‘KatKot' chocolate and ‘Ugarit Cola': What life in Syria was like under US sanctions
Syria
fell. Political prisoners were freed, exiled citizens reunited with their families and heartbroken mothers were able to have closure, whether hugging their children again or accepting their loss after years of vanishing into thin air. The collective glee wave that burst in the country was enough to illuminate the world. Syrians who hadn't seen a good day for many years could finally dare to hope.
Last week brought another turning point for the country
as Donald Trump announced the lifting of long-imposed US sanctions on Syria
. Those sanctions that were supposed to punish the previous government for terror-related actions ended up punishing the Syrians, choking the last bit of air they had. All while
Bashar al-Assad
and his family lived a life of indulgence before running away with millions of dollars to Russia.
The sanctions were imposed in the 1970s, long before the war. I used to hear stories from my parents about how life necessities like tissues or diapers were limited to poor quality local production, or smuggled from neighbouring countries like Lebanon. By the time I moved to live in Syria in 2003, things had improved. Syrians also got used to working around the sanctions. No McDonald's or Starbucks? No problem, we love our Chicken Shawarma sandwiches and cardamom-spiced coffee. No Kitkat or Coca Cola? We have KatKot and Ugarit Cola. No ATM machines? Cash is the king, always!
[
Celebrations in Damascus after Donald Trump's sudden announcement of end to sanctions on Syria
Opens in new window
]
Studying Information Technology Engineering in Syria put me at the core of the technology sanctions – software companies, mainly developed by American companies such as Apple and Microsoft, were not allowed to exist or trade in Syria. A whole commercial neighbourhood in Damascus called Albahsa was dedicated to selling pirated software, which my colleagues and I used for studying and working. Most of the internet was out of reach, whether by the government for political reasons, or by America for sanctions, so we used a virtual private network (VPN) that could change our location from Syria to anywhere else and allow us access.
READ MORE
Even after travelling abroad, the sanctions followed me everywhere. I was banned from taking a technical exam for an Oracle certificate after paying and studying for months because the website failed to mention the list of sanctioned countries. I was asked to leave the exam centre in Cairo after I showed my Syrian passport with my only valid Egyptian tourist visa back then. Another time, I wasn't eligible for a Google scholarship. This time, Syria was mentioned clearly on the website.
In a job interview, a white man explained to me the role of a compliance data analyst and how I would need to detect and stop unauthorised user access from sanctioned countries. 'Do you understand what I mean?' He said in a serious tone.
I locked eyes with him, wondering if he had read my resume at all.
'Of course! I'm from Syria. I know exactly what you mean.'
Needless to say, the interview didn't go much further after the awkwardness I created by declaring my Syrian identity.
But when I finally got a job offer from an American company in Dublin, I had to undergo an extra background security check. Through a mandatory training session for all employees, I learned how I'm not allowed to work with anyone in Syria (or the other countries on that sanctioned list).
All of this was tolerable, to me and other Syrians, but sanctions didn't stop. It felt like the more ways we learned to survive the sanctions regime, the more creative ways it found to punish us.
Medicine was limited or out of reach. Cancer treatments were unavailable. Donations were hard to deliver. Financial transactions were not allowed. The currency value was crashing by the day, and nothing was affordable any more.
Syrians came together, building their own networks of transactions. In order to send money to Syria, you'd have to find someone inside willing to give that money; in return, you need to pay someone connected to that person outside Syria in euro or US dollars. Medicine was sent through the same network of friends and relatives, sometimes through strangers on social media who were willing to take urgent items to the country. War was one thing, but the sanctions were like the nasty laughter of the bully kid after they trip you over.
As I watched Trump take credit for our bright future, I couldn't help but think of all the times I was stopped for 'random' security checks when travelling to the United States during my work with Unicef.
I was in New York in 2016 when Trump was running for president, when he said Syrians would be too cold in the US after living all their lives in the desert. I was in the US when he was elected and later ordered a ban on Syrians, among other nationalities, from entering the country. I was there waiting desperately for my husband, who was flying from Ireland to meet me for an emergency. Not knowing if he would be granted entry was an unnecessary stress. Luckily, he was saved by the exemption of holding a UN employee dependent visa.
I think of that quote from the Palestinian poet Gassan Kanafani:
'They steal your bread, then give you a crumb of it ...
Then they demand you to thank them for their generosity ...
O their audacity!'
Syrians are still celebrating and dancing again like last December, only this time with American flags and pictures of Trump. But no one really cares about Trump. Syrians are relieved that the sanctions are over and can now live without worrying about their daily bread or electricity. It still amuses me how those people, my people, can find joy, and how this country of layered tragedies can still find hope and hold tight to it.
Suad Aldarra's memoir, I Don't Want to Talk About Home, was published in 2022
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on the European dash to Washington: pulling the emergency cord
Three days after Donald Trump's calamitous encounter with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, the sight of a hastily assembled delegation of European political heavyweights arriving at the White House underlined how grave the consequences could be. Rarely has a single presidential performance so unsettled allies while emboldening an adversary. The Americans may have intended the summit to signal progress towards ending the war in Ukraine. Instead, it left Europe scrambling to limit the damage. The source of alarm is obvious. Trump reversed his recent insistence that any peace process must begin with a ceasefire. He also appeared willing to entertain Putin's demand that Kyiv surrender territory it currently controls. To many, this looked like capitulation to Russian aggression and a betrayal of Ukraine. Monday's emergency transatlantic mission brought Volodymyr Zelenskiy to Washington flanked by some of the most senior figures in European politics. Their presence was designed both to bolster the Ukrainian president and press Trump to reaffirm positions that had been cast aside in Anchorage. Chief among these was the need for credible and durable security guarantees for Ukraine, without which any settlement would simply invite future Russian aggression. European leaders who reconvened again yesterday will have been aware that the vague Anerican assurances they received are not worth very much. But they will have been somewhat reassured that principles so recklessly discarded were at least partially restored. The price for this modest success was an unedifying spectacle of European politicians flattering and fawning over a president who appears to relish the rituals of deference more than the responsibilities of leadership. READ MORE All the same concerns remain, though. Trump had, in recent months, inched towards a more considered stance on Ukraine. That he could be swayed so abruptly by Putin confirms European fears about his longstanding admiration – bordering on obsequiousness – for the Russian leader. The path ahead is now uncertain. The Kremlin responded to the Washington meeting with a position paper that repeated the aggressive demands that accompanied the full-scale invasion in 2022. Trump believes he can engineer a direct meeting between Putin and Zelenskiy. Perhaps he can, though it is far from clear that the Russian would countenance such optics with a man he has so persistently sought to delegitimise. For now, the war grinds on with contining airstrikes on civilian targets, and Kyiv's stretched resources facing a slow but relentless Russian advance in the east. By drawing Trump into his worldview, Putin has deflected pressure for harsher sanctions, unsetttled European capitals and undermined Ukrainian morale. He has reason to view the week's work as a strategic success.
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
Trump's deal-making to end the Ukraine war is a sick charade
Let's be brutally honest about recent events. Donald Trump is – and is behaving like – an unpredictable, selfish ignoramus. He is constantly mollycoddled by a group of sycophants – whether domestic or international – to prevent him from crashing the car. To recap, he pronounced solemnly that unless there was an immediate ceasefire, Vladimir Putin 's Russia would itself face severe sanctions. He threatened India with sanctions for continued purchase of Russian oil. He stated that there had to be a ceasefire ahead of any meaningful negotiations. All this was done to show that he was squaring up to Putin. All a pretence. He rolled out the red carpet in Alaska for Putin and within hours withdrew publicly any demand for a ceasefire. Putin was freed to continue his murderous barrage of Ukrainian civilian targets. But the meeting was described as 'productive'. The body language was very friendly. Strangely, it now became up to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy to do a deal with Putin. The deal would involve a 'land swap'. The war, apparently, could go on until Zelenskiy offered Putin unspecified slices of Ukraine's sovereign territory. Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he and Putin had discussed land swaps and security guarantees for Ukraine and had 'largely agreed'. READ MORE He invited Zelenskiy to Washington to outline these new US positions. Because of their collective fear that Trump was about to impose a Putin-designed peace on Ukraine, European allies of Zelenskiy engaged in feverish diplomacy and statement-making. They insisted that Ukraine had to be party to any negotiations leading to any deal to end Putin's murderous war. Eventually, the European leaders came up with the idea that they would physically accompany Zelenskiy to the White House to prevent any repetition of the disgraceful and cowardly Oval Office mauling to which he was subjected by Trump and JD Vance 5½ months earlier. The result was a nervous, contrived engagement with the media in which the Europeans and Zelenskiy all engaged in sycophantic head-nodding and dressed up all their comments as being endorsements of carefully chosen shards of Trump's shifting opinions. The scene was vaguely resonant of medieval courtiers dealing with an unpredictable, irascible king. It had to pass off with no hint of disagreement of any kind. Now Trump has apparently settled on a process that Putin and Zelenskiy must meet on a bilateral basis – presumably without a prior ceasefire – and exchange incompatible demands. This will be done in the absence of the idiot-king. Then there should be what Trump refers to as a 'trilat' – a meeting which might end the war, with Trump preparing to accept the Nobel peace prize for which he has already been nominated by the great international pacifist, Binyamin Netanyahu . That appears to be the 'deal' in Trump's mind. Frankly, all this is a sick charade. Zelenskiy is constitutionally prohibited from agreeing to a land swap or surrender of Ukraine's territory. He cannot do so. The most that could be done is some agreement to put a peace deal to the people of Ukraine in some form of referendum or plebiscite. Ukraine cannot agree to Russian demands that it abandon the portion of Donetsk which it still holds and has heavily fortified as a defensive bulwark against renewed Russian aggression. Nor can Zelenskiy credibly demand that his army continue to bravely defend those lands against the ongoing murderous Russian onslaught if they sense that their sacrifices will be thrown away at a conference table presided over by Trump. Any negotiations along those lines would simply destroy the eminently expendable Ukrainian president. Zelenskiy, for his part, must face up to the reality that Ukraine does not have the resources, capacity or the allies to win back the lands Russia has seized . Crimea is not going to revert to Ukrainian control. Crimea, Russia 's window on the Black Sea, was Russian territory until 1954 when it was assigned to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic for purely internal USSR political convenience. All now depends on the extent, depth and credibility of the security guarantees that the West can deliver for Ukraine if a deal is done on the basis of the current potential ceasefire line. Putin probably calculates that he may be able to do a deal that still allows the Kremlin to manipulate Ukrainian democratic politics and elections into the future, as it has done in the past. It has also meddled in a similar way in countries such as Moldova and Romania. While Ukraine will not join Nato, the West owes it security guarantees similar to Article 5 of the Nato treaty and the arms to defend itself. The EU must be willing to give Ukraine European Economic Area status as soon as possible. Trump simply cannot be trusted. He despises Zelenskiy and is in thrall to Putin. The summit in Washington had all the substance of a late-night game of charades at the court of King Donald.
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
US government investment in Intel looks bad for Leixlip
Intel is getting the Donald Trump treatment. Two weeks ago, the president of the United States called for the resignation of Lip-Bu Tan , the recently appointed chief executive of America's flagship microchip maker. 'The CEO of INTEL is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately. There is no other solution to this problem,' he blasted on his Truth Social account. The reason being the connections of Tan – a US citizen born in Malaysia – to China, including the sale of chip design products to a Chinese military university by one of his businesses, Cadence. The writing was on the wall for Tan, but four days later he was invited to the White House. All talk of his resignation evaporated and was replaced by the suggestion that the US government would take a direct stake in Intel as it tries to reinvent itself, having missed out on the boom in chips to power artificial intelligence. Depending on where you stand on Trump, the proposal is either further evidence of his business acumen and deal-making skills or more proof of his erratic temperament and general unsuitability for office. READ MORE Few details have emerged of the proposed investment, but Intel shares – which have lost half their value over the past couple of years – are up strongly on the news. It's hard to gauge what the consequences of the investment would be for Intel's Irish operation in Leixlip, which seems to have escaped the worst of the cost-cutting measures introduced by Tan when he took over in March (although it was reported in July that almost 200 mandatory redundancies would be implemented this year at the Leixlip plant). [ Trump administration in talks to take 10% stake in Intel Opens in new window ] The best guide is the deal that Trump made to allow Japan's Nippon Steel take over US Steel, the iconic American steelmaker. Trump insisted on the federal government getting a so-called golden share, which gives it the right to appoint an independent director and also a veto over some investment decisions. These include the transfer of production and jobs outside of the US as well as 'certain decisions on closure or idling of US Steel's existing US manufacturing facilities, trade, labour and sourcing outside of the United States'. There are cosmetic measures such as keeping the name US Steel, but the import of the agreement is clear. It is to safeguard US jobs and maintain domestic capacity in a strategic industry in the interest of national security. It is hard to see how a significant investment in Intel – which is also being promoted on national security grounds – could come without similar strings attached, which in turn would have to militate against significant new investment in Leixlip. If the rationale for the US government taking a significant stake in Intel is to ensure that the country boosts domestic chip-making capacity, why put money into Ireland? The ability of Intel to resist Trump's overture – even if it wanted to – is limited. The company is haemorrhaging cash and before Tan's appointment was contemplating splitting off its chip-making arm to focus on chip design. This is the model adopted by more successful rivals who have wiped it eye on AI chips. Tan seems committed to staying in the chip-making business although he has made this contingent on finding customers for its two latest chip-manufacturing processes known as 18A and 14A. Both processes are based in domestic plants in Oregon and Arizona, which received billions of dollars' worth of investment under the Chips Act brought in by the Biden administration. The Act aimed to bolster domestic chip manufacturing. Leixlip has been touted as a possible site for 18A manufacturing but there does not seem to be any progress in that regard. To date, Intel has failed to find enough third-party customers for its new manufacturing processes and remains its own biggest customer. Unless it can find more customers, its business model is simply not viable, hence the weakness of its share price over the past two years. The presumption is that once the US government is on board as a shareholder – a 10 per cent stake worth about €10 billion has been touted – Trump will pressurise other US companies such as Apple and Qualcomm to become customers of Intel. They currently source chips from manufacturers in Japan and Taiwan. The jump in Intel's share price and the decision by Softbank to take a 2 per cent stake in the business on Monday reflects the obvious short-term benefits of the Trump administration bullying other US firms to become its customers. More red-blooded capitalists have warned that the US will fall into the nationalisation trap whereby a government decision to prop up an uncompetitive national champion weakens the economy long term. But if things continue to unfold in this way, it looks likely that Intel's Leixlip plant will, at best, be left to wither on the vine as future investment is focused on boosting manufacturing capacity in the US. Alternatively, Trump could change his mind in the morning.
