revitalization

Urban renewal project strategies – urban redevelopment, urban rehabilitation, urban revitalization and urban regeneration – have been taking front stage in public forums and urban planning agendas particularly in the last two decades. Axiomatically, urban renewal projects that have been applied in various urban areas such as disaster hot-spots, urban declining areas, squatter housing areas and historical sites not only cause transformations in the physical structure of cities, but also affect the economic, social and environmental dynamics in the built environment. These extensive applications bring out the inquiry whether the urban renewal projects are good or not. In an increasingly urbanized world, the promotion of sustainable urbanization taking in issues of economic growth, social equity, cultural diversity, ethnic cohesion and environmental protection requires more than ever strategic planning, conscientious building and conflict resolution. It boils down to this: Urban revitalization projects are good for the community and modernization, but with reservation that the process must be approached with due diligence and consideration, especially with the aspects of sustaining the social fabric and cultural endowments.  To drive the point home: It’s important to suitably examine the importance of incorporating conservation of cultural endowments in revitalization projects and to incorporate heritage protection.  Moreover, a corporate approach to urban revitalization is pertinent.

Urban Revitalization and Culture Endowments

Cultural endowments such as unique streetscapes, traditional architecture and historic sites are increasingly recognized as important economic resources both in Nairobi and other major cities around the world. The preservation of cultural heritage supports urban revitalization by preserving city livability, increasing competitiveness, and creating a wide range of income-earning opportunities. Nairobi is an important focal point for development based on these resources because they provide concentrations of heritage assets, infrastructure services, private sector activity and human resources. Improving the conservation and organization of urban revitalization in Nairobi City is not only important for preserving its historic significance, but also for its potential to increase income-earning opportunities, city livability, and competitiveness. One of the most highly-visible and dynamic links between heritage conservation and the local economic development lies in the potential for cultural and natural assets to attract tourism investment and spending. Incorporating heritage protection into urban projects has supported the overall goal of revitalization, significantly increased client satisfaction, and led to a robust new business norm for Nairobi.

Revitalization Projects Around the World

No size fits all in urban revitalization. It requires local solutions to local issues. Thankfully, plenty of research over the past decade, with an aim to reiterate the importance culture plays in modern day cities, has presented scores of options for its application.  Research findings have brought to the forefront that culture in a city includes non profit and commercial goodwill as well the role of artists in building the culture.  It is irrefutable that informal art plays a salient role in building the social fabric, social networks and connections across communities.  In as much as the community culture is generally concerned with marginalized populations, there’s a growing need to develop a suitable mix for keeping track of cultural vitality – which has been defined as evidence of creating, validating, disseminating and supporting culture and arts as a dimension of everyday life in the community.  Planners should not overlook its importance when planning urban projects.  Incorporating concerns of cultural endowment in revitalization projects as well as including heritage protection is as important as raising any infrastructure. Take for instance its application in South America (using Mexico and Ecuador as examples) where ethnographers have archived the community building potential of informal arts. The Wave Theatre in Ecuador has proven that using cultural pith and artists to break down social isolation, strengthen bonds among the members, stimulates new social networking relationships and stirs on regional and international bonds with travellers from assorted societies.

Likewise, urban revitalization projects have worked well where the concept of corporation between the government, private and public sectors is utilized.  In Canada for example, within the economic recession of the 90’s, a huge stock of office building went vacant in downtown Toronto.  The city adopted innovative reuse policy by converting the building to residential units.  The result: There was no pressure to demolish the buildings, city revenues grew by $ 1.6 million, and transport infrastructure was not interrupted. In Seoul, South Korea, the project “comprehensive measure to revitalize Bookchon” in 2000 also hedged on the corporate approach to urban revitalization projects. The project was successful in fusing collective public action, private and public ownership. The approach was two pronged; upgrading housing conditions for the poor and improving infrastructure. The corporate approach to ‘land development in Hong Kong’ saw the revitalization project achieve major success.  Hong Kong’s administrative and economic systems combined a non political and colonial administration with the so called ‘positively non-intervention’ to provide a favourable environment for corporatism.  In like manner, the older urban areas in Hong Kong by the year 2000 had deteriorated gradually.  Called to task, the Government took full control in revitalizing deteriorating parts of the cityscape. The desired goal was achieved through combination of financial, legislative, and administrative efforts.  It was unlikely that the private sector could launch such a large scale comprehensive redevelopment to address these pressing problems.

The urban revitalization project in Hong Kong was an ambitious goal to create better working environment and living condition by jigging existing standard urban areas, planning for conveniently cited government facilities, controlling use and configuring urban building, upgrading transport systems and providing for a safe and convenient pedestrian movement system within the area. The success of the project included getting rid of the poor living conditions in the former resettlement estates, encouraging participation by small owners in the development process, changing the physical and environmental characteristics, and, more fundamentally, enhancing the socio-economic structure. The last example of revitalization is from Joliet, Illinois. Historically it was famous as a steel town that faced economic ruin. In the 1980s, via a revitalization project, it became a thriving space. Formerly, listless black canal carried treated sewage from through the core of a decrepit downtown Chicago, 40 miles northerly, to where gangs roamed freely. During the 1980’s, with the machinery factories fast vanishing and city’s steel unemployment reaching a record 20%, the only thing left in Joliet was its maximum security state prison. But in a single decade, this city has burst into the ranks of the nation’s boom towns. The implications for urban revitalization and policy have turned Joliet to a thriving metropolis. The downtown area once lined with abandoned stores is now blooming. Nobody calls it the Sanitary and Ship Canal town anymore; it is the Des Plaines River. In addition, groundbreaking was carried out in the early 2000’s for a minor league baseball stadium. Renovation of the abandoned Louis Hotel into 60 apartments is nigh, and a sports bar opened in the restored and once barren Union Station.

Other Interesting Urban Revitalization Projects:

1. The Downtown Project in Las Vegas
2. The River District, Portland, Oregon
3. The East Baltimore Revitalization Initiative
4. Millenium Tower, Baltimore
5. The Wharf Project, Washington DC
6. Maboneng Precinct Project, Joburg, South Africa
7. Inner City Project, Johannesburg, South Africa
8. The 798 Art Zone, Beijing
9. Rottermann Quarter, Estonia
10. Clyde Waterfront, Glascow
11. Downtown Arts District, Los Angeles
12. Melbourne Docklands, Melbourne
13. Wuhu Urban Renewal Project, China
14. Guangzhou Bus Rapid Transit network
15. Hybrid Habitation Project, Istanbul, Turkey

Glitches with Urban Revitalization Projects

Many a government policies try to reduce public expenditure while seeking to improve conditions for the private sector (private profit) rather than collective public action.  Rapid urbanization has prompted the quick turn around time of urban renewal projects, with most carried out to meet the ‘peoples’ immediate expectations.  As a result, the modern and hastened approach to urban renewal or revitalization has destroyed valued urban heritage. Take for instance Beijing, which is gradually losing its heritage, where more than half of the olden Beijing building – enshrined in its history – have been demolished in just the past half century to pave way for larger modern buildings. The rapidly growing economy is drastically transforming the social, economic and spatial structure of the city. Concomitantly, modernization in Beijing, often times erroneously supplanted with revitalization, is in general regarded as erasing the past, and development is in itself viewed as short term.  In this scenario modernization or revitalization has broadly meant demolition and building.  But in order to preserve heritage, urban revitalization needs a long term strategy, a multi-disciplinary approach, a link between public and private sectors and public participation. That being so, can a creative economy eliminate urban poverty? Our modern day cities have witnessed an increasing proportion of their residents being denied progressive participation in the local economy, civil society and social institutions. Majority of our cities have weathered the transition from an industrial to an information-based economy with most developed neighborhoods bearing the never ending physical and social manifestations of social exclusion and economic inequality.

The New Wave of Urban Revitalization

Urban policy-makers generally agree that regional economic development and job growth are the solution to urban poverty, associated plight and pathology. Many cities have latched onto Richard Florida’s argument that attracting the “creative class” to the region will generate jobs and tax revenue; a trickle down of benefits to all citizens. Unfortunately, it appears that growth of the creative economy can spark inequality and exclusion. Is the creative economy a bargain with the devil? Does a city have to accept increased economic inequality to reap the prosperity of the creative economy? To enhance on livability, ownership and sustainability, the first step in revitalization is to endorse a registration system for the residents’ in-order for them to receive subsidiary funds for remodeling as well other incentives advantages which include resident parking permission.

Urban Revitalization and Effects on Crime

In the book “Urban Revitalization and Seattle Crime, 1982-2000” a pertinent study was carried to investigate the relationship between urban revitalization and crime. The study, based on recent urban demography research, pitched a hypothesize that urban revitalization projects progressed rapidly in many cities across America over the last decade of the twentieth century, and that these changes had some impact on crime rates in these areas. Criminological theories hold competing arguments for the connections between urban revitalization and crime, and quantitative indagation of this link remain largely limited and infrequent. Using two measures of longitudinal track-level demographic and longitudinal crime data for the city of Seattle, the empirical finding were that many of Seattle’s downtown areas underwent rapid revitalization during the 1990s, and that these areas witnessed reductions in crime relative to similar areas that did not have urban revitalization projects.  Additionally, these were areas with higher-than-average crime at the beginning of the decade. Using a within-tract longitudinal design, the research uncovered that yearly housing investments in the 1980s showed a modest positive association with crime change, while yearly investments in the 1990s showed the opposite pattern. These findings suggest a curvilinear gentrification-crime relationship, in which urban revitalization in its earlier stages is associated with small increases in crime, but urban revitalization in its more consolidated form is associated with modest crime declines. Implications of these results for criminological theory, urban development, and broader crime patterns in urban areas are worth the inquiry by urban planners in Nairobi and other notable cities around the world.

Urban Revitalization in Nairobi

The concept of urban revitalization is not alien to Nairobi. A few projects have sort to claim the title; none, perhaps, as cosmic as the Kenya Slum Upgrading Project launched in 2004 as a collaborative project between the Government of Kenya and UN-HABITAT. The sheer scale of this ambitious is mind-boggling considering that roughly three million people in Nairobi City (accounting for almost 50% of its population) dwell in slums, in about 200 informal settlements spread across the city. Rather more importantly, all these people are confined to an area that accounts for only 6% of the surface area of Nairobi. Needless to point out, the challenges, costs and bureaucracy of upgrading slums in Nairobi are as many as they are compex. Just in one this informal settlements (Soweto) the target is to construct 822 housing units and 245 market stalls. Even so, an urban revitalization focussing on communities and cultures is overdue. Taking into consideration that Kenya prides itself on cultural diversity, and Nairobi as the melting pot, there is hardly an urban revitalization project that opportunely responds to this gap. One may argue that the Bomas of Kenya and the National Museum of Kenya respond to this cultural diversity by collecting, protecting and conserving cultural esthetics. And that’s correct. It unavoidable happens that the expanding cityscape is crying out for cultural identity under an urban revitalization project which aptly takes into account the main cultures of Kenya.

Nairobi is the birthplace of Kenya’s independence, the cultural melting pot of Kenya, where people from all around the world first arrive, which has grown to one of the largest cities in Africa. It’s home to practically all the communities of Kenya and vibrant cultures from Africa and beyond. And with a population of 4.3 million, Nairobi is Kenya’s largest, liable for trickling down developments, innovations and transformations to towns and cities across Kenya. But growth and evolution can fade the essence of any great city; the modern, powerful and influential cities bringing new change, posing a threat to the most important pillar of the city cohesion. In many ways, Nairobi is preparing for a time when Africa looks up to it to set new trends. It’s hard to overstate the degree to which an urban revitalization project in Nairobi would influence its livability. What are the options for Nairobi? A revamp of the expansive Nairobi Railway Station that’s rich in history and space? A rejigging of Jevanjee Gardens as a cultural and performance area? Rethinking the setting of the iconic KICC ground? The options are multifarious. Politicians can alter this policy, or the course of it, that change urban structures to benefit majority rather than the powerful and rich. The shortfall is that most government policies try to reduce public expenditure while seeking to improve the conditions for private sector and private profits rather than the collective public action. Perhaps a corporate approach to urban revitalization is a softer landing spot for all the parties involved in the outcome.

In Conclusion

Persuading the stakeholders, and there are several, to kickstart a culture based revitalization project in Nairobi City is no plain-sailing. Flush with development agendas and steadfast on meeting hardline goals, the concerned would feel hard done to haggle over the terms. Thanks to growing international investors and a rising middle-class, Nairobi City appears more oriented outwards and upwards. A slowdown in the inflows could spell trouble for sectors of the economy which are long accustomed to secure international markets. The complacency of their markets moving in only one direction – up – have been bolstering their efforts to meet expected demand. Unfortunately for many of those agencies, there’s the danger of not filling the gap of looking inward to attract investors and tourists. The cultural diversity of Kenya aspects of urban revitalization in Nairobi need no more emphasis. Inevitably, the long term socio-economic sustainability of the growing city requires more than just environmentally sound approaches to modernization, urban planning and development, but requires well structured urban revitalization projects that blend in the social fabric with components of modernization. In order to preserve its heritage, Nairobi needs long term urban revitalization strategies which involve participation of the public. A good start would be an inclusive conservation on feasible projects. Their recommendation would point urban decision-makers and city professionals to strike a balance between social cohesion and economic competitiveness in urban revitalization projects that achieve a harmonious development of Nairobi: A balance between historic preservation, cultural diversity and development.  Urban revitalization in Nairobi should be adopted as a process through which the mismatch between classes, cultures, contemporary needs, and government services are reconciled.

Geography, Regions & Climate of Uganda

A Brief Overview of Uganda

Uganda’s moniker as “the Pearl of Africa” aptly describes both its location and natural resources. On the map of Africa the landlocked Uganda occupies only a small area, yet few countries belong so vibrantly to the fertile sphere of Africa. Its compactness and the generously rich and fertile soils makes it a continuous green-belt country, a facet of inestimable value shared by very few nations in Africa. For better consideration, the ecological gamut of Uganda can be broadly split into three regions: The swampy lowlands region in the south; the fertile middle region elevated on a plateau with wooded hills; and the semi-arid region in the north bordering Sudan. Lake Victoria forms part of the southern border. Uganda is at the heart of the tropics, astride the equator, but its climate, thanks to the altitude, is unexpectedly pleasant. Its geography and lovely weather is as salubrious as any, and is comparable with a warm English summer most of the year. Temperatures range between 20 and 30 degrees celsius, and the 50 inches of rainfall each year keep the country lush and green. Uganda, which expands over 241,037 km2, is bordered in the west by Democratic Republic of Congo, in the north by the Sudan, in the east by Kenya, and in the south by Tanzania and Rwanda. It derives its name from the Buganda kingdom, which encompasses a large portion of the south of the country including the famous capital, Kampala.

Salient Features of Uganda

• Surface Area – 241,038 km2
• Number of Districts – 121
• Major Lakes – Victoria, Kyoga, Albert, Edward and George
• Date of Independence – 8th October 1962
• Current Population (2018) – 42,729,036
• Official Languages – English and Swahili

A Look Into Selected Districts of Uganda

1. Kigezi District

The impenetrable forest at North Kigezi, which is found between the developed area of Kigezi and the Queen Elizabeth National Park, has high trees – over 30 meters – that completely block the sunlight from reaching the floor.  Although the edges of the forest have plentiful bushes, the inner parts do not have these bushes because there is no sunlight. Kigezi District is situated in the far south-western part of Uganda, where it forms the border with Rwanda and Congo. Its location, far from the more developed parts of Uganda, has turned Kigezi into an isolated region. Only recently has the main town of Kabale been connected to the rest of the county by tarmac road.  Consequently, Kigezi is a district of subsistence farming with few economic activities of national importance.  It has however, the long, narrow Lake Bunyonyi, flanked by steep slopes that form a considerable part of the terrain here. Kigezi is formed of a plateau, about 8,000 feet (2,440 m) high; from this plateau the land slopes steeply downwards to form valleys occupied by rivers and long narrow lakes. Around the edges of this lakes are areas of marshland, where material eroded by the rivers is deposited. In the less developed parts of the region the valleys are covered with tropical forest. Kigezi is considerably higher than other districts of Uganda to the north.

Its high altitude was brought about during the formation of the western branch of the Rift Valley, found to the west of Kigezi. As the floor of the Rift Valley sank the sides were pushed up. So that, Kigezi forms part of the eastern side of the Rift, hence it was uplifted. Along with this uplift and faulting of the Rift Valley, there was a considerable amount of volcanic activity. This was especially strong in the south-western Kigezi District, near Kisoro, where Mufumbiro Mountains were formed. These are iconic lines of volcanoes which stretch from this part of Uganda, through northern Rwanda, and into Congo. The largest in Uganda is Muhavura, which rises to 13,540 feet (4,127 metres); another, Sabinio, at 11,960 feet (3,645 metres) is exactly at the point where the three countries of Congo, Rwanda and Uganda meet, hence the north-western slopes are of the mountain are in Congo, the southern slopes are in Rwanda and the north-eastern slopes are in Uganda! Much of Kigezi District consists of steep slopes since, although it is a plateau area, the rivers have successfully eroded the formerly flat plateau, so that very little flat land now remains. The only large regions of flat land are found in the floors of the valleys where marshland have been formed. The large marshland region is called Kamunyoro Swamp, was once a lake, just like Lake Bunyonyi. By and by, this lake too will disappear and be replaced by marshland.

Parks in Uganda: The Pearl of Africa

Brief Overview of Uganda

North of Lake Victoria sits Uganda, one of the fertile, sempiternal verdant and interesting countries of Eastern Africa. It is a beautiful land with grassy plains, rolling hills and dark mountains. Its best soil is of a rich red. There are hills of fine pasture, thick forests filled with big game, swamps choked with papyrus reeds in which hippos are found, and other regions where the grass is 10 feet in height. There are vast patches of meadow land, dotted with groves of beautiful trees, and dotted here and there with villages about which are thriving farms. Uganda lies almost in the middle of Africa and the Equator runs it as does in Kenya. It occupies only a small part of the continental map, about 241,037 km2 – with a north-south extent of 650 km and east-west extent of about 500 km – yet, few countries belong so vibrantly to the continent’s fertile block, where the entire area is virtually evergreen and flourishing. The first impression on the visitor to Uganda is how green everything is. Its climate, thanks to the altitude, is unexpectedly pleasant, the mean temperature rarely rising above 29 Celsius or 85 Fahrenheit. Uganda forms part of the interior plateau of Africa, with an average altitude of 1,200 m (4,000 feet). There are vast open plains in the north and flat-topped hills in the central, western and eastern regions of the country. The rise of the plateau both in the east and west creates mountains along the borders; Block Mountains of the Rwenzori, Mufumbira, Mount Elgon, Moroto, Morungole, Timu and Kadam. Excellent roads are some of the main features of Uganda. Travelling through Kampala – its largest – the scenery varies from the scenic hills of the capital to the rolling savannah of Mityani and Mubende, and then on to Fort Portal, set in much more open country, with the epic backdrop of the Mountains of the Moon, where many of its parks are cited. Among the variety of attraction in Uganda are its National Parks. Rwenzori, as a cool, moist island rising from the dry tropical plains, has encouraged the development of a unique variety of animals and plants, including many endemic species. Keen motorists who decide to drive up into Uganda from Kenya (it is 667 kms from Nairobi to Kampala) now travel on good roads all the way through fine scenery.

Map of the National Parks in Uganda

Discover the National Parks in Uganda

1. Kidepo Valley National Park

It is one of Uganda’s earliest established National Park. Kidepo Valley National Park expands over 500 km2 of the northern part of the Karamoja District, along the boundary with Sudan, and it was opened to the public in December, 1965. It is approachable from Kampala by a 210 kms drive along the tarmac to Tororo, and then an excursion of a little over 320 kms, through Mbale and Moroto. In a country that is rapidly developing, well laid with growing towns and farmlands, this region of Uganda is still untouched by development. It is a country of rich fertile valleys and vast plains, which are the kingdom of the elephant, buffalo and lion. Among the variety of attractions of the Kidepo Valley National Park is the spectacular display of wildlife which currently features almost 75 species of mammals and 470 species of birds. Its wealth of wildlife was the main reason for the area to be declared a National Park.  Among the species not found in any other park in Uganda include eland, greater and lesser kudu, klipspringer, dik-dik, Bright’s gazelle, roan antelope and Chanler’s mountain reedbuck. Perhaps the outstanding vista at Kidepo Valley National Park is the self-same valley, a wide basin lying at altitude of between 3,000 feet and 4,000 feet, with the hills surrounding it rising to almost 6,000 feet and the Morongole Mountain soars up to 9,000 feet. This remarkable variation in the altitude over a small area has pieced itself as one of the most epic landscapes in Uganda. Formerly the haunt of Sudanese Didinga cattle raiders and rebels, who from time to time swooped into Uganda on cattle rustling raids, this remote typically Africa bushland has a lot to offer, both in fine scenery and in presenting nature at its least disturbed stage. The park itself gets its name from the Kidepo River, which is several yards wide in many places, mainly dry for most of the year, and is reduced to mere sand and pebbles, with only Borassus palms which line its entire length reminding the visitor that it is a great river basin. Then comes the rains, the many tributaries are quick to react, and within a few hours the basin is full and overflowing, the Kidepo is unbridgeable and the might rush of water is magical. Then within hours the water disappears into Sudan, or sinks beneath the sand and black cotton soil, leaving nothing behind but moistened sand and pebbles.

Capital Punishment and its Perils

Brief Overview of Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is the legalized infliction of death as a penalty for violating criminal law.  By that same token, criminal law is the branch of law that defines crime, establishes punishment, and regulates the investigation and prosecution of people accused of committing crimes.  Throughout history, the controversial death penalty, for various forms of crimes, had existed in antediluvian acts such as stoning, drowning, crucifixion, burning and impaling; with beheading being universally satisfactory. Today, capital punishment is widely accomplished by lethal injection, electrocution, shooting and hanging. Only corporal punishment comes close in severity to capital punishment (or the death penalty), which still remains the most controversial penal practice of the modern world.  Although corporal punishment has been generally eliminated in modern times, the death sentence remains widespread, especially in the developing countries.  “In 2008, there was a growing reluctance among those countries that do retain the death penalty to use it in practice. Only 25 out of 59 countries that retain the death penalty carried out executions” – AI. The trend in developed countries has been to abolish executing prisoners and substitute it with life in prison. While many supporters of capital punishment say that it is a necessary form of retribution, the detractors, and there are many, argue that it’s a barbaric and degrading act. 

Many such detractors dispute the proper interpretation of statistical analysis of its deterrent effect. They present it as a human rights issue involving the proper limits of governmental powers. Today, partly thanks to extensive government legislation authorizing immoral practices like abortion, it is an elusive theme to find any lawful authority that is justifiable with regards to the implementation of the death penalty.  Still and all, many agree that the ethical inadequacies of a government do not disqualify every facet of its authority, and if that were that the case, anarchy would prevail. Capital punishment is not, therefore, a flawless system in actual practice, because imperfect human beings are involved in the procedure of finding the guilty party, and, as such, they are in peril to human error.  A conference at the University Law School in Chicago brought under the limelight that since 1976 (when capital punishment was reinstated in the USA) that 75 convicts were found guilty of capital crimes, sentenced to the death penalty, and were later found innocent – accounting roughly for one seventh of prisoners who have been executed.  The counter argument is that courts would have to abolish all laws to avoid completely the punishment of innocent people.

An extreme version of this question arises in connection with the practices of capital punishment. What justifies the institutionalized killing of those guilty of murder or other grave offenses? Why do we, or should we, seek the death of some criminals? This question is much more pressing in Kenya as a result of the crime bill of 2015 that unsatisfactorily sought to abolish capital punishment in Kenya. How might we define institutionalized punishment, the justification of which is being debated here? Widespread academician agreement holds that legal retribution involves five characteristics. Firstly, that the punishment must engross unpleasant consequences for the offender; for example, imprisonment, fine, or death. Secondly, that the retribution must follow from the violation of a law: a rule of behavior prescribed by a properly constituted governing authority. Thirdly, the one punished must have been found blameworthy of violating the law. Fourthly, the affliction must be administered by someone other than the guilty party. And fifthly, the one administrating the said punishment must be a properly designated authority. Is it reasonable for an authorized representative of society to cause ultimate suffering on those found guilty of violating the law?

Top Five Facts About Capital Punishment

The History of Capital Punishment

The unnerving forms of retribution in ancient societies like Rome and Greece had ruthless chastises, taking to horrific forms like stoning, throwing offenders off a cliff, crucifixion, burning in public, burying alive, hanging, dragging and, of course, the fateful guillotine.  Other bizarrely inventive forms of punishment included physical mutilation like cutting off a hand, mutilating of a tongue or ear, branding, and corporal punishment like thrashing, torture, taking away of personal property, exile and forced hard labour like working in the mines, in the galley of a boat or forced to participation in gladiatorial combat. In medieval England similar hard-hearted capital punishment techniques were in effect, most carried out in public to deter likely offenders and public disesteem for the victims. For severe crimes, punishment took the form of exile and physical mutilation. So, by 1500, capital punishment, including the death penalty, was available for as many as 200 felonies. In fact, the benefit of clergy was applied as a way to downgrade the rampant use of capital punishment.  This is because the clergy in those dark-days was only answerable under ecclesiastical law.  As a result, common law courts could not impose capital punishment.  As the benefit of clergy extended, parliaments endorsed statutes quoting that many serious crimes were not be subject to the opinion of the clergy. And for minor crimes, varied forms of public shaming like the pillory and branding were usually used.

By the 1600’s, and more so in the 1700’s, transportation to new colonies, which involved forced labour in a penal colony, became a popular form of punishment and was by and large seen as an apposite substitute to the death penalty. Forced labour in ship galleys and workhouses was another form of punishment for the minor offenders. In England, anyone convicted of a crime was likely to lose all property rights and rights to inherit property.  In the late 1700’s transportation to the colonies became a less viable alternative, more so for those inhabiting the new colonies. At this point the penitentiaries gave rise to an alternative, capital punishment.  Penitentiaries were designed for holding death penalty offenders and long-term imprisonment.  Great Britain through her expansion of colonies influenced the use of the capital punishment in the United States, Canada and colonial Africa. In Canada for example, the first penitentiary system was ground in Kingston, Ontario, in 1835. Like other consequent penitentiaries, it adopted the congregate method. Retribution for crimes at the start of 19th century was comparable to England.  Death penalty, transportation, corporal punishment, banishment, pillory and branding were in wide use. In 1800, fines were set up in Canada as an alternative to branding, as was imprisonment with hard labour.

Canada’s Race to Abolish Capital Punishment

In 1830, branding was eliminated as a punishment in Canada as was corporal punishment in the form of public flogging. However, whipping in the private confines of the prison continued for many serious crimes offenders.  Whipping remained an alternative punishment for sexual offences in Canada until 1972. Also, capital punishment was also losing goodwill.  In 1833 the Upper Canada legislature restricted capital punishment by death penalty to only nine serious crimes: rape, treason, murder, rape, bestiality, buggery, robbery, arson, and burglary. In 1867, in the advent of Confederation, the federal government had exclusive legislative jurisdiction for determining punishment and crimes.  In 1869, the federal government passed a number of Consolidation Acts, one of which adopted the penalty structure delineated in a similar English Act of 1861. That penal structure for offences started with capital punishment, then life in prison, then terms of imprisonment for shorter spans ranging from six month to fourteen years.  That penalty scheme subsequently adopted in the first Canadian Criminal Code of 1892 and has remained in effect in many ways to date. The BNA Act also assigned the mandate to the federal government to establish and run penal facilities and assigned responsibility for reformatories and local jails to the provinces. Capital punishment by hanging was officially abolished in 1975 in Canada. The last hanging to occur in Canada was in 1962. 

Weighing the Effects of NAFTA in Canada

History of Treaties in Canada

Finding relationships between varied intrastate and international governments and business assets is one of the most valuable things a mature democracy has on its side of development bloom. What’s moving together? What relationships help move products in and out a country? And what are the potential long term benefits and demerits of the relationship? Political scientists are always asking these questions. But how do we find out these relationship in the first place? In plenty of instances, these relationship are given the title of treaty – a formally concluded and ratified agreement between states – which gives some intuitive sense that two or more countries are related. For example, most neighbouring nation around the world organize themselves to one kind of block or another to the give and take benefit of enhancing their trading terms in cognizance of their geographical patrimony. But what if you wanted to analyse some relationships within a nation that were less obvious? One place to start is by looking into the treaties made throughout the history of each nation. Here’s an interesting one: Most historical atrocities against the minorities and less powerful have, in high degree of correlation, been hell bent on using one or another variant of treaties.

The impact of treaty making in Canada has been extensive and long standing. The first cardinal intra-national treaty was signed in the 18th century between the British Empire (the Crown) and the Aboriginal Community (First Nations in Canada), permitting the evolution of Canada as we know it. “This treaty-making process, which has evolved over more than 300 years between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in Canada, has its origins in the diplomatic relationship developed between European settlers and Aboriginal people. As the two parties made economic and military alliances, Canada began to take form. These key diplomatic proceedings were the first steps in a long process that has led to today’s comprehensive claims agreements between the Crown and Aboriginal groups” – Government of Canada. Hence many treaties ensued, including: The Treaty of Albany, 1701, to resolve the colonial conflict between the British and French Era between 1534-1763; The 1713 Treaty of Utrecht ceding the mainland of the Maritimes, or Acadia, to Great Britain, leaving Cape Breton Island and and Prince Edward Island as the sole French possessions in the area; The Royal Proclamation of 1763 establishing protocols for all dealings with First Nations people, among many. In 1869, after nearly 200 years of control, the HBC sold the Rupert’s Land Charter to Canada. Through this transfer, Canada gained full control of all resources in what is now widely known as the Northwest Territory.

Brief Overview of NAFTA

The new ratification put in to North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on November 30th, 2018, between Canada, the United States and Mexico set to improve the domestic process towards the mutual benefit of the key agreement. Advances in mass production and artificial intelligence, as well as a paradigm shift in the global markets, are remaking the terms of the treaty and the terms of trade, with the NAFTA block vying to bolster their territorial trade alongside their competitive advantage against other great trading blocks. NAFTA became effective on January 1st, 1994, in Canada, United State and Mexico to forms the world’s largest free-trade zone, that brings together approximately 365 million consumers in the three member countries. By and large, the treaty is a pact that calls for the gradual removal of tariffs and other trade barriers on most of the good produced in North America. A tariff in its most common adaptation refers to a tax on consumption that raises the price of imported good and services. In 1995, during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, there were suggestions to include Chile in the trade-zone. However, the administration was unable to conclude the discussion and opted to keep the agreement with the initial three members. The concept of NAFTA borrows heavily from the classic work of Adam Smith, who convincingly demonstrated in his masterpiece “The Wealth of Nations” published in 1776 that, individuals are better off if they specialize instead of trying to be economically self sufficient. Likewise, countries are better off if they exchange the services and products they are relatively good at producing for those things that other cooperating countries are relatively better at producing.

From the onset, member states were apprehensive of the new agreement.  Many feared that jobs would be lost because as NAFTA facilitated the movement of US production plants to Canada and Mexico where plants would take advantage of abundant cheaper labour and lax enforcement of environmental and workers rights. More than one environmental group also raised concerns that pollution and food safety controls would be more difficult to enforce and could even be challenged or eliminated on the ground that they were trade barriers.  In a swift response to these concerns, two supplementary agreements were added to the former treaty, one addressing environmental issues and the other labour issues. In theory, NAFTA was intended to lower barriers to trade in Mexico, United States and Canada.  The projected effect of the agreement was, and is, that the three countries involved benefit from the increased exchange of goods.  New market for goods was anticipated to result in augmented industry as well as enhanced access to cheaper goods and services.  While the net economic impact of NAFTA to the three countries may be positive, models of international trade envisage that certain segments of the economy in each country benefit from the agreement while others lose.  Its effects on Canada’s bloom have been objected. 

The Norm of the Treaty

Communities from different nations have bought and sold from each other for centuries, but rarely have they traded fairly.  Historical evidence points out that countries have different terms for goods made in other countries with those for goods made at home.  These adjustments are primarily made by changing taxes and tariffs on exported goods.  In theory, the concept of free-trade is originated when nations sign and agree to reduce or eliminate trade tariffs and quotas. In relation to NAFTA, activists from the three member countries have often times criticized free trade on the grounds that businesses are simply attempting to exploit low-wage labour.  That free trade does not, as proponents argue, directly create jobs.  The net effect of the whole process is nil. Exports create jobs while imports frequently destroy the local industry potential. Atkinson and Kollman, both distinguished economists, have written widely on the negative impacts of NAFTA on employment, largely.  They suggest that free trade does not change the composition of employment.  Instead, as trade barriers decline, workers in industries that are no longer competitive in the regional and international markets experience increased unemployment.  The losses are accompanied by increased employment in export oriented industries in which the United States enjoys a comparative advantage.  Other sympathizers of Canada’s plight argue that the primary purpose of free trade was to move Americans out of unskilled jobs to high productivity jobs such as in software and in computer production.

Besides the plain to see oversight in sketching an all inclusive agreement for the three nations, the negative impact of NAFTA on Canada’s environment, both air and water pollution, remains a rather serious problem for the opposers. While for the most part the environmental issues had the most innovative ideas, they are the most controversial aspects of NAFTA.  The environmental provisions included in the agreement itself, as well as in the Supplementary Agreement on the environment, purport NAFTA as the most environmentally conscious trade agreement ever negotiated.  As per its numerous requirements, Canada, United States and Mexico are prohibited from relaxing their environmental regulations in order to attract additional investments to their economies. But in other ways, the environmental impacts have received mixed reviews. On the one hand, the Canadian Environmental Commission created an action plan to phase out four dangerous pollutants in North America and established systems to improve the monitoring of various environmental quality measures.  On the other hand, it investigated a number of complaints, only to report the results as inconclusive.

Negative Impacts of NAFTA in Canada 

Perhaps the most conspicuous negative impact of NAFTA in Canada is the lack of a significant improvement in environmental conditions, to a large extent due to the unwillingness and inability of the three governments. Economists have often lamented that the negative impact on the environment has been scaled further by the power and rights accorded to corporations.  The so called free trade agreement gives foreign corporations the power of intolerance, attenuated by an unexpected liberalism, weakening the Canadian, Mexican and United States governments from enforcing standards on home soil. This concept is not new to the US. In 1994, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a rule to ensure all gasoline sold in the US met certain levels of cleanliness.  In retaliation, Brazil and Venezuela complained to the World Trade Organization that the rules would put them at a disadvantage.  The WTO ruled against the United States forcing it to change these rules, thereby weakening the air quality.

Generally speaking, the negative impacts on trade for Canada, with constantly vacillating terms of NAFTA, manifest themself in two major ways: The race to the bottom effect; and imbalance in trade. The race to the bottom results when major businesses increasingly move factories in and out of different countries.  This mobility gives the companies power to make demands on governments to lower labor and environmental standards, failure to which the companies make threats of laying off workers.  Since its passage, hundreds of US firms moved their production to Canada and Mexico, where the laws protect them and not the workers.  As far as the imbalance in trade goes, workers in Canada suffer the effects of their living standards slowly getting degraded.  The state government revealed that in five years after NAFTA went into effect, real wages adjusted for price changes fell by a considerable percentage. Likewise, according to Vogel, the rift occurs when business is protected while labor and environment are not. 

Negative Impacts: Economic theories perspective

A great number of models of international trade identify the winners and losers within NAFTA. The Hecksher-Ohlin-Samuelson (H-O-S) model focuses on three factors of production which can be divided into labour, land and capital. And, based on the supposition about protective barrier and factor mobility to trade, H-O-S model infers that scarce factors in Canada, relative to its trading partners, suffer falling demand for their services if trade barriers are reduced.  For example, skilled labour is relatively abundant in United States and Canada as compared to Mexico; and the inverse is true.  The economy of Canada, being highly developed, is predicted to have a comparative advantage in the supply of highly-skilled labour.  So that those with fewer skills in Canada are at a certain disadvantage.  The effect is a decline in demand for semi-skilled workers in Canada – since goods that they once produced can be imported from Mexico. Ricardo-Viner theory focuses on economic sector effects rather than factors of production.  The theory assumes that sectors are economic groupings which contain comparable or closely related industries such as agricultural sector and the finance sector.  A sector may be disadvantaged or advantaged based on the type and profusion of resources available; land, technology and labour.  This theory boldly infers that people within certain sectors will experience the same positive or negative effects, regardless of skill level.  This argument is based on the supposition that there are costs in re-deploying resources that will prevents people from freely moving across sectors and taking advantage of the market changes. NAFTA has had harmful effects on a variety of sectors across Canada, most notably, in agriculture where farmers are faced with a range of adjustment costs. This theory predicted that losses for one trading partner will results in benefits for another. The consequence was negative for vital sectors in Canada. 

The Human Capital Model postulates that nations with high skill levels are better at adjusting to changing economic circumstances like new trade policies. Their skills allow for mobility.  As a result, only that segment of the Canadian population will benefit from the free trade policies of NAFTA, because they are well positioned to take advantage of new opportunities.  Only the highly skilled workers are more secure in their jobs, for their marginal productivity is greater than that of unskilled workers.  Concomitantly, unemployment in Canada after the NAFTA rose alarmingly. The impact in Canada has often been obscured by the “boom-and-bust” cycle that drove investment, domestic consumption, and speculation in the mid to late 1990s. Between 1994 and 2000 total employment rose swiftly in the Canada, causing overall unemployment to fall to record low levels. While Canada’s trade levels did increase, and jobs were created in export industries, many more jobs were lost. Between 1989 and 1997, 870,700 export jobs were created, but during the same period 1,147,100 jobs were destroyed by imports. Consequently, Canada’s trade boom resulted in a net obliteration of 276,000 jobs.  This huge job loss transformed into a sustained countrywide rise in unemployment levels. Unemployment since the 1990s in Canada has fallen lately to around 7%, but this is still far above the 5% average unemployment rate for the entire three decades from 1950 to 1980.  Canada has also witnessed the dismantling of the United States owned branch plant sector. Hitherto, the Ontario Ministry of Labour documented 397 entire plant closures from 1989 to August 1992. The closure of these branch plants, while contributing to Canada’s rise in unemployment, is also proof of a reduction in U.S investment in Canada.

The Negative Impact of NAFTA on Trade

As it boosted a new division of labour, NAFTA also encouraged the investment pattern that fueled the division. NAFTA encouraged investment in areas where production is cheapest.  The result, Canada became a much less desirable place to invest. Canada is a high tax, wage and regulatory cost jurisdiction making it a less attractive production site. There is substantial empirical evidence that this new era of capital mobility has resulted in a diversion of investment away from Canada. Cheap labour in Mexico then spurred on former investors in Canada to move their investments south to Mexico – becoming the new investment lure in North America. Canada received a lesser share of total U.S. direct investment. U.S. direct investment has heaved into Mexico in the latter years exceeding the total cumulative inflow for the previous ten years. The net inflow of U.S. direct investment to Mexico in 1990 and 1991 was $US 4.7 billion, greater than the net U.S. direct investment flows into Canada during this period of $US 4.4 billion. This is offbeat considering how much smaller in size of the Mexican economy is.

NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality and to the declining relative wages of Canadian workers without college degree, who made up 68 % of the workforce in 2001.  The growth in Canadian trade and trade deficits has put hard downward pressure on the wages of workers without a college degree especially to those who have no formal education further than a high school degree. This group consists of most middle and low-wage workers including the 65% of the total workforce with the lowest pay.  A large and growing body of research demonstrates that increasing trade has abridged the price of import-competing products and put downward pressure on the real wages of workers engaged in producing those goods. Because Canada tends to import goods that make intensive use of skills of less-educated workers in production, it is not at all surprising to find that the increasing openness of Canada’s economy to trade has reduced the wages of less educated workers relative to other workers in U.S.

The Future of the NAFTA Treaty

The effects of growing Canadian trade and trade deficits on wages goes beyond just those workers exposed directly to foreign competition. As the trade deficit limits jobs in the manufacturing industry, the new supply of workers to the service sector largely from displaced workers not able to find manufacturing jobs depresses the wages of those already holding service jobs. The growth in import competition and capital mobility under NAFTA has also contributed to stagnant and falling wages in Canada.   The “threat effects” arises when firms threaten to close plants and move them abroad while haggling with workers over wages and working conditions. Employers credible threats to relocating plants, outsourcing portions of their operations and purchasing intermediate goods and services directly from foreign producers has had a substantial impact on workers’ bargaining power. The use of these kinds of threats is widespread according to a Wall Street Journal survey of 1993.  The report stated that one-fourth of almost 550 American corporate executives polled admitted that they were “very likely” to use “NAFTA” as a bargaining element to hold down wages.

In Canada free trade has destroyed the balance of imports and exports.  In the sense of the definition of free trade, the markets are operating without rules and this does not work between countries any more than it works within countries.  The key question therefore is, are there any cues capable of boosting economic interest and persuading people from Canada to adopt the policy standards that conflict with their objective economic situation? The answer lies in research.  Based on this post, there are research question that attracts the need for further research.  As per the HO-S model there’s need for further research to determine how the low-skilled workers in Canada should oppose NAFTA while the high-skilled workers support it.  Based on the Ricardo-Viner model, there is need for research to identify the sectors harmed by NAFTA and if they should oppose it and what support for NAFTA should come from the sectors the benefit greatly?

On November 30, 2018, Canada, the United States and Mexico signed the new Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), on the margins of the G20 Leaders’ Summit in Buenos Aires. CUSMA outcomes preserve key elements of this trading relationship and incorporate new and updated provisions that seek to address 21st-century trade issues and promote opportunities for the nearly half a billion people who call North America home. Since 1994, NAFTA has generated economic growth and rising standards of living for the people of all three member countries. In 2017, total trilateral merchandise trade (the total of each country’s imports from one another) reached nearly US$1.1 trillion. Total merchandise trade between Canada and the United States has more than doubled since 1993, and has grown over nine-fold between Canada and Mexico.

History of the First Nations in Canada

A chronological query of the history of the First Nations in Canada, and the geographical distribution of the indigenous people and the way that the outsider colonists influenced their settlement patterns.

Canada came to have its name from one of the Iroquoian languages. An epithet associating a ‘village’ or ‘community’.  Canada’s first inhabitants, the indigenous people, are popularly referred to as First Nations in Canada or the First Nation Community. They perpetuated elaborate political relations as well as composite societies long before the arrival of the Europeans (Vikings) in the 11^th century. As the Vikings from Europe made their appearance – sending ships far across the Atlantic to land on the coastline of North America and Canada five centuries before Columbus – they quickly increased settlement and coterie, and until the 16^th Century, manufacturing and trading grew swiftly. But this was also the era that began the gradual displacement of the Aboriginals of Canada.  The census of 1871 was arguably the first attempt to enumerate the Aboriginal population in Canada, with the census estimates for British Columbia, Labrador, Manitoba, Rupert Island and North West reporting an indigenous population of 102,353.  In like manner, in 1996, 799,010 people identified themselves as Aboriginals: 554,290 as North American Indians; 210,190 as Métis; and 41,080 been from Inuit origins – according to Statistics Canada. The disruptive distribution and characteristics of the Aboriginal people has its root in the history of colonialism in Canada.  The post colonial geography, including presenting the character of geographical representation on colonial discourse, is today a subject of interest.

Brief Overview of the Geography of Canada

The Provinces and Landscape of Canada

Canada in the north is marked by a fairy castle of mountains whose peaks tower over the extensive islands covered by snowy tundra and frozen glaciers, where the brooding hillocks sheathed in forests contain an enormous concentration of wildlife; polar bears, seals and narwhals. Prone to lengthy, cold winters, heavy snow and perpetually frozen soil, the area we now know as Northern Canada is virtually uninhabited. The northwestern half of Canada contains the country’s three remote northern territories of Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest Territories. Concomitantly, Yukon possesses a more forested, Cordillera-style environment, in contrast to Nunavut and the NWT, yet, all three areas are rocky, barren, with only sparse vegetation. One of Canada’s greatest attraction today is the West Coast (or Cordillera region) and the most mountainous part of the country. In its furthest west, the Coastal Range mountains stretch down from Alaska along Canada’s border with the Pacific Ocean. Further east lies the Canadian portion of the Rocky Mountains, which forms British Columbia’s border with Alberta. Both ranges are home to massive evergreen forests and a diverse assortment of wildlife which aptly framed ‘Wild Canada‘. Sheltered between the mountains of Canada – east and west – is a flat country, in the southern interior of British Columbia known as the Okanagan, that hosts the country’s largest orchards and wineries. To the east of the West Coast Region the land dramatically to an open region spectacularly known the Prairies. It’s a typically warm low country, but is extremely well watered, making the flush plain the base of Canada’s agriculture.

The Prairies cover the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. In the north limits of the Prairies, the country is considerably more hilly and forested than on the famous plains south. The central part of the province of Manitoba is marked by three big lakes – Manitoba, Winnipeg and Winnipegosis – which are surrounded by shallow swamps, rivers and bogs. Within the glorious and more temperate region of the central-southwest area of Canada is to be found its two largest provinces, Quebec and Ontario, which, scooped out by the giant Hudson Bay to the north and bordered by four of the five Great Lakes of Superior, Erie, Huron and Ontario, constitute, by sheer weight of size and the presence of thousands of small lakes and rivers, the largest wetland habitations in Canada. Furthest east, we have the Appalachian region, encompassing the four Atlantic provinces of Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, which are all either islands or peninsulas on the eastern coast of Canada that extend into the Atlantic Ocean. Having said that, it’s important to note that Canada is the second-biggest country, and over 80% of its land is uninhabited. Most Canadians live in clusters in a handful of developed cities close to the U.S. border in the southern frontier. Canada’s only neighbour is the United States to the south, and north-east via the isolated state of Alaska. Canada’s longest distance from east to west is from Cape Spear, Newfoundland to Mt. St. Elias, Yukon – 5,187 km. The longest distance from Canada’s north to south is from Cape Columbia, Northwest Territories, to Middle Island, Lake Erie – 4,627 km.

First Nations in Canada: Introductory Notes

With on too many jargons and labels for the variations and classes of the First Nations in Canada, the distinction in the variety of the Aboriginals of Canada can be largely broken up into six main geographic groups: Woodland First Nations, who lived in dense boreal forest in the eastern part of the country; Iroquoian First Nations, who inhabited the southernmost region, a fertile land suitable for planting corn, beans and squash; Plains First Nations, who lived on the grasslands of the Prairies; Plateau First Nations, whose area ranged from semi-desert conditions in the south to high mountains and dense forest in the north; Pacific Coast First Nations, who had access to abundant salmon and shellfish and the gigantic red cedar for building huge houses; and First Nations of the Mackenzie and Yukon River Basins, whose harsh environment consisted of dark forests, barren lands and swampy terrain known as muskeg. All the First Nations of Canada – once both a badge of success and the most widespread people across the country – had well established systems and symbiotic relations to both the land and their neighbours in far-away lands.

Woodland First Nations hunters and trappers had an intimate knowledge of the habitats and seasonal migrations of animals that they depended on for survival. Unlike the Woodland First Nations, Iroquoian First Nations did not migrate in search of food. Excellent farmers, these southern peoples harvested annual food crops. On the Plains, the unique migratory groups, each with their own chief, assembled during the summer months for spiritual ceremonies, dances, feasts and communal hunts. The First Nations of the Pacific Coast influenced their neighbours with social organization and trading. In addition, the Pacific Coast First Nations had a well-defined aristocratic class that was regarded as superior by birth. The basic social unit for all First Nations in this part of the country was the extended family (lineage) whose members claimed descent from a common ancestor. Mackenzie and Yukon River Basins were primarily occupied with day-to-day survival. As such, First Nations were divided into several independent groups made up of different family units who toiled together. Each group lived in a separate territory, with individual boundaries defined by tradition and use.

Distribution of the First Nations in Canada

Having thus attempted to introduce the reader to the geography of Canada, this post will now continue to chronologically analyze the history of the First Nation Community of Canada, the geographical distribution of the natives, and the way that colonists influenced settlement patterns.  It shall examine five critical eras in the history of Canada, which will be subdivided as: the indigenous era of the 1500’s; the European contact era between 985 – 1600; the New France era; the British era; and the post modern day era, and trace how each era influenced the demographic and socio economic characteristics of the First Nations. According to historians and anthropologist alike, the First Nations in Canada had existed as long as the landscape itself.  Evidence of their existence dates back 18,000 years ago when the land that is now Canada reappeared from under the great ice sheets that covered most of the country during the Pleistocene Ice age. Dry ice free land linked Alaska and Asia during this Pleistocene era, and historians believe immigrants from Asia and Alaska used this route – the Isthmus also called it the Beningia – to migrate to North America almost 15,000 years ago. Despite divisions owing to distance, cultures, languages, trading networks and diplomacy, alliances stretched far across the continent.  By 1500, there may have been about 300,000 people inhabiting Canada, with more than half of these clustered in the two key regions of Southern Ontario and the Pacific coast.

The societies of the Algonquian language family, the most widespread in North America, extended from the Atlantic Coast to the Rocky Mountains, making use of the extensive and rich coastline for fish and other marine resources.  Even so, most of the Algonquian remained hunters and gatherers and lived in the forests which stretched the entire Canada from East to West. A second main language during this period was the Athabaskan speakers, who were also predominantly hunters and gatherers who lived in the North Western forest and in the plains, side by side with the Algonquian and the Siouan groups.  A third predominant language family is the Iroquoian speaking people who inhabited the woodlands of the lower great lakes and St. Lawrence valley and were the largest and most complex society.  And, as early as 500 AD, the Iroquois had already established agriculture and fortified towns which were distinctively encircled by corn farms. The golden age of the mid-1700’s gave rise to another fourth language family in the First Nations, known as Plains Cree and Blackfoot.  The golden age had witnessed a massive importation of horses to North America through Mexico and this new mobility gave rise to a new era in hunting and thus marked the emergence of the Plains Cree and Blackfoot language family who flourished in the Great Plains. Over the Arctic Coast, Tundra and Arctic lands lived the Inuit who had developed and invented many ways to survive the forbidding climate.  They lived in small groups of hunters and spoke several dialects of a common language spreading eastwards, from Alaska to Greenland, until a millennia ago. 

Arrivals of the Europeans in Canada

The arrival of the European in 985 AD marked the first major turning point in the displacement of the First Nation Community.  The period between 985 and 1600 saw major disintegration and decline of the Aboriginals.  The invictus and valourous Vikings, colonists of Greenland and Iceland, were the first Europeans to set foot in North America in 985 AD. In 1000 AD Leif Ericson of Greenland sailed west to Vinland in the quest to build a settlement which historian believe to have been a place called L’Anse aux Meadows on the Island of Newfoundland and Labrador. The remains of a Viking village were unearthed by archeologists in the 1960’s.  Leif was the first known European to have set foot on continental North America. By the same token, the Viking’s contact was widespread in the North Eastern coast, and this contact appears to have been marked by conflict which continued through the entire period the European inhabited this region until they lost contact in 1410 with Greenland. And, for several hundred years, there were few European settlers across much of Canada, and thus there were few conflicts between them and the First Nation Community over rights of land.

Trading relations, ingrained in the fur trade that eventually spread across the continent, had a more significant outcome. Trade altered indigenous societies by adding European goods to their way of life, heartening them to concentrate on trade with the newcomers, and repeatedly leading them into new alliances or conflicts based on trade. But, trade rarely put the First Nations under European domination. Instead, missionaries, who often came with the early traders, tried to change the native peoples to Christianity but were frequently disappointed by their lack of success. So long as the indigenous societies remained independent, they rarely showed great enthusiasm for European religions. For centuries after the arrival of Cabot, most of them retained control over contacts with visitors. In these early years, disease was the biggest menace of European contact. They brought with them diseases that were unknown in North America, that natives lacked immunity for. The result was devastating epidemics that ran through the Americas long before any Europeans moved inland to report them. In fact, the First Nations began to decline as soon as the Europeans arrived. It’s estimated that the Mi’kmaq lost ninety percent of the population between 1500 and 1600. As contact moved gradually north and west, so did epidemics. The Great Plains nations suffered devastating epidemics in the late 1700s, the Pacific Northwest suffered similar catastrophes in the mid-1800s and the Inuits were hit hard by illnesses as they came into regular contact with Europeans in the 20th century. Indigenous populations in Canada declined continuously from 1500’s to 1930’s.

The Time of the French in North America

The Acadia, first colonized by the French in 1604, was out-rightly disputed by the British during the struggle for supremacy in North America.  The French controlled the region of Acadia now made up of Canadian Maritime provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, parts of modern day province of Quebec, and State of Maine.  This New France era, which happened between 1600 and 1760, had the biggest impact in the spatial displacement of the First Nation Community.  At the time, the French saw the potential of value of the fur trade and fishing, among plenty resources on North America.  New France eventually comprised Canada’s area drained by St. Lawrence, Acadia – Maritime Provinces, Island of Newfoundland and Louisiana.  For the most part, the First Nation Community continued with their way of life unaffected by the French Laws and customs. To confirm itself over the British, France raised permanent forts and settlement that eventually had a dramatic outcome to the displacement of the indigenous families of North America. In 1608, Samuel de Champlain, an explorer hired by the Monts, founded a settlement at Quebec on the St. Lawrence River, and, consequently, the French began their colonization focus on St. Lawrence valley.  To maintain the French settlement, Champlain had to form alliances with the local Algonquian nation and the inland allies – the Huron confederacy.  Under the company, the colony continued long after Champlain died at Quebec on 1635 and more settlements were founded, most notably of Trois-Rivieres and Montreal.  In 1663, when France had barely 3,000 people in North America, Louis XIV’s finance minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert abolished the One Hundred Associates, ending the company rule in the region.

British Empire’s Influence on the First Nations

In 1759, as written in the Journals of Captain John Knox, the British through General James Wolfe won a decisive victory in the French and Indian War, when the troops captured the city of Québec from French forces. The French and British were fighting for control of territory in North America. Québec was a center of French military power, and its defeat helped consolidate the British control of Canada. John Knox, a British captain who served under Wolfe, kept an all-embracing journal of his experiences in the war. After Britain ousted France in the French and Indian War (1754-1763), the territory formerly known as New France became British North America. Britain’s King George III issued the first constitutional deed of the new colonies, the Royal Proclamation of 1763. It established the rules by which the colonies would be governed. It also laid out the doctrines for land negotiations between the British Government representatives and Aboriginals, providing for the latter’s right to acquire land prior to settlement. The act was restraining for French Canadians, however, prohibiting Roman Catholics from holding public office and applying British law rather than the French civil code (Royal Proclamation, 1763).  Perhaps, it is the clause in the Royal Proclamation that elaborates best the harsh land policies that the British used, similar to the French and later the Canadian Government.

Brief Excerpt of the Royal Proclamation: “And whereas great frauds and abuses have been committed in purchasing lands of the Indians to the great prejudice of our interests and to the great dissatisfaction of the said Indians; in order therefore, to prevent such irregularities for the future, and to the end that the Indians may be convinced of our justice and determined resolution to remove all reasonable cause of discontent, we do, with the advice of our Privy Council, strictly enjoin and require, that no private person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any lands reserved to the said Indians, within those parts of our colonies where, we have thought proper to allow settlement; but that, if at any time any of the said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said lands, the same shall be purchased only for us in our name.”

Beginning 1850’s, the Canadian Government negotiated a series of treaties with the aboriginals, which consequently took much of their land and continued the confinement of indigenous people to reserves.  In May 1998, the Government of Canada issued an official apology for its past policies towards the First Nations. Historical geographers have indicated how colonial misgivings and mapping erased Aboriginal people from the Canadian landscape. Through a consortium of mechanisms that varied geographically, the Aboriginal peoples were confined to reserves and the cleared land made available for settlers and development. The scattered reserves were part of a strategy to force First Nations into the industrial workforce. These settlement patterns were also meant to cut off small groups and prevent united opposition against Indian policy and administration. Dealing with Metis rights through scrip – certificates to people to be exchanged in public land – meant that most of the land ended up with colonialist, virtually getting rid of Metis territory from the landscape. While Treaty negotiations had specifications of the amounts of land comparable to agricultural homesteads to be set aside for each Aboriginal family, a variety of occurrences, like; failure to survey promised areas, the harsh surrender of band lands and the expropriation of reserves, created small parcels of land which could not adequately support growing populations. The methodical underdevelopment of reserve areas and First Nations economies and populations, the geographies of reserves and the dispossession of land all led to the current privation of First Nations in Canada.

First Nations: A Colonial Misadventure

The geographical trait of reserves is very small, discontinuous and scattered – and the dispersal of the Metis populations also has continuing implications for First Nations and Metis identities and governance. In 1996, a report by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples cited the right of self-determination in ‘peoples’, collectivities larger than individual First Nation; Inuit or Métis communities. According to the Commissioners, the right of self-determination did not put power back in the hands of the Aboriginal groups, whose entire membership was scattered as a minority throughout the general population. Yet the geographical placement of reserve lands and Métis communities makes it difficult for this type of nation arrangement to exist. Among First Nations, most funding is conferred and administered by individual band councils, working against more co-operative arrangements. As they are currently devised, self-government arrangements, negotiated with individual bands on their reserve base, become primarily arrangements for municipal organization of a transfer-based economy. Although First Nations peoples have increasingly organized themselves into tribal councils for political purposes, major obstacles remain. The small size of most reserves implies that migration for employment becomes a necessity for the majority, scattering band populations. The challenges are even more compromised for the Métis who don’t have an established land base.

Today the Government of Canada is working in partnership with First Nations in this new era of reconciliation to build stronger First Nations communities. All across the country, this crucial collaborative work is taking place in areas as diverse as First Nations economies, education, governance, social services, human rights, culture and the resolution of outstanding land claims.

Canada 150: Indigenous People Remember Dark Past

Influence of Treaty of Versailles on WWII

“World War I that ended almost one hundred years ago, following the Armistice on November 11, 1918. The Paris Peace Conference was held to determine the terms under which this devastating war was concluded. A war that was fought for insane reasons and brought devastation to so many families only ended when The Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919. It had been a war that was brought on by inept bureaucrats and it was “The Treaty of Versailles” that concluded the war between Germany and the Allied Powers. This treaty required Germany to disarm, make extensive territorial concessions, and pay reparations to the Allies. The fact that Germany was required to pay unrealistic reparations during such difficult times was the primary reason that the Second World War was fought a little over twenty years later by bringing Adolf Hitler onto the world stage!” – Capt. Hank Bracker, “Seawater One: Going to the Sea”

Treaty of Versailles: The Motivation and Effects

Jean Martet when quoting Georges Clemenceau, then Prime Minister of France, said: “I know men who profess to like and admire G. Clemenceau, who support the contention that he won the war but not the peace”. Failure by malice to the framers of the Treaty of Versailles, the actions of Mr. Lloyd George in blowing up the repatriation demands of Germany and the actions of the United States in withdrawing from any involvement with the rest of the world are key arguments that many historians including Hertherton and Martet have brought forward as key causes of World War 2. Martet considers the war could be attributed to the deprivation of the League of Nations of half of its influence for peace. Germany alone is to blame because she made no effort to fulfill the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.  Although some element of these statements may be true, this post shall not dwell on uncovering these facts.  Instead it settles on establishing how the Treaty of Versailles started a domino effect that eventually led World War 2.

Behind the signing of the Treaty of Versailles were three bigwig personalities: David Lloyd George (Prime Minister of Britain); Woodrow Wilson (President of the United States of America); and Georges Clemenceau (Prime Minister of France).  Two contradicting prospects marred this process. On the one hand, Wilson inclined towards a treaty based on a fourteen point plan to bring Europe to peace.  On the other hand, Georges Clemenceau wanted revenge asserted on Germany.  Lloyd, who was stuck in the middle, tried to strike a balance between the two opposing plans to end the war. Rather more importantly, Germany had been expecting to sign a ‘peace treaty’ based on Wilson’s fourteen points, and was unhappy with the new terms of the treaty, but, had no choice than to oblige and sign. Germany’s rearmament of the Fatherland, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the Anschluss with Austria and the occupation of the Sudetenland were all significant attacks on the Treaty of Versailles on the approach to WW2.

Five questions will serve to bring the reader up to date with the complexities of the Treaty of Versailles:  One; how exactly did the Treaty fail in its quest to curtail a new war? Two; did the British public’s displeasure of the Treaty of Versailles play a role in the budding of the appeasement policy of the 1930’s? Three; did Britain demoralize the cause of the Treaty? Four; how did the failure of the treaty and adoption of the policy of appeasement lead to the signing of the Munich Agreement which strengthened Germany’s position on the road to a new war, an event led to the rise of Adolf Hitler?  And five; how did the complex and undependable relations of the League of Nations speed up the cogs of war?

To answer these questions it is important to point out some noteworthy events that were taking place at the time, post 1919. Firstly, the Anglo-French relations had significantly deteriorated.  This tended to encourage a sympathetic attitude towards Germany.  Secondly, Britain realized it needed its former partners in Central Europe for her own prosperity, and had a compromising desire to water down the points of the peace settlement which might have impeded Germany’s recovery. Thirdly, both the British and the French were aware of Adolf Hitler’s actions in Germany, but ignored the situation because they were more engaged with holding back the “domino effect” or the rise of communism.  For Britain and France, Germany building its defenses was essential to prevent the rise of communism to the West. Fourthly, and perhaps the most significant factor, was lifting of the “war guilt” on Germany. Henceforth, there was no more reason to blame Germany for falling out with Austria or blame France for supporting her ally; albeit Germany giving Austria a blank check. The German’s stormy blitz on Belgium was merely the “occasion” for Britain’s entrance into the war; the key reason was her ties to the entente and her fear of the consequences of a German victory. In fact, the real cause of the war was the split of Europe into two armed camps. The actions of each state were natural. None was guilty of desiring war, but all were guilty of failing to edit the international anarchy they had inherited.

Miscalculations Towards World War Two

The “war guilt” debate reached its pinnacle in 1938, with the Anschluss and the Czech crisis. Marriott and Temperley viewed Germany’s annexation of Austria as predictable, and any response by Britain as purposeless. Still to others the Munich Agreement was hailed as representing “the revival in this country of realist statesmanship in the best sense”. Temperley also saw Chamberlain’s policy as realistic and they condemned its critics as idealists. While pointing to the “tribulations” imposed on Germany by the peace treaty as a justification for the Munich Agreement, they revealed a heavier reason for their support of the appeasement. There is little doubt that during the 1930s the British public and its leaders alike clung to the old views inculcated by historians in the previous decade.  The views were that a relatively guiltless Germany had been unjustly treated by the peacemakers and that the injustices Germany was attempting to correct were therefore legitimate. As a result, the wave of pro-Germanism that flounced the nation in the wake of Hitler’s remilitarization of the Rhineland is an indication of the scope and strength of these convictions. All this time, the dilemma of French security was scarcely grasped, and the significance of the remilitarization of the Rhineland and the trouncing of the Czech defenses in shifting the equation of power went unnoticed. In a bid to undo the post-war settlement, they disregarded the elementary principles of the balance of power.

Britain’s displeasure on the Treaty of Versailles played a big role in the budding of the appeasement policy, or giving in to someone provided their demands are reasonable.  When Germany began arming in 1934, it was felt she had a right to protect herself. As such, the Munich Agreement, signed by leaders of Germany, France, Britain, and Italy, agreed that the Sudetenland would be returned to Germany. The Czech government was not invited to the meeting and protested about the loss of the Sudetenland. They felt that they had been betrayed by both Britain and France, with whom alliances had been made. However, the Munich Agreement was, generally speaking, viewed as a victory and a great example of securing peace through conciliation rather than war. When Adolf Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, he ruined the terms of the agreement.

The next domino to fall on the road to WW2 was Hitler’s actions following the undermined and weakened peace treaty.  Adolf Hitler was sworn as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933. And almost instantaneously began secretly piling stocks of Germany’s weapons and arms. By 1934 he had considerably increased the size of the army and began building warships and an air force. Contrary to Treaty of Versailles which prohibited conscription, Hitler brought into being compulsory military service. In 1936 Hitler directed German troops to enter the Rhineland. At this point the German army was not very sturdy and could have been easily overpowered. Yet, neither Britain nor France was prepared to start another war. In the same year, Hitler also made two imperative alliances: The first was called the Rome-Berlin Axis Pact that allied Germany with Italy; and the second was called the Anti-Comitern Pact that allied Germany with Japan. In 1938 Hitler began taking back land that had been taken from Germany.  In March of that year, the leader of Austria was forced to hold a vote of confidence asking the people whether they would like to be part of Germany.  99% of the Austrian people wanted Anschluss and not a union with Germany. The Austrian leader requested France, Britain, and Italy for aid. Hitler guaranteed that the Anschluss was the end of his expansionist aims, and, not wanting to risk war, the other countries did nothing. Just six months later, Hitler did not keep his word and demanded that the Sudetenland region be handed over to Germany.

Quite unexpectedly, The Munich Agreement stated that Hitler (Germany) could have the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia, on condition that he promised not to attack the rest of Czechoslovakia. In March 1939 Hiltler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. Despite Czechoslovakia raising an alarm for help, it was ignored by all and sundry, for neither Britain nor France was prepared to take military action against Germany. However, action was now deemed necessary, believing that Poland was Germany’s next target.  Britain and France pledged to take military action against Hitler if he invaded Poland. Chamberlain believed that, faced with the prospect of war against France and Britain, Hitler would stop his offense. Chamberlain was wrong, and on September 1, 1939, German troops invaded Poland, dropping the last domino that ushered in World War 2.

Failures of the Treaty of Versailles

In the debate on the failures of the Treaty of Versailles, historians claimed to speak with scholarly authority. Precisely as German officials had hoped, the demise of the belief in its war guilt, which was largely the making of historians, raised the question of whether it was morally bound to honor a peace accord concluded under what was later regarded as the misapprehension that she was chiefly responsible for the war. Liberal intellectuals, disillusioned by the Treaty of Versailles, eagerly embraced the new revisionist history as an argument for changes in the peace settlement. When Adolf Hitler proceeded unilaterally to dismantle the Versailles system in the 1930s, these liberals, frightened by the potential consequences of Britain’s opposition, urged acceptance of his ruinous aggression on the grounds that Germany’s grievances were valid. Shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War, Grant and Temperley noted with great disquietude that the Treaty of Versailles was no longer the public law of Europe. In the commentaries written by Kepi, the Treaty Versailles was only one half of the peace dissonance, the other was the League of Nations. The failure of the League of Nations to keep countries in ‘check’ was also a fundamental faux-pax.

The League of Nation

So far, we have established that the Treaty of Versailles was no longer reliable in maintaining peace in Europe, and as a last resort the League of Nations was expected to uphold peace. The fundamental idea of the League of Nations in the mind of its founders was simple: To them the root of evil of the pre-war system had been secret diplomacy, aggressive imperialism, the balance of power, and the militaristic ambition promoted by autocratic blocks.  It was to offer impetus against the restoration of the old system of competitive diplomacy, by bringing all nations in an assembly that solves international problems that could cause international disturbance.  It cushioned against risk of war by requiring each member to permit inquiry for a given period into any dispute with another member before it started war like operations, and obliging members to take action against any member violating the rules. Howbeit, the League of Nations did not patently function as the universal clearing house for all the international disputes.  From the onset it had many shortcomings working against it.  Owing to the constraints of space, this post will only outline the main drawbacks that saw the League of Nations fail to hold back European nations from another war.

Failures of the League of Nations

Firstly, not all countries joined the League.  While the vision of the League of Nations had come from Woodrow Wilson, there was a change of government in the United States before the signing of the Treaty of Versailles and the modish incumbent Republican government declined to join.  As a direct recompense for originating World War One, Germany was not allowed to join the League of Nations. And Russia was also excluded thanks to a growing fear of “the domino effect” or rise of Communism. Secondly, the League of Nations had no powers. Its main weapon was to ask member countries to discontinue trading with an aggressive country. However, this was not effective because countries could still trade with non-member countries. As it were, in the wake of 1920’s depression, countries were unwilling to lose trading partners to other non-member nations. Thirdly, the League of Nations had no standing army and it relied on soldiers supplied by the member countries. For the same reason, the countries were not keen to get involved and risk provoking an aggressive country into taking direct action against them and failed to provide troops. As a result the League was a “toothless” bulldog. Fourthly, the League of Nations was unable to act swiftly. The Council of the League of Nations only met every four months and decisions had to be agreed by all members. When they called on the League to intercede, it had to set up a crisis meeting, hold discussions and gain the consensus of all members. The tack meant that it could not act swiftly to stop acts of aggression.

The Treaty of Versailles: In Conclusion           

Did the Treaty of Versailles ever hold any water in terms of its ability to keep aggressors like Germany in check and maintaining peace in Europe? Arguably, the answer is a resounding no.  Firstly, the process of its creation was biased.  Failure by malice on the framers of the Treaty of Versailles: The actions of Mr. Lloyd George in blowing up the repatriation demands of Germany. On his part, Martet believes that the treaty which Clemenceau would have made in those circumstances alone — opposites disarmed or Germany shattered — would not have differed very much from the actual Treaty of Versailles. Martet adds that it is not the treaty as it was applied from 1920 onwards that was the onset of its drawbacks, but as it was drawn up, as it was signed on June 28th, 1919, and as it was corroborated by the Chamber of Deputies on October 2nd, 1919. That is a further reason why Clemenceau could feel altogether dissatisfied with his work.

In the face of the conquered nervy enemy, the only thing that concerned France was for her to regain her pre-war rectitude and independence, her territorial integrity, her agricultural and industrial prosperity. For Clemenceau, Germany had fired the train and must make amends. So, in the end, harsh clauses were drawn up that included: “War Guilt” stating that Germany should admit the blame for starting World War One; reparations that stated that Germany had to disburse £6,600 million for the damage caused; disarmament that stated that Germany could only maintain a small-scale army and minimal naval ships; and territorial clauses that stated that land was taken away from Germany and given to other countries. Needless, perhaps, to point out is that the Treaty was not objective and failed to account for rules of the jungle. Kepi asserted the jungle had developed two means of protecting itself from the worst of chronic low-less ness.  One method had been either for a single or combination of the more powerful states to develop such a preponderance of power that nobody else dared encourage war.  The other method had been the creation of a balance of power, where by two or more groups maintain amicable equilibrium that the expense of war and the uncertainty of the outcome act as effective deterrents.  Withal, the air in Europe at the time was too delicate for the treaty and there was no balance of power, besides, America and USSR which were new powers distanced themselves from Europe and had conflicting interests and ideologies. 

Historian J.A.M Sanchez points out that the Treaty of Versailles failed abide by several instances to the fourteen points. Indeed, many people in these countries are not a little shocked at the moral turpitude of those Europeans who regard this argument with little respect.  According to Sanchez, he cannot conceive of a written Treaty which would have incorporated within its clauses so imprecise a formula as is the fourteen points. I should have thought that by now it would be fairly generally known that the fourteen points were as definitive a part of the military campaign of the last year of the war as were the daunt operations of the American Army in the St. Mihiel Sector. Whether they were intended as such is not yet perfectly clear; that they became such is certain. Their wording seems admirably designed to achieve just exactly what they did achieve, a scaling up of the will to win in the Allied block and a weakening of it in Germany and Austria.

Treaty of Versailles: Milestones & Timeline