Month: February 2025

Bad Roads and Kampala Traffic Woes: How did China Address It

Posted on By Shemei Ndawula

“If you can drive in Kampala you can drive anywhere in the world”. This phrase, often uttered in good humor betrays a perhaps poorly kept national secret that Kampala is fast approaching the carrying capacity of its own public roads. Behind the social media sensation that abound the 2023 #PotholeExhibition was also a daunting revelation that our growing middle class may need to explore alternative methods of showcasing their progress than buying more private cars adding to the mounting cesspool of Kampala traffic.

To deal with the breakdown of public traffic infrastructure in Kampala we may need to look towards China and how it so aptly used a similar situation a few decades ago as the springboard for its modern public transport system. At the moment, if China says it has the second most efficient public transit system in the world, no country can dare claim to have the first. Recently China unveiled the CR450 model high speed train with a top speed of 450km per hour. In layman’s terms this means that someone in Mbarara can go to work in Kampala with a roughly 40 minutes commute. That’s a much shorter time than it takes an average taxi from a suburb like Kira to get to the Old taxi park.

China discovered decades ago that the best solution to an urban housing crisis is an efficient transit system. This is a lesson we should do well to learn because we find ourselves at the same crossroads China was at with a young, rapidly growing population and swiftly shrinking physical public space.

Uganda’s ambitions for economic transformation hinge on one critical factor: infrastructure development. Modern transportation systems, energy networks, and industrial hubs are the foundations upon which vibrant economies are built. For a country at the heart of East Africa, strategically positioned as a potential regional logistics hub, the stakes are exceptionally high. In charting its path forward, Uganda would do well to look toward China; not only as a partner but also as a source of inspiration for what transformative infrastructure development can achieve.

More importantly we have what the Chinese never had, which is a global superpower eager  to aid us in this transition with the recipe for sustainable urban development without ulterior imperialistic designs. We even have Chinese companies bidding openly to share their infrastructural knowledge and technological progress to ease this transition. Beyond technical expertise, Chinese companies bring efficiency and a focus on results. Their ability to execute projects quickly and at competitive costs makes them valuable partners for developing countries seeking to modernize their economies without delays or inflated budgets.

China has demonstrated remarkable leadership in infrastructure, particularly through its high-speed rail network. With over 42,000 kilometers of track crisscrossing the country, this network is the largest and most advanced in the world. Trains traveling at such speeds connect cities, reduce travel times, and energize regional economies. What sets this achievement apart is its sheer scale and inclusivity. This model, combining technical excellence with a strategic vision, offers important lessons for Uganda.

China’s experience shows how large-scale infrastructure investment, when strategically aligned with national development goals, can be a game-changer. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched by China in 2013, amplifies this potential. As a global development strategy, the BRI has financed and built infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, and Europe. For Uganda, the initiative provides a pathway to access long-term financing and technical assistance for transformative projects. Already, the  Chinese-backed Kampala-Entebbe Expressway has cut the daily commute time between the two cities by almost half. These kinds of developments are not just about convenience; they have real economic impact by improving trade logistics and encouraging investment.

The philosophy underpinning the BRI is particularly relevant to Uganda’s needs. Infrastructure is not seen in isolation but as part of a larger economic framework. Roads, railways, and energy grids are designed to connect markets, foster regional integration, and spark new value chains. For Uganda, whose Vision 2040 highlights the role of infrastructure in achieving industrialization, this approach is a natural fit.

Our  infrastructure needs extend far beyond the extraction and export of raw materials. We need transport systems that enable local industries to flourish, connecting farms to factories and factories to regional markets.

China’s role in Uganda’s development is not merely about financing or building infrastructure. It also provides a model of what is possible when infrastructure is treated as a driver of economic transformation. The high-speed rail network in China has not only revolutionized transportation but also spurred urbanization, boosted tourism, and enhanced trade. This holistic approach offers valuable lessons for Uganda as it seeks to modernize its transport systems, diversify its economy, and connect more meaningfully with regional and global markets.

Shemei Ndawula is a Senior Research Fellow at Development Watch Center.

 

 

Trump’s Trade War Against China: It Has Nothing In It for Americans– Trump Does Not Care

Posted on By Joshua Kingdom

On Tuesday last week, a Trump 10% tariff increase on goods imported from China came in effect triggering an almost immediate response by the Chinese government that imposed several duties on United States produced commodities thereby reviving the US-China trade war.

President Trump’s insistence on doing things this way is puzzling because all signs show that the policy will not only not benefit his country but hurt it. In fact, it has started already. Following the announcements for example, stocks for tech giants Apple, Tesla, and Nvidia tanked. The projections for what is to come do not look good either; the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that low-income earning Americans (a constituency that overwhelmingly voted Republican last year) will see their household income reduce by 3.5% something that Goldman Sachs attributes to the expected increase in the price of consumer goods. Mark you, US-based producers are likely to take advantage of the overall market situation by equally hiking their products.

We do not have to wait on the future though as this is not the first time that a Trump-led administration takes issue with Chinese products. If at all, these levies are one of his signature marks from the first that he appeared on the political scene. And sure enough, the outcome of his 2018 onslaught is no better than what I laid out above. The financial burden born thereof was met on consumers according to the Quarterly Journal of Economics, farmers that formerly benefited from the then $24billion trade with China went bankrupt, and at least 300, 000 jobs were lost. Overall, the economy saw a 0.3% GDP lag. As for the trade deficit with China, it stalled at $345 billion which is more or less what it was when the tariffs were first promised with the otherwise would have been difference going to other countries e.g. Japan, Britain, and South Korea rather than benefiting manufacturers in the USA.

Moreover, things can only get worse because whereas China has exhibited nothing but good faith up to now (including pointing out that trade wars have no winners), it is far better placed to take on the new United States administration more than ever if push comes to shove. For one thing, Beijing is no longer as reliant on Washington as it was back in 2016. Thanks to a host of agreements that it entered with countries across continents in the intervening years, China has become a main trading partner of at least 120 countries. No wonder, the Communist Party of China (CPC) was quick to retaliate this time, sending a message that nothing will come easy.

Examining the nature of the countermeasures that President Xi’s government adopted is worth the time too. In restricting the exportation of elements that modern technologies heavily rely on for instance, China made it more difficult for American based innovators to compete effectively moving forward. Consider Tungsten which is such a rare mineral and yet key to aerospace ventures, molybdenum that is embedded in jet engines, ruthenium which is essential in the making of chips resistors etc. Australian National University has confirmed this much.

It does not help things that the US President has taken to the offensive in regards to relations with countries that have been traditionally understood as his country’s allies risking self-destruction. We are already seeing this with Canada on whose goods he almost imposed a 25% tariff– the imposition could very well accrue should the ongoing negotiations fall apart. Donald Trump has confirmed that he is considering adopting similar stances towards the European Union as well. In contrast, China has previously demonstrated its willingness to stand in the place of Global leader if a vacuum surfaces. Once Washington halted World Health Organization funding in 2020 thus, the CPC stepped forward and took on more responsibility as the other big boy in the room.

Why then (one would rightly ask) is President Trump so adamant? Well, it goes back to the fact that all he cares about is plundering to his base. Having successfully swayed them into believing a gloom and doom narrative, he must now take on the protector mantle. It comes from an old playbook in which a politician projects genuine grievances of his people onto an “other”. In China’s case, it started as early as the days of initial candidate Trump. Ever since, without facts, he has continued to associate Beijing with distorted depictions including saying that the nation was guilty of “raping” America and of “the greatest theft in the history of the world”.

What is more about this alternative reality, is that facts do not matter. Instead, the end justifies the means and Trump has taken it to heart.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre 

Trump’s Trade Tariffs: Evidence of American Aggression and Unreliability

Posted on By Allawi Ssemanda

In what many described as not surprising but still shocking, on Monday 10th February, the President of the United States of America (U.S), Donald J. Trump announced that Washington was slapping 25% tariffs on all aluminium and steel imports accessing the U.S market.

Speaking from White House where he made the announcement, Trump reasoned these tariffs are meant to reshape international trade. Without facts, America’s whining “tariff man” claimed global trade is unfair to the U.S and American workers. He proclaimed that his unorthodox use of tariffs was “the greatest thing ever invented” as he boasted calling it “the beginning of making America rich again.”

Despite stressing that these tariffs will apply to “all countries with no exemptions, no exceptions,” scholars and analysts contend that Trump’s 25% tariffs will largely affect Washington’s immediate neighbours like Mexico and Canada. The American Iron and Steel Institute lists Canada, Brazil, Mexico and South Korea as America’s major sources of steel and aluminium products.

Canada and Mexico, both America’s closest neighbours and trading allies are already under Trump’s pressure with the leaders of the two countries having agreed with Trump to pause his 25% tariffs levy on Canada and Mexico for 30 days after last minutes negotiations with “tariff man.”

For China, her products entering into the U.S are already facing a 10% levy announced by Trump on February 10th. Beijing has since then reciprocated with a similar percentage levy onto U.S exports into China. Trump is already threatening with a round of reciprocal tariffs. Such reciprocal tariffs would follow 25% levys Trump announced on aluminum and steel products and his additional 10% levy on Chinese goods. Despite criticism by several analysts, Trump insists “the long-term it’s going to make our country a fortune.”

While Trump is describing his use of tariffs against other countries as “the greatest thing ever invented,” and calling it “the beginning of making America rich again,” if critically analysed, his tariffs are not only likely to create negative impacts to targeted countries but will equally hurt the American Economy.

This week’s Statisticts from The U.S Bureau of Labor Statisticts shows that wholesale prices in the U.S have already jumped by 3.5% while consumer prices rose by 3%! Projections for U.S economy bears no good news. Ernst and Young’s chief economist, Greg Daco contends that in 2025 alone, America’s Growth Domestic Product (GDP) is likely to contract by 1.5% and 2.1% in 2026 with inflation rising by about 0.7%.  A deep analysis of this gambling method means that in a typical Donald Trump style – projecting toughness and being wise, “tariff-man’s” use of  tariffs as many analysts argue is an own goal and recipe for slowing America’s economy and will increase inflation which will hurt the very people Trump claims wants to save by forcing companies to work in the U.S and create jobs as a way of dodging his tariffs.

While Trump claims tariffs are meant to safeguard the U.S from the so-called  drugs, illegal immigrants as he noted for the case of Mexico and Canada, and ending what he called unfair trade with China, analysing Trump’s speeches and remarks on these tariffs makes one thing clear. President Trump is an Isolationist who thinks the U.S can be a perfect closed economy. Of course, this is far from reality.  For example, while announcing 25% now paused tariffs on Canada and Mexico, Trump was categorical telling Americans “we don’t need the products they have. We have all the oil you need. We have all the trees you need, meaning the lumber.”

It is not surprising that the Wall Street Journal’s (WSJ) 31st January 2025 editorial entitled “The Dumbest Trade War in History” argued that Trump’s tariffs are “for no good reason” and that all reasons advanced by Trump “make no sense.”

From multinationalism perspective, weaponizing trade at a time when the world is faced with economic recovery challenges partly caused by the Covid19 pandemic, and aware that free trade and uninterrupted global chain supply is key for the world to realise United Nations’ agenda 2030, one can conclude that under President Trump, the U.S is now openly selfish and cannot be relied on as a responsible member of global community.

Whereas Trump maybe boasting with his dumbest trade war hopping to reshape global trade on his terms, the scars will not be felt by targeted countries alone but also his voters who as of now Trump seems not to care much about. They already voted for him and he will not be seeking another term. Again, with his 23rd Jan. 2016 “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?”, Trump knows his suppoters are fanatics who can simply sell lies and blame another country say China and accuse it for their suffering should his trade war effects be devastating to American final consumers as many analysts predict!

While for geopolitical reasons some war hawkers in Washington may argue that Trump’s tariffs will slow China’s economic growth, at the end, the U.S will lose more than China.  It is important to note while his rhetoric is more against China, Trump is also targeting America’s closest neigbours and trading partners like Canada and Mexico. The message from this is clear. As Bernard Lewis taught us, “it’s risky to be America’s enemy, but it can be fatal to be its friend.” With this, geopolitically, while the U.S is always driven by Washington’s libido dominad – a latin phrase for the desire to dominate others, with Trump’s tariffs targeting “all countries with no exemptions, no exceptions,” the beginning of the end of America’s hegemony is closer than ever. It is now clear than ever before that what matters to Washington is not how close you’re to them. It is not their so-called “our shared values, good governance or human rights or democracy” as they normally claim. It is simply America’s interests that takes  precedence. This idea can best be understood from the words of U.S’ founding father, George Washington who in his 1976 farewell speech observed that; “No nation is to be trusted farther than it is bound by interest; and no prudent statesman or politician will venture to depart from it…unless both [nations’] interests happen to be assimilated.” 

 The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

 

 

 

Trump’s Global Aid Pause: A path to a New World Order

Posted on By Benjamin Musanjufu Kavubu

The world especially the global South anticipated Trump presidency and after his inauguration the world was excited by his many executive orders (EO). The President in Botswana summarized the mood, he said at a press conference that the world was more peaceful during Trump’s first term. In his own way as President elect he influenced Anthony Blinken’s State department to bring about a ceasefire in Gaza.

As time has passed the reality of Trump 2.o has set in, the world has a glimpse of what his world is going to look like, his Secretary of defense broadened the picture of how Washington is to operate. During the Congressional hearing to approve Pete Hegseth nomination, it turned out he can’t name a single country in South East Asia, something that is telling about Great Power Competition between Beijing and Washington.

For global South, Trump presidency is was denoted with his stroke of a pen on January 20th 2025, that issued an EO pausing foreign development assistance for 90 days to foreign countries, NGOs, international organizations and contractors. By 5th February almost all employees that run the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) were prepared to be laid off.

At the height of Cold war in 1961, US President J.FKennedy created USAID to be the USA’s vehicle for all nonmilitary foreign aid with the aim of containing communism, it was also the US’s moral responsibility and economic obligation as a rich country to assist others especially during the post world war. For six decades the USAID has propel America’s soft power across the world especially in places like Africa.

Trump 2.o largely happed because during the campaigns the Republicans promised to cut all wasteful spending and that is being led by Elon Musk in the new government agency called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) that advised the slashing of USAID and it’s operations move under the State Department and in the process taking away US Soft power.

The term soft power was introduced by Joseph Nye in 1990 in his book “Bound to lead, the changing nature of American Power” and also further broadened in his  “The means to success in world politics” in (2004). He described soft power as a country’s ability in achieving its international goals through attraction and persuasion rather than through coercion. A country with substantial soft power influences others by projecting an attractive culture, political values, and foreign policies that are considered legitimate and morally appealing and this was the basic idea of President J.F Kennedy when establishing USAID.

According to Council on Foreign Relations (cfr) USA has been able to spread her wings through humanitarian assistance and disaster relief and it’s through such models that President G.Bush’s President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was operated. The Secretary of State Marko Rubio has said it was waived to go on but that has proved to be untrue because USAID systems were it’s back bone.

cfr also ascertains that USAID was a pillar to US’s development projects that are aimed at economic stability and capacity building to bring about America’s image as a promoter of progress and prosperity. USAID has also been a key vehicle in the promotion of democracy and human rights agenda by Washington for the last 6 decades. At the end of the day the agency has been at frontier of American diplomacy according to Jay Caspian Kang’s America’s Soft Power Retreat in the New Yorker published on February 7th 2025.

In Uganda USAID through PEPFAR has been providing antiretroviral therapy to 1.2 million people and credited for reduction in HIV prevalence since the early 2000s, under the same 28 million nets were distributed to fight malaria, the Feed the Future that benefits 2.8 million farmers is a product of USAID, in the 2021 elections 10,000 observers of the process were trained by USAID resources. USAID has also provided funds used for micro loans through its private partners since 2015 helping about half a million Ugandans.

It’s now clear that even after the 90 days set in motion by the President Trump’s EO pausing U.S. foreign development assistance, all the above will be no more. This creates a gap that needs to be field by the Private sector that was already contributing 40% of USAID annual budget according to the organization’s former chief Samantha Powers and known US diplomat.

The global South will be looking at Europe that has a war going on. The Gulf Nations that have soft power agendas that come into play but most importantly the Trump has created a vacuum organizations like the BRICS can seize and shape the new world order that is desired.

In a tweet Marko Rubio said he would not travel to South Africa for the G20, in the 2024 summit in Brazil the global South dominated the forum and it’s time for China and also other middle Powers like South Africa, Indonesia, Brazil, from each region to garner others to ogfer Solutions from the perspective of the global South.

In the last decade 2013-2023 China contributed 45% of direct aid to Africa, and Beijing’s model is the best to bring about self sufficiency because it’s not free like America’s. The global South needs aid that is tied to infrastructure projects in terms of consensual loans that have to be paid back the moment the projects are up and running. There is a likelihood China will offer affordable alternatives to Africa’s health sectors, and already the African Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Addis Ababa is fully funded by China and was not affected by Washington’s revisions of foreign aid.

The Global South can better develop with transactional aid tied to economic returns, these returns can then be used to fund areas like education and health, there is no harm in aid being tied to Geopolitical interests as China will need the political backing from the global South at the United Nations and other multilateral organizations that desire reform to create a just world that may not have the concept of foreign aid in the long run because most countries would have the ability to achieve real wealth.

The fast changing dynamics in global aid that are gravely impacting the most poor and underdeveloped countries create a situation that needs solutions and an opportunity for organizations like BRICS, African Union and the G20 with withdrawn United States to reshape the world order.

The writer is a research fellow at the Sino-Uganda Research Centre

Just Build Kampala Roads! Lessons from China’s Transport System

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

Recently, I set out to study the economic analysis of China’s transport system. Many writers I read considered the impact of transportation infrastructure on China’s economy with shared criticisms. One of the major criticisms I found taxed against China’s transport system was that although it comprises a wide network of roads, railways, and airports across its huge territory, the transport network, especially of roads tends to concentrate on the more economically developed coastal areas and inland cities along major rivers. As soon as I read this critique of China’s transport system, I understood that it was actually the explainer for China’s economic triumph. In building roads and railways in major business centers, China leveraged its strength to further expand its economic output. In Uganda, the government’s policy on road construction is focused on ensuring Uganda is connected “border to border” which is not a bad thing had it not been at the expense of constructing greater Kampala roads to leverage our significant economic dividends in the region.

I suspect that the construction of roads in Uganda is more (this is not to say it is the only reason) a political rather than an economic project. I also suspect that the president has much to say in the decision-making process of awarding contracts for major road constructions. The president decides to have a road constructed in an area because the local population there demanded for one… because their children “want to see tarmac also!” As such, we have roads built in areas where the net return on investment is simply political capital for the president/ the ruling government at the expense of Uganda’s economic development.

I suggest that road construction should be looked at foremost as an economic enterprise with measurable returns on investment. For every road constructed, we must be able to measure the efficiency and profitability it will produce in return. Uganda can calculate its return on investment from its road construction by assessing the economic benefits generated from road investments compared to the costs. For instance, we must be able to calculate the initial construction costs including materials, labor, and land acquisition; maintenance and operational costs over time; and environmental and social costs e.g., displacement of people and wildlife, and pollution. We also must be able to calculate the benefits estimated from the investment. For instance, increased business activities due to better transport; lower vehicle maintenance and fuel costs; shorter travel times for goods and people; reduction in road accidents and fatalities; more efficient movement of goods and services and increased land and property values near improved roads. To know the net benefit from the road constructed, we would have to subtract the total cost of construction from the total benefits estimated from the investment. Does Uganda bother with these calculations while undertaking road construction projects? I think not.

Without assessing whether our road investments are yielding positive economic and social returns, the huge amounts of money sunk into road construction are simply buried, not planted investments.

China’s transportation infrastructure investments are carefully calculated to ensure they contribute significantly to China’s GDP. For every highway built, China targets to improve logistics and reduce costs. For every railway built, China has done a study and established the need to enhance efficiency and increase overall productivity from a certain economic zone. For instance, China’s high-speed rail system is intentionally built to connect economic hubs with realisable productivity to facilitate business expansion by reducing travel time and increasing market accessibility. If we had these calculations in Uganda, the districts of Kampala, Wakiso and Mukono would take at least 50 percent of the road construction budget of Uganda.

Why?

Kampala, Wakiso and Mukono districts produce 65% of Uganda’s total Gross Domestic Product and 75% of the country’s total tax revenue collection. The bewildering irony is that despite such an enormous contribution to our nation’s economic output, these enterprising districts receive less than 2 percent of the budget allocated to road construction and maintenance for the rest of the country. This is a policy miscalculation I can never comprehend!

There is not an ounce of understanding of economic prioritization in how Uganda makes investment decisions on road construction. China concentrates its road construction in economically developed coastal areas and inland cities along major rivers such as the Pearl River Delta, Yangtze River Delta, and Bohai Economic Rim because they are the country’s economic powerhouses. These are areas that contribute significantly to China’s GDP through manufacturing, trade, and services. It is obvious that developing transport infrastructure in these regions maximizes economic returns even if many other parts of the country may lack comprehensive transport infrastructure. Why don’t we make this prioritization too? Why is it too hard to see?

China’s coastal cities also host major ports like Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Guangzhou, which handle a significant portion of China’s international trade. These regions also have high population densities. So, it makes sense to ensure efficient road networks in these areas to smoothen the transportation of goods and people between ports and industrial hubs. Following the same logic, Uganda should have a detailed road and railway network to ensure efficient transportation of goods from Malaba, through Jinja, Mukono to Kampala. Why do we have one, narrow, dilapidated road carrying the entire volume of goods into the country from Malaba?

It cannot be that the country’s understandable budget constraints are the cause of Uganda’s poor transport system in urban areas. Not even China has enough money to build every road in their country. It all comes down to prioritization of investment and strictly investing in roads with realisable economic output. Uganda’s road network spans 160,000 km. 21,000 km of that are national trunk roads, 38,600 km are district roads, 20,000 km are urban roads (covering cities, municipalities, and towns), and 80,000 km are community access roads. The country’s revenues simply can’t sustain constructing all these roads. But basic economic considerations would long have made it clear to us that we must concentrate on the 20,000 km of urban roads to create efficiency in these economic hubs which would in return generate the revenues to expand road construction to other areas across the country.

The mathematics seems simple. The return on investment looks great. Why can’t our government make policy shifts and do what is necessary?

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Center.

D.R Congo’s Problems: Time To Try China’s Global Security Initiative?

Posted on By Alan Collins Mpewo

From the wake of global biases, arose Democratic Republic of Congo (herein referred to as D.R Congo). It is one of the most unfortunate Republics globally. Some argue, that it the most unfortunate in East and Central Africa. For a country known as the cradle of wealth, it has been known for a wealth of wars. Imagine, with some of the world’s largest deposits of copper, diamond, gold, tantalum; and natural forests. Interventions have been proposed in the past. Responses too. But it never seems enough. Such is what comes of a war torn community. Disunity in the same fashion. The present pain in D.R Congo cannot be looked at a mere present day lens. Its origin is from way back. Some historians and academics of the Congo basin have even gone ahead to argue that the woes are so harshly dated to the days of old before the European colonialists entered this rich basin.

Today, Democratic Republic of Congo is in the United Nations headlines as it was in the 1990s during the Mobutu heat. As all modern day conflicts, opportunists keep lurking. And so is the story of D.R Congo. Multinational corporations, direct neocolonial representatives, and its border neighbors have been recorded to have had a contribution to it. To loot, to mine, and destabilize. This is even publicly documented that to some, there is even court judgment to it. I raise you the International Court of Justice decision of D.R Congo Versus Uganda. Insurgents have equally been a plague. Over 6 million people have since lost lives to the non ending conflicts. Unfortunate it is to state, that more lives will still be lost. The UN Security Council has had a busy end of January, 2025 with the D.R Congo problem, and each day coming into February, more revelations keep arising.

From M23 rebels, to allegations of Rwanda’s financing of these rebels, and now South Africa SADC peacekeepers and UN Staff getting caught in-between the conflict. The state of affairs has become so complex that now, it is a geopolitical issue that has gone as far as introducing tribal questions of belonging. Living the legacy of the scramble and partition of Africa. Border tribes and their reception in the isolated borders today – the Tutsi are that group. The United Nations notwithstanding, where is the African Union? A test to the new African Union Council post the Organization’s elections in early 2025. It is that point in time when the African Union has to outlive the bad reputation it has come to be crowned with. It is understood that regional relations across the African continent have become rusty that divided response is foreseeable.

As noted in a publication by Development Watch Centre in December, 2023 there had been systematic neglect of D.R Congo and Sudan by the international community because of the spotlight to Ukraine and Gaza. The call was on African Union to reign in on the situation. An approach has to be devised by the Commission to foresee protection of the vulnerable communities whose hope is lingering. The conflict in D.R Congo is telling of the underlying status of the governance fabric on the continent. It rather comes off as shameful and indicting on the holistic leadership on the Africa continent that by the time such a conflict escalated to the United Nations Security Council, the basic interventions had been issued by regional blocs than continental.

Politics has always been rusty business on the African continent. The greatest gift for D.R Congo is going to be genuine extract of politicking from the soul searching process. Right now the world is divided on who to stand with. South Africa has taken to the international scene against Rwanda on accusations of funding M23 rebels whose activities have recently seen a takeover of major Eastern towns of D.R Congo. As such, the conversation has taken a greatly different trajectory for where it matters most – the safety of the citizens of D.R Congo. Interestingly, many countries on the UN Security Council came out steady on the condemnation of Rwanda. But where were they when D.R Congo needed their voice earlier before that – when alleged genocide motives were reported perpetrated by multilateral mining companies.

Such selective responses have been seen at such time after South Africa stood strong. But should it not have been a role of the African Union? Is the conflict so complex for the African Union? Or is it a case of interests? It goes without saying that in the past the African Union has tried to cease the conflicts with the recent one having commenced during an emergency AU seating recently on the 26th January, 2025. The sincere expectation is that the arrangements that will arise therefrom for the extended engagements will be forthcoming without the past biases. The people of D.R Congo deserve a clear-sighted African Union during this era of biased alliances.

China in 2021 advocated for the adoption of the Global Security Initiative for all countries, and in there, it laid some key highlights that would be important to consider as a means of achieving the end result of global peace. At the core of its call for diffusing tensions, it called for an outward outlook for the root causes of the conflict as a guide to engaging in meaningful dialogue among all parties on a resolution table. The concept paper is comprehensive and the African Union can perhaps embrace it to lay a framework for implementation, adapted to Africa’s context. Such will be the positive way of the never-ending conflicts for which, as history has showed, parties on reconciliation tables fail to face off with regarding the bottom standing root causes.

Alan Collins Mpewo is a Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre.

 

 

 

 

Why does history judge China as “a man more sinned against than sinning?”

Posted on By Abdurahim Ssemanda

Dear Edtor,

Reading from De Oratore book II chapter 9, the great Roman statesman and philosopher, Marcus Tullius Cicero discusses the importance of history in the education of an orator. Therein, Cicero regards history as “witness of the past, the light of truth, and the life of memory.” Following history therefore, and reading from an African’s mind who is an ardent follower and observer of China-Africa relations, it can logically be observed that China is a man more sinned against than sinning. By this article, I seek your company through the analytical journey provided by a recap of history whose end shall bring us to a consensus.

By drawing an analogy between the China, Taiwan and America issue alongside China-Africa relations issue, it is observable that China’s ever growing influence in Africa is a crucial factor currently taking a front seat towards explaining why China has potential enemies from the Western block.

It is worth noting that on 2nd February1972, the United States President, Richard Nixon visited China. It is this same visitation that resulted into the issuance of the 28th February Shanghai Communiqué. In this communiqué, it was in this communiqué where both countries agreed that; regardless of their social systems, they should conduct their relations on the principles of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states. They also agreed upon non-aggression against other states, non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence”.

Additionally, the Shanghai Communiqué which strengthened ties between the US and China both on paper and in foreign policy, it significantly paved a way for the signing of another important Communiqué between the US and China which further strengthened their relations. On 17th August 1982, both states were able to sign the Sino-US Joint Communiqué which is also known as the August 17 Communiqué. It was in this Communiqué where the United States pledged that “it does not seek to implement a long-term policy of selling arms to Taiwan.”

Moreover, the August 17 Communiqué was after the formal establishment of diplomatic ties between the US and China when the US recognized the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China on 1st January, 1979.

Today, all these Communiqués have been violated especially with USA’s interference in the internal affairs of China. For example, in September 2024, USA’s President, Joe Biden approved $567m USD as defense support to Taiwan. While the United States does not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, it is worth noting that the US remained Taipei’s most influential international backer and arms supplier. This ultimately contradicts with and violates the August 17 Communiqué’s principles. Unforgettably in April 2024, the US had approved billions of dollars in military aid for Taiwan as China increased military and political pressure on the island.

By following the footsteps of history, US’s actions seem to send a signal to China that it should give up on its ever growing influence in Africa or it rather faces internally sponsored unrests like the Taiwan factor. This is simply because China has indirectly used Africa to expose the weaknesses of the Western powers. Looking at the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) for instance, its achievements seem to have turned Africa into one of the exhibition grounds for unearthing the unbelievable realities. For example, China has ably proved to African countries that development is possible for all countries across the globe and through peaceful means. The support made by China to several developing African countries in form of foreign investment and funding projects, has not left these states the same.

The most intriguing part of China-Africa relations is that China has proved that all forms of developments can be witnessed without limits in Africa. For example, on 4th December 2023, China helped Egypt to launch its MISRSAT-2 satellite into the orbit from Jiuquan Satellite. This was meant to give boost to Egypt’s land and resource utilization, water conservancy, agriculture and other fields. This kind of support was preceded by the December 2019 launching of the first ever satellite in Ethiopia. Under the leadership of Her Excellency Sahle-Work Zewde, Ethiopia was able to launch its 70kg Multi-Spectral Remote Sensing Satellite, known as ETRSS-1 with support from Chinese government. This move also focused on accessing the necessary data on changes in climate and weather related issues which all aimed at improving forestry, natural resources protection as well as agriculture. Arguably, this was a signal to African countries that even on their continent, spaceship development is possible.

Critically observing the most previous September 2024 FOCAC summit, in a move to foster development on the African continent, President Xi said that “…China is ready to increase exchanges of governance experience with Africa, support all countries in exploring modernization paths befitting their national conditions, and help ensure equal rights and equal opportunities for all countries.” A mere mentioning of exploring modernization that befits African countries national condition, it further sets a huge difference between China and the West and it awakens a lot of African minds. For example, on 27th April 2023, the United States warned Uganda that it risked losing $400million USD in Washington’s annual support to HIV/Aids care treatment in relation to passing the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Of course, we later observed some visa restrictions imposed on some Ugandan officials by the US for the adoption of anti-gay law.

Weighing the two situations, the China-Africa and US-Africa relations, China exhibits a huge difference in its foreign policy which resonates with Africans. As a result, China’s popularity in Africa is a bad signal to the West which leaves them exposed since it has made the impossible possible and the unbelievable believable. In return, the internal unrests and tensions within China like the Taiwan issue communicate a lot on China’s influence in Africa, and why the communiqués in existence are violated. Even when China’s intentions in Africa are for the goodwill of the African continent, there is no way it can do well without exposing the West. As a result, enmity from the West is inevitable.

Ssemanda Abdurahim is a Research Fellow at the Sino-Uganda Research Centre

 

Trump’s Tariffs on Mexico, China and Canadian Products: Boom or Bust?

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

As of 1st February, 2025, the U.S. President, Donald .J. Trump announced tariffs on Mexican, Canadian and previously Chinese products as a means to usher in his so-called “Golden Age” for America (U.S.). These tariffs essentially place a 25% tax on imports from Canada and Mexico which is simply a deterrence against American manufacturers buying foreign raw materials in favour of American made products and by-products under the current president’s slogan of Making America Great Again.

However, such protectionism has often been problematic as it creates a situation where equally large consumers reciprocate said tariffs against a state that initially places them. This creates an environment where the global supply chain is strained by high production costs which provide a challenge to the end consumer who isn’t as willing to meet the inflated end cost.

Equally, it should be noted that, unlike China that can be perceived as an Eastern rival to the “Free World”, Canada and Mexico are longstanding allies of the United States with partnerships stretching back into the 60s, the most recent agreement being the US-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, signed in 2018 that fosters free trade amongst the three North American states.

Trump’s new wave of protectionism is therefore blatant abrasive action against long standing members and would equally be met with retaliatory measures by his country’s long standing partners.

North America aside, China, Trump’s original boogeyman has long accepted her place as the U.S’s main trade enemy and has built internal capacity to bolster her economy against external aggression. The main consumer of Chinese products is China herself. If not China, her major trade partners include ASEAN states comprising Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Brunei, Thailand, Myanmar, the Philippines, Cambodia, Singapore and Malaysia.

These nations provide a substantial market for Chinese manufacturing thus having minimal reliance on the West. EU sanctions(at the behest of the US) on Chinese EVs provide a significant impediment to Chinese trade with Europe but this has proven nit to limit Chinese trade which relies on a variety of trade partners like Germany and Hungary to sell a significant number of Chinese products to these respective states.

China has, therefore, essentially built resilience against America’s global protectionist net.

What does this portend for closer allies like Canada, Mexico and the E.U who are Trump’s next targets?

It can be inferred that many states and regional blocs will take retaliatory measures to protect their industrial base as well as significantly showing the American consumer that trade protectionism affects the entire planet through rising costs in products such as fertiliser for farmers, food products for the hospitality industry and increasing costs of mechanical equipment.  Americans are all too aware that rising living costs pushed them to the polls to vote in favour of Trump who promised a Golden Age for America…

Protectionism, though creates an insular mindset and rather usher in a Golden Age, creates an environment where trade partners feel agitated and equally resort to protecting their own economies.

Trump’s policy doesn’t seem to be aware of how interconnected global trade is. America cannot produce all that she consumes. This means that, even while the U.S is a net exporter of natural gas and oil, she is reliant on more affordable Canadian gas to keep the cost of heating affordable for the ordinary American.. The ordinary American who voted him into power on the premise of Making America Great Again.

On the other side of the pond, Trump’s protectionism has the effect of pushing the E.U more to the East.  European states have shown that they’re willing to take the pragmatic approach to make living affordable for their own populations. This includes reopening relations with Russia as well as warming up to Chinese trade.

It is in this very scenario that burning bridges with allies may most definitely make America fall flat on their faces with tariffs that can be seen as shortsighted. Even with supposed control of the Panama Canal that Trump is agitating for, various international seaways outside of America’s backyard require more collaboration and less aggressive action to make trade smoother and more effective for the entire world(developed world if you want to be more blunt).

Simply put, it is uncertain as to whether the recently imposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico will usher in a Golden Age for America, or create a façade of control that Trump postures to have which might be further from the truth.

Ernest Talwana is a research fellow at the Sino-Uganda Research Centre

President Trumps Aid Freeze is his gift to Africa: A lesson on Self-Reliance?

Posted on By Shemei Ndawula

I have recently learned  that when a United States of America agency funding an organisation tells it to stop working, it means exactly that. If the funding goes towards electricity or travel expenses, you are expected to turn off the lights and ground all the vehicles. I have a close friend in Kampala working at a John Hopkins University funded project who has been at home for close to a week now because of an executive order President Donald Trump signed last week.

Last week, on January 24th the US Department of State put a stop to almost all foreign aid while the new government initiates a review of these projects. This means most of the staff who where working on these projects are (at least for the duration of the review) effectively unemployed. The complication with this is that the majority of US funded projects in Africa are in the sectors of Public Health. Halting so many of these projects means that there will be real impact to the ordinary Ugandans and the shockwaves of these decisions will be felt throughout the health sector of the country.

It is estimated that the PEPFAR project alone impacts the lives of over 24 million people in the global south. This is not to mention the thousands of projects directly under USAID funding. This is perhaps the most brutal wake up call African governments could receive from the newly elected American president. This wake up call puts African nationals at a very important precipice of their development where they have to choose whether to keep relying on handouts and “Charity” from the west or pick themselves up by the bootstraps and develop their own capacity.

Indeed this decision has already been made for them because while the Makerere Infectious Diseases Initiative (IDI) in Kampala is drafting “stay at home” letters for its employees, the Chinese funded and built African Union Center for Disease Control(CDC) in Addis Ababa is operating smoothly. While many have in the past few years criticized African governments for taking Chinese loans calling these loans “exploitative”, history has proven that this is a sound economical structure for development because both parties emerge as partners in development with a win-win situation instead of recipients of charity. Partnership in development preserves mutual respect and accountability while charity keeps us in a perpetual circle of foreign influence because benevolence can always be retracted.

Interestingly the United States Mission in Uganda has for the past year used the tagline “real help not loans”. This is probably a subtle diplomatic jibe at the Chinese foreign policy structure that funnels a significant part of their development aid to Africans through infrastructure loans. However most of the loans provided by the People’s Republic of China are consensual loans which for he most part pay for themselves. For example road tolls are still being collected at the Entebbe expressway to cover the Chinese loan acquired to build the road after which all the money collected shall go towards national development.

In hindsight the real help(charity) as envisioned by the United States Mission in Uganda turns out to be an unsustainable development model because for the past 60 years it’s proven to be a panacea of the symptoms of underdevelopment without addressing the actual causes. This may explain why this year the mission changed it’s social media tagline to “Real Results, Real Impact” which is also a little ironic because one of the first impacts of the new administration was freezing funding of vital public healthcare and social welfare initiatives in the country.

But let us be honest, the real impact of this executive decision is the disruption of the flourishing NGO sector within Africa. African governments can; if they really want to, cover the deficit caused by lack of American funding for these vital healthcare projects. China has been showing them how to do this for decades now. The frontline victims of this freeze are the NGO workers like my friend who won’t be able to meet rent at the end of the month, or who’s children won’t be able to report to school at the start of the academic year because of salary delays for these three months and a possibility that their contracts won’t be renewed. The real victims are the government officers who won’t be going to the fancy capacity building workshops at the end of the month to sign for lucrative allowances.

This is definitely disruptive, especially to the fragile Ugandan middle class but definitely not disastrous and this is perhaps the best opportunity for African governments to realise that we are now living in a multipolar world and we need to get African solutions for African problems. Uganda was earlier on suspended from the AGOA initiative and the economy did not crumble. Key government figures have been sanctioned by the United States for decades but this has never truly affected government efficiency. President Trump has on a not so subtle way given African governments an opportunity to introspect on their national development and bilateral alliances and if we can use this period productively, Africa may emerge even stronger and more resilient from this aid freeze and the inevitable aid cuts even after the  review period.

Shemei Ndawula is a Senior Research Fellow at Development Watch Centre.

 

A Better Deal: Why Africa is Turning to China for Development

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

Across historical times, empires that sought world domination eventually met with decline and decay. The American Empire in particular and Western countries in general are currently undergoing a gradual erosion of influence, power, and stability. Left to their own devices, blind and deaf to the calls for reform in how they interact with the rest of the world from the global south, the West/America is teetering in the footsteps of empires of yore – the Roman, the Ottoman, and the British empires. Having enjoyed global prominence for much of the 20th and 21st centuries, America is entering a period of decline.

The warning signs of decline are as clear. Unprecedented political polarization, widening economic inequality, crumbling infrastructure, rising national debt, and a polarized media landscape at home.

On the world stage, we are contesting America’s global dominance. China, which identifies with our “global southern interests,” has emerged as a formidable competitor, outpacing the United States. Whether in advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, or infrastructure development, China is dwarfing America. China’s Belt and Road Initiative exemplifies its ability to expand its influence globally, particularly in Africa, Asia, parts of Europe, and Latin America. Yes, even Europeans who are supposed to be cousins of the Americans in global politics are now preferring to buy goods like electric cars from China, because it is excellent and cheap.

America’s global leadership is waning on many fronts. It is likely to lose the war in Ukraine (Yes, it is its war against Russia). It lost the war in Afghanistan. It lost the war in Libya. America has burnt its taxpayers’ money on countless senseless wars and lost. But the most fatal war it is losing is the war for hearts and minds. More African/global southern countries/people are turning East for development support and comradeship in international relations.

We in the developing world did not create the international geopolitical vacuum which China is beginning to occupy. By departing from globally unifying interests and selfishly pursuing a self-righteous and self-destructive global order where it has the only and last say, America surrendered its comradeship with the nations of the world to the more self-effacing China, which promises and practices peaceful co-existence and shared development.

The relationship between Africa and China has evolved significantly over the past two decades, presenting a range of development opportunities for African nations. Africa is the world’s last most underdeveloped, poorest continent. We urgently need to transform from being agrarian economies to becoming modern, industrial nations. China has heeded our call and emerged as a dominant player in infrastructure investment across Africa. It is now narrowing a critical annual infrastructure investment gap of about USD 50 billion. Chinese firms have flocked to Africa, financing and constructing roads, railways, dams, airports, and establishing industrial parks. These are investments critical to economic growth.

In stark contrast, American investments in African infrastructure and manufacturing are significantly going lower with every passing year. The United States Department of State recently struck off Rwanda from the list of AGOA, implying Rwanda can no longer export goods to the United States tax-free. The cause of this drastic decision was that Rwanda decided to develop its domestic textile industry thus proscribing importation of second-hand clothes from America.  If indeed the United States was interested in the structural transformation of such a small, poor country like Rwanda, why would it be ruthlessly against developing its small textile factories?

Instead, America’s brazen self-righteousness is focused on decreeing governance and institutional frameworks around the world. It doesn’t matter what problem you’re dealing with; America knows it can be solved if you govern yourself according to its prescriptions and its model. No context, no questions. This is the hubris that China has emerged to challenge, not by force but by providing an alternative for the world’s developing countries.

China’s approach to investment in Africa is also characterized by a focus on long-term partnerships that drive industrialization and capacity building. Development is a long-term process. It requires sustained support no matter the circumstances. This makes China a reliable partner for developing countries because it does not intervene in the political governance of these nations. And it does not put conditions on its investments dependent on how these countries are governed. This is something America failed to recognise. But switching how it supports African governments based on occasional disagreements with laws passed by African parliaments or how elections are managed or how presidents behave, etc, America fails to be a long-term reliable partner on the development journey of African nations. China’s willingness to commit to long-term projects without imposing immediate political conditions stands in stark contrast to American strategies that often favour short-term results or regime changes when “American expectations” are not met.

It is not difficult to see why African states are going to cast their lot with China for a long time to come. China has positioned itself as a key player in Africa’s development journey. On the other hand, America has refused to hear us out. And is diving head-first into its global decline and decay.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.