Syrians hail lifting of US sanctions as start of ‘new era'
In Syria's second city Aleppo, dozens of men, women and children took to the central Saadallah al-Jabiri Square, waving the new Syrian flag and singing.
Hours earlier in Riyadh, Trump announced he would lift sanctions on Syria, as the country seeks to rebuild after the December ouster of longtime president Bashar al-Assad.
Soap factory owner Zain al-Jabali, 54, rushed to the square as soon as she heard the news.
'These sanctions were imposed on Assad, but… now that Syria has been liberated, there will be a positive impact on industry, it'll boost the economy and encourage people to return,' she told AFP.
Amid the sound of cars honking in celebration, 26-year-old Ghaith Anbi described the news as 'the second joy since the fall of Assad'.
'Lifting the sanctions on the Syrian people will have a very positive impact on reconstruction and rebuilding infrastructure, especially in Aleppo as an economic city,' the civil engineer told AFP.
'There will be great economic prosperity for the Syrian people,' he said.
– 'Turning point' –
In the Saudi capital on Tuesday, Trump announced he was lifting the 'brutal and crippling' Assad-era sanctions, in response to demands from new Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa's allies in Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Trump said it was Syrians' 'time to shine' and that easing sanctions would 'give them a chance at greatness'.
The Syrian foreign ministry called Trump's decision a 'pivotal turning point' that would help bring stability, draw in investment and reintegrate the country into the global economy.
Finance Minister Mohammed Barnieh said Trump's lifting of sanctions 'will help Syria in building its institutions, providing essential services to the people and will create great opportunities to attract investment and restore confidence in Syria's future'.
The United States imposed sweeping restrictions on financial transactions with Syria during the brutal civil war that began in 2011, targeting the ousted president, his family members and key government and economic figures.
In 2020, new sanctions came into effect under a US law known as the Caesar Act, punishing any companies linked to Assad in efforts to force accountability for human rights abuses and to encourage a political solution.
'These sanctions only ever hurt the Syrian people, not the regime,' 63-year-old Taqi al-Din Najjar told AFP from Aleppo.
In Damascus, dozens more gathered in the capital's iconic Umayyad Square, chanting and singing in joy.
'My joy is great. This decision will definitely affect the entire country positively. Construction will return, the displaced will return, and prices will go down,' said Hiba Qassar, a 33-year-old English teacher.
Ahmed Asma, 34, expressed hopes that 'now that the sanctions are lifted we can live as we did before, or even better'.
'We hope this is the start of a new era for Syria,' he told AFP as he drove through the square.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Shafaq News
4 hours ago
- Shafaq News
Trump moves nuclear subs after Medvedev's threats
Shafaq News – Washington On Tuesday, US President Donald Trump ordered two nuclear submarines to reposition 'in the appropriate regions' in response to what he described as 'foolish and inflammatory' statements by Russia's Deputy Security Council Chairman, Dmitry Medvedev. Trump did not disclose the submarines' destinations or any specific red lines. Earlier, Medvedev posted on Telegram, referring to Russia's rumored Dead Hand nuclear system, an automated strategic deterrent designed to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike even if the country's top leadership is incapacitated. His remark followed Trump's dismissal of the economies of both Russia and India as 'dead,' adding, 'They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care.'
Iraqi News
4 hours ago
- Iraqi News
Trump Orders Deployment of Two Nuclear Submarines Near Russia
Follow-up - INA US President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of two nuclear submarines near Russia on Friday. Trump said in press statements: "I have ordered the deployment of two nuclear submarines in appropriate areas in case Medvedev's inflammatory statements cross the line." He added, "I have been informed that approximately 20,000 Russian soldiers have been killed this month in the ridiculous war with Ukraine." He emphasized that "Russia has lost 112,500 soldiers since the beginning of the year, and this is a huge and unnecessary number of deaths." Trump continued, "Ukraine has also lost approximately 8,000 soldiers since the beginning of the year, and Ukrainian civilians have been killed by Russian missiles."
Memri
4 hours ago
- Memri
What Washington Can Learn From The India-UK Free Trade Agreement
India's recent achievement in concluding a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United Kingdom stands in stark contrast to the tense and protracted negotiations that continue to mark its trade dialogue with the United States.[1] The India-UK FTA, signed in July 2025, is not merely a trade pact, it reflects mutual understanding, strategic alignment, and a shared vision for inclusive growth. It was forged through three years of fractured but ultimately fruitful negotiations between two mature economies that chose pragmatism over posturing. The UK, navigating its post-Brexit economic identity, saw in India not just a market but a partner whose economic ascent could complement its own industrial ambitions. Britain's modern industrial strategy, with its focus on advanced manufacturing, clean energy, and digital technologies, found resonance with India's reform-driven growth trajectory and its aspiration to become a $5 trillion economy by 2027. "US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order for new tariffs on almost 70 countries which is set to go into effect in 7 days. The list includes India which will have to pay a 25% tariff effective 7 days from now. Earlier Trump had announced that India's tariff rate would be effective August 1, but the Executive order signed for 69 countries - with India on the list - says the new tariff rates will be applicable from August 7. He has imposed a 25% tariff on India with an additional unspecified penalty for India's trade with Russia for defense equipment and crude oil…" (Source: Times of India, August 1, 2025) The Indo-U.S. Trade Negotiations Remain Mired In Structural Disagreements The India-UK agreement was not confined to tariff reductions. It offered zero-duty access to 99 percent of Indian exports, streamlined mobility for professionals, and addressed social security contributions through the Double Contribution Convention. It was, in essence, a pact of mutual respect and forward-looking trust. The UK acknowledged India's developmental priorities, its Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSME)-driven economy, and its strategic ambitions. It approached the deal not as a zero-sum game, but as a collaborative opportunity to harness complementary strengths. The result is a framework that promises to double bilateral trade to USD 120 billion by 2030, catalyzing investment, job creation, and industrial competitiveness. In contrast, the Indo-U.S. trade negotiations remain mired in structural disagreements and ideological friction. The disagreements, whether on agricultural subsidies, digital trade, or Special and Differential Treatment at the WTO, are not new. But what exacerbates them is the persistent perception gap. The U.S. views India's insistence on Managed Service Provider (MSP)-based procurement and its digital sovereignty measures as protectionist, while India sees them as essential instruments of social equity and economic resilience. The Equalisation Levy,[2] often dubbed the "Google Tax," a tax introduced in India to tax the digital economy, is emblematic of this clash: a measure born of India's attempt to ensure fair taxation in the digital age, but interpreted by Washington as a targeted affront to American tech giants. Underlying these tensions is a fundamental misreading of India's developmental context. Despite its macroeconomic strength and global ambitions, India remains a country where MSMEs form the backbone of employment, where agriculture is still vulnerable to price shocks, and where per capita consumption lags far behind developed economies. The U.S. administration, in its pursuit of reciprocal concessions, often overlooks these structural realities. It perceives India's rise as a zero-sum game, every gain for India, it fears, comes at the expense of American manufacturing. This mindset not only stifles progress but risks alienating a partner whose strategic alignment with the U.S. is otherwise robust. India's principled stance at the WTO, whether in defending Special and Differential Treatment or opposing plurilateral deals, has often been misunderstood by the U.S. as obstructionism. Yet these positions are rooted in India's historical commitment to the solidarity of developing economies. India's refusal to join the Government Procurement Agreement, for instance, stems from its belief that public procurement is a vital tool for social development. Its opposition to the WTO Moratorium on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions is not a rejection of digital trade, but a call for equitable taxation in a rapidly evolving digital landscape. The Divergence In Perception Between The U.S. And India Has Created A Negotiation Environment Fraught With Suspicion And Rigidity The agricultural sector remains a particularly thorny issue. While both countries provide domestic subsidies under WTO-approved provisions, the U.S. argues that India's MSP-based procurement distorts global markets. India, however, sees it as a lifeline for farmers and a bulwark against inflation. The Food Corporation of India's procurement mechanism is not a trade tool, it is a social safety net. The U.S. must recognize that in a country where agriculture employs nearly half the workforce, such mechanisms are not negotiable luxuries but developmental necessities. The digital economy, too, has become a battleground of perceptions. The U.S. views India's Digital Public Infrastructure and initiatives like Atmanirbhar Bharat ("Self-reliant India")[3] as inward-looking, while India sees them as enablers of inclusive growth. Ironically, both countries are global tech hubs with deep investment linkages. Yet instead of building on this synergy, the negotiations have been marred by mistrust and misinterpretation. The root of these differences lies not in the specifics of trade policy but in the broader lens through which each country views the other. India sees itself as a developing economy with legitimate needs for policy space and protective measures. The US, by contrast, sees India's economic rise as a signal that it should relinquish such privileges. This divergence in perception has created a negotiation environment fraught with suspicion and rigidity. The U.S. Has An Opportunity To Reframe Its Engagement With India, Not As A Competitor, But As A Strategic Partner The lesson, then, lies in the UK's approach. Britain did not dilute its interests; it simply chose to engage with India on equal terms, acknowledging its sensitivities and aspirations. The result was a comprehensive, high-quality agreement that promises to unlock significant opportunities for both sides. The US, if it wishes to conclude a meaningful FTA with India, must shed its transactional lens and adopt a more nuanced, empathetic posture. It must recognize that India's insistence on developmental safeguards is not obstructionism, it is a principled stand rooted in lived realities. Trade, at its best, is not a contest of concessions but a choreography of shared growth. The India-UK FTA exemplifies this spirit. The India-U.S. negotiations, if they are to succeed, must rediscover it. The current U.S. administration has an opportunity to reframe its engagement with India, not as a competitor, but as a strategic partner whose growth can amplify shared prosperity. It must move beyond the arithmetic of tariffs and embrace the algebra of trust. Only then can the Indo-U.S. trade deal transcend its impasse and become a beacon of 21st-century economic diplomacy.
