&w=3840&q=100)
Egypt's new capital city to be built, operated by Chinese construction firm
Egypt is constructing a new administrative capital (NAC), located approximately 45 kilometres east of Cairo, to alleviate the congestion and pollution of the current capital. This ambitious project, part of Egypt's Vision 2030, aims to house over six million people and serve as the country's new political and administrative hub.
Spanning 700 square kilometres, the NAC includes a $3.8 billion CBD featuring 10 office towers, five residential skyscrapers, and four hotels. Its centrepiece is the 385.8-metre Iconic Tower, now the tallest building in Africa. The district will also include supporting infrastructure and smart city features.
CSCEC's newly expanded role will go beyond construction. Through a joint venture called Horizon Operations Management (Egypt) Co Ltd, the company will oversee services such as property management, utilities, public cleaning, security, green space maintenance, and environmental monitoring. This marks a shift toward the build-operate-maintain model that Chinese firms are increasingly adopting in infrastructure projects across Africa.
14 ministries already moved to Egypt's NAC
Egypt has already started moving government operations to the new city. As of May 2023, 14 ministries and other state bodies had relocated. President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi inaugurated the NAC as the seat of government on 2 April 2024, shortly after the start of his third term.
China's role in the project also includes significant financing. Around 85 per cent of the CBD's funding comes from Chinese lenders, including a $2.2 billion loan from a consortium led by China Exim Bank. In addition, Egypt's Arab Contractors Company and CSCEC have formed a joint venture to collaborate on further projects across the continent.
Capital city vs administrative capital
A capital city typically serves as the centre of governance and is symbolic of national identity. It usually hosts the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, along with being a cultural or economic hub.
An administrative capital, by contrast, is where the day-to-day functions of government are carried out, such as housing ministries, agencies, and civil services. In some countries, this is a separate city from the official or historical capital.
South Africa, for instance, has three capitals: Pretoria (administrative), Cape Town (legislative), and Bloemfontein (judicial). Malaysia relocated its administrative capital from Kuala Lumpur to Putrajaya in the 1990s, while Kuala Lumpur remains the national capital.
New smart capital signals strategic shift
Egypt is following a similar model. While Cairo will remain the capital in name, the country is relocating its core government functions, including ministries and public administration, to the newly built New Administrative Capital.
The New Administrative Capital is designed as a smart city, with technology integrated into public services and infrastructure. Its development also reflects Egypt's economic ties with China, aligning with Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
9 minutes ago
- News18
SCO Summit: India, Pakistan And The Curious Case Of Missing Fingers
How Defence Minister Rajnath Singh's SCO gambit is a case of a Bharat rising confidently, self-assuredly and surefootedly Not every agreement inked from a position of strength translates into strategic triumph. The 1971 war is a telling reminder. Bharat's decisive victory split Pakistan, created Bangladesh, and saw 93,000 Pakistani soldiers surrendering in Dhaka—one of the most humiliating defeats in modern military history. Yet, just months later, the Simla Agreement of 1972 exposed how battlefield gains could be squandered at the diplomatic table. Despite explicit warnings from then RAW chief RN Kao to 'count her fingers" after shaking hands with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Mrs Indira Gandhi fell for his charm, unilaterally agreeing to release the Pakistani prisoners without even securing the return of Indian soldiers languishing in Pakistani jails. If all treaties signed from a point of strength are not success stories, then all treaties not signed aren't failures either. Last week, when Defence Minister Rajnath Singh refused to sign the SCO's joint statement on countering terrorism, he not only safeguarded Bharat's core security interests but also offered a glimpse of a country willing to stand firm—alone if necessary—in pursuit of its national priorities. The Defence Minister's conduct at the SCO summit reflects a growing confidence, maturity, and self-assuredness of the country while dealing with global powers. Unlike in the past, when New Delhi would have been tempted to make a compromise for the sake of 'consensus" or 'regional solidarity", today's Bharat doesn't mind walking that extra mile on treacherous terrains if the country's long-term interest so demands. The SCO draft statement was a watered-down document that, with Chinese collusion, sought to downplay Pakistan's terror connections. It also refused to acknowledge, far less condemn, Islamabad's sinister role in not just waging but also spreading global jihad. What particularly irked New Delhi was the refusal to give the dastardly Pahalgam attack a place in the draft statement. For Bharat—having borne the brunt of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism for decades—any endorsement of such a document would have compromised its core security interests. More so in the wake of the much successful Operation Sindoor, where Bharat drew for Pakistan—and the world—a new Lakshman Rekha on terrorism. Critics argue that Bharat should reconsider its engagement with institutions like the SCO, given their internal dynamics and frequent tilt against Bharat's interests. But there is a compelling counterpoint: Bharat's very participation forces these blocs to confront their inconsistencies. By attending and then refusing to endorse a flawed document, Bharat highlighted the SCO's duplicity on terrorism. New Delhi's presence gives the SCO a democratic legitimacy, especially when most of its member states lack genuine democratic credentials. At the same time, it does moderate the innate anti-Bharat tendencies of such institutions. Yet, the incident is also a reminder of the solitary nature of Bharat's fight against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. The West's support often stops at rhetoric. Washington's Bharat policy is still largely China-driven, focused on counterbalancing Beijing rather than addressing Islamabad's terror machinery. Europe, preoccupied with internal crises, besides being wary of disturbing its fragile equations with Islamic states, rarely ventures beyond routine condemnations, followed by an exhortation to both sides to return to talks. Russia, Bharat's time-tested partner and an SCO member, finds itself increasingly aligned with China, compelled by geopolitical realities and economic compulsions after the Ukraine war. Moscow's growing dependence on Beijing inevitably narrows the space for unequivocal support to New Delhi, especially on issues where Chinese and Pakistani interests converge. Perhaps the most sobering takeaway from the SCO saga is the fact that Bharat is, in many ways, alone in its fight against terrorism emanating from Pakistan. While Western capitals may occasionally put up rhetorical support in Bharat's favour, very few will be willing to shun, far less confront, Pakistan for its terror connections. However, the path ahead is not without challenges. Bharat will likely face more such moments where standing up for its core interests may mean standing alone. The international system is inherently transactional. Allies shift their positions, interests evolve, and moral arguments often give way to strategic calculations. This reality makes it imperative for Bharat to continue diversifying its partnerships—deepening ties not just with the Quad countries but also with nations in Europe, ASEAN, Africa, and the Middle East. Simultaneously, Bharat must persist in exposing Pakistan's duplicity on terror at every available forum, denying Islamabad the international space it needs to whitewash its record. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that Bharat's conduct at the SCO summit reflects the case of a confident, self-assured, and surefooted nation. Yes, there is this concern of finding itself isolated on the international platform, but one needs to see it in the larger context of Bharat rising at an unprecedented pace and scale—a pace and scale that seem to be unnerving its friends and foes alike. The next couple of decades will be critical. As Bharat continues its unprecedented economic and geopolitical ascent, it will inevitably unsettle entrenched interests, both among rivals and even some partners. How deftly Bharat navigates this phase—balancing assertion with strategic partnerships, principle with pragmatism—will determine how swiftly it cements its place as a global power. The good thing is, as Rajnath Singh's resolute stance at the SCO shows, Naya Bharat not just counts the fingers after shaking hands with other powers; it has also started making them accountable if some of the fingers go missing after the handshake! About the Author Utpal Kumar Utpal Kumar is Opinion Editor, News18 and Firstpost. He can be reached at He tweets @utpal_kumar1 First Published:
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Delhi HC clears Nilkamal JV to sell stella brand cooktops
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Delhi High Court has allowed Cambro-Nilkamal , a joint venture of Nilkamal Ltd , to sell induction cooktops under the brand name Stella, Stelladexin and other similar a 2024 interim injunction order, Justice Amit Bansal said that the balance of convenience is in favour of Cambro-Nilkamal as grant of an interim injunction would prevent them from using the Stella marks, which have been used by Chinese firm Stella Industrial Co Ltd in India since the other hand, grant of interim injunction would create the monopoly in favour of Products and Ideas (India), which only imports the goods bearing the Stella Marks from Stella Industrial, it said, while vacating its last year's order favouring the and Ideas, a company dealing in commercial kitchen and bakery equipment in India, was selling commercial induction cooktops under the brand name Stelladexin. The Stelladexin mark was adopted by Stella Industrial Co, which had allowed Products and Ideas to use the brand name and authorised it to register the said court noted that just like Products and Ideas, the Nilkamal joint venture was also importing goods from the Chinese company through its authorised distributors and selling the same in India and the goods sold by the joint venture were genuine and original products of the Chinese company, imported and resold with full authorisation from Stella Industrial.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
33 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Foxconn recalls staff from India, iPhone 17 production may be hit
In a blow to Apple's India expansion plans, Foxconn Technology Group has asked its Chinese engineers and technicians to return home from its iPhone factories in India. This move is likely to impact the production timeline of the iPhone 17 lineup, expected to be unveiled in mid-September 2025. Sources indicate that Foxconn—previously preparing for a new assembly unit—may have made this decision following a directive from the Chinese government. This also comes at a time when China is reportedly delaying the clearance of critical smartphone manufacturing equipment needed to make the new iPhone models in India. The delay could hinder the training of the local workforce and slow the transfer of manufacturing technology from China to India, potentially increasing production costs. An Apple spokesperson did not respond to queries from Business Standard by the time of going to press. Interestingly, Foxconn had been planning to hire 1,000 additional local employees in India by mid-July, adding to its current workforce of around 40,000, according to a South India-based industry source. Industry experts said the company may consider recruiting engineers from Vietnam to replace the Chinese staff. The development is seen as a protectionist move by Beijing aimed at preventing manufacturers from shifting production out of China, as it also restricts technology transfers and equipment exports. When asked about the issue, a senior official from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) said, 'We don't see any problem. Their technicians come from China and Taiwan regularly. We also have enough trained manpower. Many companies have also started manufacturing machines locally. At most, there may be some disruption for a month.' Earlier in the day, Bloomberg reported that Foxconn had asked hundreds of Chinese engineers and technicians to return home from its iPhone plants in India. Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook has previously praised the skill and efficiency of Chinese assembly workers, stating that it was not just cost advantages but their expertise that led to the concentration of Apple's production in China. Apple is expected to release four models in its 2025 lineup: the iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, iPhone 17 Pro Max, and a new variant, the iPhone 17 'Air'. China's decision to recall staff could deal a significant blow to Apple's target of producing iPhones worth $40 billion in India by the end of FY26. This production was intended to serve 80 per cent of US demand and 100 per cent of India's growing domestic demand. Of the $40 billion target, export markets are expected to contribute $32–35 billion, while the domestic market accounts for an estimated $5–8 billion. While Foxconn continues to manufacture most iPhones in China, it has built up significant assembly operations in India in recent years. The company had deployed a large number of experienced Chinese engineers to accelerate its expansion, the Bloomberg report added.
