Uganda, South Sudan, and the CAR commit to funding 1,800km cross-border road project
Three African countries - Uganda, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic (CAR) have embarked on a landmark infrastructure initiative with the launch of a 1,800-kilometre regional road project aimed at enhancing trade, connectivity, and economic integration across East and Central Africa.
Three African nations—Uganda, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic—are collaborating on an ambitious 1,800-kilometer regional road project.
The project is designed to enhance trade, connectivity, and economic integration across East and Central Africa.
Financing will be secured from national budgets, international developmental partners, and private-sector investments.
Sputnik Africa reports that the ambitious 1,800-kilometre road project connecting Uganda, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic (CAR) will be executed in phases, with construction moving progressively across borders—from Uganda into South Sudan, and then from South Sudan into CAR.
Project Phases
Phase I focuses on urgent repairs, gravel road upgrades, and bridge maintenance to quickly make the corridor navigable and secure for trade.
Phase II will involve tarmacking gravel roads and rehabilitating paved routes to create a durable, high-capacity corridor that supports growing commercial traffic over time. Together, these phases aim to improve access and boost regional trade.
The phased approach enables the three countries to focus on the most critical sections of the corridor first, while gradually mobilizing resources for broader, long-term improvements.
To ensure the project's success, Uganda, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic will work together to secure financing from a combination of national budgets, international development partners, and private-sector investments.
By sequencing the project from Uganda through South Sudan to CAR, the initiative reflects both strategic regional planning and a commitment to boosting intra-African trade, especially for landlocked and infrastructure-challenged areas.
Major project routes
According to South Sudan's Minister of Roads and Bridges, Simon Mijok Mijak, the three countries have agreed to jointly fund the long-term i mplementation of the corridor, which will stretch from Kampala, Uganda's capital, to Bangui, the capital of CAR, passing through South Sudan.
' This project is a game-changer for regional integration, ' Minister Mijak said. ' The Central African Republic seeks to connect with Uganda through South Sudan, and we have proposed two major routes to achieve this: one via Nimule, Juba, Mundri, Maridi, Yambio, and Tambura, and another through Kaya, Morobo, Yei, Lainya, and Juba. These highways will serve as vital arteries for trade and economic cooperation,' he added.
Regional trade corridor to address special trade needs
Currently, poor roads and border delays hinder trade, making it costly and slow. This corridor will shorten delivery times, lower logistics expenses, and improve trade reliability for both small and large businesses.
The corridor provides an alternative East-West trade route, easing congestion on traditional North-South pathways and enhancing regional trade resilience. It aligns with the African Continental Free Trade Area's goal of connecting African economies by facilitating the free movement of goods and people.
Importantly, the corridor supports post-conflict recovery in South Sudan and CAR by promoting infrastructure-led growth, improving livelihoods, and fostering stability. It will also serve as a crucial route for humanitarian and security operations in fragile border areas.
Overall, this corridor is a transformative project that will strengthen regional integration, reduce trade barriers, and promote inclusive economic growth across East and Central Africa.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
8 hours ago
- Business Insider
Top 10 African countries with the highest cumulative debt to China (2000–2023)
Over the past two decades, China's financial engagement with Africa has grown remarkably, primarily through infrastructure-focused loans. China's financial involvement in Africa has grown significantly, focusing on infrastructure-oriented loans. The Chinese Loans to Africa Database tracks loan agreements from 2000 to 2023, showing trends in lending amounts and loan dynamics. Angola leads as the top borrower, repaying loans through oil-backed mechanisms for reconstruction needs. These loans have helped build roads, railways, power plants in several African countries, but they have also raised questions about debt sustainability, repayment risks, and the long-term autonomy of African economies. The Chinese Loans to Africa Database, compiled by Boston University's Global Development Policy Center, provides a comprehensive record of loan agreements between China and African countries over a 13-year period, from 2000 to 2023. It reveals not only the total loan amounts but also the number of individual loan agreements signed between African countries and Chinese lenders. After several years of decline, Chinese lending to Africa increased in 2023 the first rise since 2016. This recent uptick shows a shift in Beijing's strategy toward projects with clearer financial viability, as China becomes more selective with its lending. Below is a ranking of the ten African countries with the highest total debt to China, based on the cumulative loan amounts and the number of loans recorded from 2000 to 2023. Rankings of top 10 African countries by debt to China Rank Country Total Loan Amount (USD) 1 Angola $46.0 billion 2 Ethiopia $14.5 billion 3 Egypt $9.7 billion 4 Kenya $9.6 billion 5 Nigeria $9.6 billion 6 Zambia $9.5 billion 7 South Africa $6.9 billion 8 Sudan $6.3 billion 9 Ghana $6.1 billion 10 Cameroon $5.9 billion Angola tops the list, borrowing $46 billion from China through 270 loans. Much of this debt stems from post-civil war reconstruction efforts, particularly in the oil and infrastructure sectors. Angola's model of repaying loans with crude oil became one of the earliest examples of resource-backed Chinese lending on the continent. Ethiopia comes second, with $14.5 billion borrowed via 66 agreements, highlighting the country's deep reliance on Chinese funds for its railways, power projects, and telecommunications infrastructure. Key developments like the Addis Ababa–Djibouti Railway have been financed almost entirely through Chinese lending. Egypt, Kenya, and Nigeria follow closely, each holding debts between $9.5 and $9.7 billion. Egypt's loans have supported transportation, electricity, and real estate projects, while Kenya's financing was pivotal in constructing the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR). Nigeria, similarly, has used Chinese funds for rail, road, and power initiatives. Zambia's debt of $9.5 billion comes from a notably high 82 loans, the largest number in the top ten. This suggests frequent borrowing, likely for smaller-scale or diversified infrastructure efforts. The remaining countries, South Africa, Sudan, Ghana, and Cameroon, each owe over $5.9 billion, reflecting years of engagement across transport, energy, and public service sectors. The growing debt to China shows Africa's dependence on external capital for development. On one hand, Chinese loans have enabled tangible infrastructure improvements that traditional Western financiers often hesitate to fund. On the other hand, the continent faces mounting concerns about debt distress, limited fiscal space, and vulnerability to external shocks.
Politico
9 hours ago
- Politico
The Ideological Schism Fueling the Trump-Musk Fight
Amid the fallout of the messy public feud between Doland Trump and Elon Musk, it is instructive to think back to Dec. 26, 2024. That day marked the start of another intra-GOP skirmish that nearly fractured the elite core of the MAGA coalition. The December brawl — which, like the latest one, unfolded primarily online — pitted two high-profile factions of the Trumpian right against one another over the issue of high-skilled immigration. The nationalist-populist right, led by MAGA strategist Steve Bannon, urged the incoming administration to end the H-1B visa program as part of a broader crackdown on immigration. The so-called tech right, led by Musk, wanted Trump to defend the program on the grounds that high-skilled immigration is integral to spurring economic growth and fueling 'American dynamism.' Ultimately, the tech right carried the day, with Trump intervening in the online spat to defend the H-1B program. After the feud, the two sides struck a tentative peace, and the contretemps quieted down as Trump reentered office. But the renewal of hostilities between Trump and Musk this week shows that the underlying ideological disagreement between the two factions was never really resolved. And despite all the current bluster about the 'big, beautiful' spending bill, the Epstein files, the ballooning national debt and Musk and Trump's overlarge egos, that divide still runs straight through the same issue that carved up the factions back in December: immigration. That may seem counterintuitive, given that the latest blow-up between Trump and Musk is ostensibly over the fiscal consequences of Trump's megabill — and specifically Musk's contention, supported by independent analyses but rejected by the Trump administration, that the bill would add significantly to the federal debt. But when you strip away all the salacious controversies swirling around the 'BBB,' the fight over the legislation ultimately boils down to the question of whether cracking down on immigration should stand alone as the Trump administration's guiding priority. In the eyes of the MAGA populists, the $155 billion that the BBB appropriates for immigration enforcement and Trump's mass deportation efforts more than justify its passage, whatever its fiscal shortcomings might be. As Stephen Miller, the populist right's go-to immigration hawk, recently put it, the bill includes 'the most significant border security and deportation effort in history' — a fact which 'alone makes this the most important legislation for the conservative project in the history of the nation.' That immigration is at the center of the administration's pitch for the bill should come as no surprise. Since 2016, the issue has been the ideological keystone around which Trump has built his protean and sometimes unwieldy coalition. During the 2024 campaign, Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, proposed solving practically every issue that was thrown their way — from the housing shortage to inflation to 'wokeness' — by tying it back to their promised immigration crackdown. Once in office, the president's first acts included claiming unprecedented emergency authority to carry out his plan for mass deportations. But the centrality of immigration created tension as Musk and his fellow travelers on the tech right began to enter MAGA fold in the leadup to the 2024 election. The tech right threw its weight behind Trump's proposed agenda on immigration, but it was never the group's top priority. Much more important for MAGA's tech faction was taming the federal deficit, which Musk and others moguls — notably Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel — continue to view as an existential threat to the country's future. Their anxiety about the federal debt is rooted as much in their libertarianism as it is in their self-interest: every dollar the federal government spends servicing the federal debt is a dollar that it does not invest in the supposedly revolutionary technologies — backed by their firms — that they believe will lead to true 'American dynamism.' The misalignment between the priorities of the populist right and the tech right was clear from the start. It was apparent to Miller, who just this week raged that 'you will never live a day in your life where a libertarian cares as much about immigration and sovereignty as they do about the Congressional Budget Office.' It was also apparent to Vance — a perceptive observer of the coalitional dynamics within the MAGA movement — who dedicated an entire speech earlier this spring to arguing that immigration restriction and technological innovation could be mutually-reinforcing goals. 'This idea that tech-forward people and the populists are somehow inevitably going to come to a loggerhead is wrong,' said Vance, identifying himself as 'a proud member of both tribes.' Vance, it turns out, was wrong. To the contrary, the Trump-Musk schism is proof that MAGA loyalists can't have their cake and eat it too. They must choose — a maximalist immigration crackdown, or something else. The vengeance with which the populist right has turned on Musk since his spat with Trump is proof of what happens when a Trump ally — even the richest man on Planet Earth — chooses something else. That the fight really hinged on immigration became clear from the commentary coming out of the populist right. 'Debt is BAD. The migrant crisis is orders of magnitude worse,' posted the activist Charlie Kirk in the midst of the blowup. 'I've never seen debt hold an apartment building hostage,' added another conservative commentator, referring to reports of gang-occupied apartment buildings in Colorado. Then there was Bannon himself, who responded to the feud by suggesting — what else? — that Trump should deport Musk. The near-term consequences of the Trump-Musk schism remain to be seen. Whispers of peace talks between Trump and Musk flitted around Washington on Friday, and Trump has publicly downplayed the significance of the skirmish. At this point, no other big names on the tech right have followed Musk in breaking from Trump. And even if Musk were to actively challenge Trump's GOP — by funding primary challenges to Republican incumbents or even trying to start his own party, as he hinted at on Thursday — the consequences would likely be less dire for the future of the MAGA movement than he might think. Vance, the presumptive heir to the MAGA throne, has been building his own independent fundraising network since 2022, which could insulate him from any Musk-related financial aftershocks. Vance 2028 would certainly like to have access to Musk's campaign dollars, but it's not reliant on them. In the long run, though, the Trump-Musk feud will cement immigration as the critical litmus test for membership in Trump's GOP. The critical ideological fault line within the MAGA movement runs between people who view immigration restriction as a means to an end and those who see it as an end in themselves. The thrashing of Elon Musk is a warning to anyone who finds themselves on the wrong side of that divide.
Business Insider
12 hours ago
- Business Insider
How to dismiss a high-profile employee without a Trump-Musk-style meltdown
Star talent can be hard to retain — and even harder to let go. The public fallout between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk this week may be an extreme example of a hotshot's exit going off the rails, but leadership experts said it underscores just how dicey it can be to part ways with a high-profile team member. "These are folks with big egos," Peter Cappelli, a management professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, told Business Insider. "Most of the time they end up in court." Saying goodbye to a prominent employee doesn't have to be dramatic. But don't assume a beefy severance package and a non-disparagement agreement are enough to leave a company unscathed. "If people want to hurt you, they'll find a way to do it," Cappelli said. "Ask divorced couples." How to sever ties with a high-profile recruit When pushing out a high-flyer, employers should frame the person's departure as business as usual, said Ronald Placone, a communications professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business "You try to normalize it," he said. "Things happen, people move on." Trump initially followed conventional wisdom in how he went about booting Musk from Washington last month. The president orchestrated a warm and fuzzy public send-off, thanking Musk for his service and providing a sensible explanation for his departure—in this case, that the billionaire was going back to focusing on his work at the multiple companies he helms. More common explanations are that the fired individual has decided to pursue other career opportunities, spend time with family, or engage in philanthropic endeavors. This tactic is aimed at protecting both the departee's reputation and that of the employer showing him or her the door. "They come up with a story," said Anna A. Tavis, chair of the human capital management department at New York University's School of Professional Studies. The goal is to avoid hurting the outgoing hotshot's chances of landing a new gig and the company's ability to find a replacement. "It's a question of, how do we save face?" she said. Give people something else to talk about Employers should also aim to draw people's attention elsewhere, Placone said. "One of Trump's strategies that often works is you just flood communication channels with other stuff, stuff you perceive is more favorable to your organization," he said. "You try to take some control by giving as many potential stories as possible so people don't home in on one." Trump did make some big announcements this week, including travel bans on several African countries, but leadership experts say the president also erred by openly rebuking Musk's harsh criticism of his signature tax bill on X. This kicked off the back-and-forth squabble that captured the world's attention on Thursday. "There's no need for that," Placone said. "In these high-profile situations, you want to say as little as possible. You don't want to add weight to the argument the other is putting forth." If Trump instead kept quiet, Musk would have been more likely to stick with critiquing the bill rather than upping the ante by accusing the president of illicit behavior, he said. "It would've eventually fizzled out," Placone said. Why some A-list hires don't last Employers most commonly end up quickly sacking flashy new recruits because they aren't as talented as advertised or they insist on working in a way that doesn't align with a company's culture, Tavis said. It even happens at the very top of the corporate ladder. For example, in recent years, the chief executives of Barnes & Noble, Starbucks, and CNN were pushed out of their jobs after brief tenures. "A lot of times they're overestimating their value," she said of people with a reputation for being above the fray, adding that due to the current tight labor market, notable departures are likely to increase. Sam Faycurry, CEO of artificial-intelligence and nutrition startup Fay in San Francisco, can relate. Last year, he hired a well-known rainmaker after a lengthy courtship only to quickly conclude that the person wasn't a good fit. To avoid bad blood, Faycurry said he tried making it seem as if it was the individual's decision to leave by pointing out how much they disagreed on core principles. "This person ended up exiting themselves" without any hard feelings, Faycurry said, adding that he was relieved because his main concern was being able to refill the position with a better-aligned A-list professional. "If the person is influential in a talent pool you want to recruit people from in the future, there's no benefit to having a relationship fall out," Faycurry said. "You're never truly parting ways."
