EU to lift all economic sanctions on Syria
EU to lift all economic sanctions on Syria
Syria's foreign minister Asaad al-Shaibani says the decision shows an "international will" to support Damascus. Photo: AFP
EU countries agreed on Tuesday to lift all their remaining economic sanctions on Syria in a bid to help the war-torn country recover after the ouster of Bashar al-Assad.
"Today, we took the decision to lift our economic sanctions on Syria," the EU's top diplomat Kaja Kallas posted on X after a meeting of the bloc's foreign ministers in Brussels.
"We want to help the Syrian people rebuild a new, inclusive and peaceful Syria," she said.
The move from the European Union comes after US President Donald Trump announced last week that Washington was lifting its sanctions against Syria.
The country's new rulers have been clamouring for relief from the crushing international punishment imposed after Assad's crackdown on opponents spiralled into civil war.
EU diplomats said the agreement should see the lifting of sanctions cutting Syrian banks off from the global system and freezing central bank assets.
But diplomats said the bloc intended to impose new individual sanctions on those responsible for stirring ethnic tensions, following deadly attacks targeting the Alawite minority.
Other measures targeting the Assad regime and prohibiting the sale of weapons or equipment that could be used to repress civilians are set to remain in place.
Syria's foreign minister Asaad al-Shaibani said after the EU decision that the lifting of the economic sanctions showed an "international will" to support Damascus.
Shaibani added that "the Syrian people today have a very important and historic opportunity to rebuild their country."
The latest move from the EU comes after it took a first step in February of suspending some sanctions on key Syrian economic sectors.
Officials said those measures could be reimposed if Syria's new leaders break promises to respect the rights of minorities and move towards democracy. (AFP)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTHK
5 hours ago
- RTHK
HK stocks end down amid tariff uncertainty in courts
HK stocks end down amid tariff uncertainty in courts The Hang Seng Index lost 283.61 points, or 1.2 percent, to end trading for the day and week at 23,289.77. File photo: AFP Most Asian shares ended down on Friday after a US appeal court gave Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs a temporary reprieve, fanning uncertainty a day after judges had ruled the controversial measures were unconstitutional. In Hong Kong, the benchmark Hang Seng Index shed 283.61 points, or 1.2 percent, to end trading for the day and week at 23,289.77. The Hang Seng China Enterprises Index fell 1.49 percent to end at 8,432.02 while the Hang Seng Tech Index fell 2.48 percent to end at 5,170.43 Across the border, mainland Chinese stocks closed lower, with the benchmark Shanghai Composite Index down 0.47 percent to 3,347.49. The Shenzhen Component Index closed 0.85 percent lower at 10,040.62. The combined turnover of these two indices stood at 1.14 trillion yuan, down from 1.19 trillion yuan on Thursday. Shares related to pork, banking and innovative medicine led the gains, while those in the sectors of gold, humanoid robots and consumer electronics were among the biggest losers. The ChiNext Index, tracking China's Nasdaq-style board of growth enterprises, lost 0.96 percent to close at 1,993.19. Tokyo was off more than 1 percent, while Shanghai, Seoul, Manila, Mumbai and Bangkok also sank. Sydney and Wellington edged up with London, Paris and Frankfurt. The losses reversed a rally across world markets the previous day as analysts warned that the legal wrangling could compound volatility and throw trade talks between Washington and other governments. While the tariffs have been stalled and are set to go through the courts – and possibly end up at the Supreme Court – there are expectations that the US president will find other means to implement them. The US Court of International Trade ruling on Wednesday barred most of the tariffs announced since Trump took office, saying that he had overstepped his authority – a decision he labelled "horrible" and should be "quickly and decisively" reversed for good. A separate ruling by a federal district judge in Washington, DC, also found some levies unlawful as well, giving the administration 14 days to appeal. National Australia Bank's Rodrigo Catril said after the appeal court decision that "Trump's trade agenda remains alive and kicking with the legal battle adding yet another layer of uncertainty". He added that the judges could still rule against the White House. "But it is probably worth emphasising that the president has other avenues to impose tariffs, so our view here is that the court case is just another layer of uncertainty/complication but it does not derail Trump's tariff agenda," Catril said. "The ongoing shift in US trade policy is creating a cloud of uncertainty and now the legal battles are making the outlook even cloudier. "The only thing that looks more certain is more uncertainty, which is set to lead to a further pullback in investment decision and hiring." Meanwhile, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News that negotiations with China were "a bit stalled" and Trump might need to speak to President Xi Jinping, weeks after the economic superpowers agreed a detente in their trade war. He added that "given the magnitude of the talks, given the complexity, that this is going to require both leaders to weigh in with each other". (AFP/Xinhua)
RTHK
7 hours ago
- RTHK
Chip design firm Synopsys puts stop to Chinese sales
Chip design firm Synopsys puts stop to Chinese sales Synopsys says it is blocking sales and fulfillment in China and halting new orders until it receives further clarification. File photo: AFP American semiconductor design software firm Synopsys has told staff in China to halt services and sales in the country and stop taking new orders to comply with new US export restrictions, according to an internal letter. The United States has ordered a broad swathe of companies to stop shipping goods to China without a license and revoked licenses already granted to certain suppliers, people familiar with the matter have said. Products affected include design software and chemicals for semiconductors, they said. Synopsys on Thursday suspended its annual and quarterly forecasts after it received a letter from the Bureau of Industry and Security of the US Department of Commerce, informing it of new export restrictions related to China. The internal letter sent to staff in China on Friday said "based on our initial interpretation, these new restrictions broadly prohibit the sales of our products and services in China and are effective as of May 29." To ensure compliance, Synopsys said it was blocking sales and fulfillment in China and halting new orders until it receives further clarification. The measures affect all customers in China, including employees of global customers working at sites in China and Chinese military users wherever they are located, the letter added. The steps Synopsys is taking in light of the new restrictions have not been previously reported. Synopsys did not immediately reply to a request for comment. Alongside Cadence and Siemens EDA, Synopsys is among the top three companies that dominate electronic design automation (EDA) software that chipmakers can use to design semiconductors used in everything from smartphones to computers and cars. Restricting Chinese firms' access to EDA tools would be a big blow to the industry as Chinese chip design customers heavily rely on top-of-the-line US software. Synopsys, Cadence and Siemens' Mentor Graphics control more than 70 percent of China's EDA market, Xinhua reported in April. Chinese companies that have said they use Synopsys and Cadence software include design firm Brite Semiconductor, Zhuhai Jieli and semiconductor IP portfolio provider VeriSilicon. The letter sent to staff in China on Friday also said that Chinese customers' access to its customer support portal SolvNetPlus had been disabled. (Reuters)
Asia Times
8 hours ago
- Asia Times
NATO faces make-or-break decision on a post-US future
NATO is facing a pivotal moment in its history. Ahead of its June 24-25 summit in The Hague, NATO is weighing up whether it can truly continue to count on US support (and membership), whether it will become a European-only organization, or whether it has a future at all. This suggests a massive shift for the intergovernmental organization that sits at the heart of defense and security for Europe, and beyond. The past year has changed everything. Trump's anti-NATO rhetoric has become increasingly vociferous and disrespectful, undermining both the organization itself, and the other 31 NATO member countries, which include Germany, France, Canada, Turkey, the UK, Sweden and Norway. Add to this the Trump administration's embrace of international isolationism, and the potential, consequential loss of clear US backing for the alliance, all of which highlight the organization's historical dependence on the US. This is what makes the June 2025 summit so critical. It is a make-or-break opportunity to unveil a plan for NATO's wholesale transformation, or an event conclusively marking its obsolescence. The plan itself is simple: build – or rebuild – NATO as a possible Europe-only endeavor. If this plan becomes reality, historians of European security and defense may spot earlier parallels for NATO with the original Western European Union (WEU). The WEU was the European defense security structure established in 1954 under the Paris Accords, which helped to redefine relations with West Germany. Ultimately subsumed into both NATO and EU governance structures, the WEU's prime goal at the time was to bolster the European content of the Atlantic alliance. There is a deep irony in Trump's bluster about NATO states paying more towards their defense. The US has, for decades, been sanguine at best, and hostile at worst on almost every form of European defense autonomy, from basic operationss established by the EU to more ambitious strategies. Instead, the US has insisted almost exclusively on increased defense spending by other NATO members, improved interoperability between the various national forces, but all 'in furtherance of a US-dominated alliance', rather than a more authentically US-European approach to safeguarding both European and American interests, according to Max Bergman, a former senior adviser to the US State Department. What is the future of NATO? If the US is now reducing its involvement in NATO, or abdicating entirely, the only option for NATO is to reduce its dependence on the US, and in doing so, to focus more on Europe. A clear mandate is needed to ensure that being US-less does not render NATO itself useless. Without a mandate, opportunistic space would quickly open up for an aggressive Russia. Trump made clear early in his first administration that he was no fan of NATO, and argued that its funding structure should no longer overburden the US. In his second administration, Trump has been even clearer, has variously threatened to pull US troops from NATO joint exercises, reduce US security commitments to NATO as a whole, remove some or all of the 80,000 US troops on permanent rotation in Europe and vastly reduce the US's contribution to NATO's central budget of US$5 billion. These threats are now repeated routinely by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others in the Trump administration. This has profoundly rattled NATO as an institution and its individual member states. As NATO's own records show, from 2023 onward, there have been major increases in European defense spending. But the opportunity to keep spending commitments high, as well as overhaul the organzsation to meet Ukraine's demands and defense opportunities for the EU as a whole – which could have been nailed onto NATO's 75th anniversary summit in 2024 – did not materialize. There are pros and cons of a new Europe-focused approach for NATO, and these will work themselves out in the final five-to-ten-year plan, which is being prepared ahead of the June summit. For some, building a European defense mission within NATO is an opportunity to plot a new and more sustainable course for NATO, rather than trying to shore up an expanding US-shaped hole. Spending increases that reduce NATO's perceived helplessness, or reliance on the US, may also be a benefit. For others, the removal of US command and control, hardware, software, intelligence and much more from NATO is a futile endeavor that will leave the organization in pieces at best, and present Russia with a golden opportunity for continued eastern aggression at worst. The signals from Washington remain confusing. Trump's suggestion of a sudden and total US withdrawal from European defense was tempered in April by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's suggestion that Trump remained supportive of NATO but also demanding expanded spending commitments (these demands vary from 2.5% to 5% of GDP), and for other members to take on far greater responsibility for developing NATO's capabilities. Many members now support the emerging 'coalition of the willing', led by France and Britain, to underwrite a force and secure a post-conflict deal for Ukraine. In figuring out the current provision of military force, including logistics and intelligence capacities in addition to air, land and sea forces, NATO members are aiming to remove the US's presence and fill the vacuum with European assets over a decade. The task is colossal, and not without risks. NATO does not want an overnight abdication of the US, as it currently relies far too heavily upon US capabilities, such as long-range precision missiles, and crucially, heavy-lift aircraft, which are vital in shifting armored forces around the continent rapidly. NATO also wants a clear plan, which new member Finland has emphasized as crucial, to prevent an abrupt and disjointed transition that Russia could exploit. A new vision must be set out by the end of June in order to deal sensibly with ongoing defense spending commitments, reworked governance structures, and possible planned responses to the war in Ukraine. Scrapping NATO is unnecessary and leaves Europe – and the US, if the White House could but see far enough ahead – open to innumerable threats and consequences. Even without the US, NATO provides a valuable structure for security cooperation in Europe. Strengthening European capabilities within NATO, rather than creating an entirely new defense structure, makes sense. Amelia Hadfield is head of Department of Politics, University of Surrey This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
