Saudi business delegation arrives in Syria; deals worth $4 billion to $6 billion seen being signed
The Gulf kingdom has been a crucial supporter of interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa's government, which came to power after toppling longtime ruler Bashar al-Assad in December and is now seeking to rebuild Syria after a 14-year civil war.
Saudi Investment Minister Khalid bin Abdulaziz Al-Falih, who brought around 130 Saudi businesspeople to Damascus, is set to hold meetings with Syria's leadership ahead of a two-day investment conference opening on Wednesday, according to people due to attend.
Syrian Information Minister Hamza al-Moustafa said at a press conference on Wednesday that Syria will sign 44 agreements with Saudi Arabia estimated to be worth nearly $6 billion.
The agreements cover various sectors, including energy, telecommunications, financial and banking, investment funds and others, the minister said. Some of the agreements will be signed between the government and private companies, he said.
Saudi state-run Al Ekhbariya television reported on Tuesday that the agreements to be signed between Damascus and Riyadh would be worth over $4 billion.
During his visit to Syria, Saudi Arabia's Al-Falih and his Syrian counterpart launched a cement factory project on Wednesday in Adra Industrial City in the Damascus countryside, the first white cement production project in the country, with an investment worth $20 million, Syrian state news agency SANA said.
Al-Falih also broke ground on an integrated retail project by Saudi investment firm Ethraa Holding that is worth 375 million riyals ($99.96 million) in investments.
Saudi Arabia has shown interest in Syria's energy and hospitality sectors, as well as airports, a diplomat and a Syrian businessman familiar with the matter told Reuters.
The two countries are also expected to launch a joint business council, said the Syrian businessman.
The investment conference had initially been scheduled to take place in June, but was delayed due to the war between Iran and Israel. It is going ahead this week despite sectarian clashes in Syria's southern city of Sweida that have left hundreds dead.
The violence is a reminder of the lingering instability in Syria, even as foreign investors explore opportunities.
Companies, many from Gulf states and Turkey, have expressed interest in rebuilding Syria's power generation capacity, roads, ports and other damaged infrastructure.
Syria has signed a $7 billion power deal with Qatar and an $800 million agreement with UAE-based port company DP World in recent months. U.S. energy firms are also set to draw up a master plan for the country's energy sector.
For its part, Saudi Arabia, along with Qatar, paid off Syria's World Bank arrears, opening the possibility of new lending.
Syria's al-Sharaa made his first trip abroad as president, to Saudi Arabia in February. And the kingdom's Crown Prince and de-facto ruler Mohammed Bin Salman successfully lobbied U.S. President Donald Trump to lift sanctions seen as holding back private investment.
($1 = 3.7516 riyals)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Lenders do not owe millions compensation over car finance, Supreme Court rules
Sign up to our free money newsletter for investment analysis and expert advice to help you build wealth Sign up to our free money email for help building your wealth Sign up to our free money email for help building your wealth Email * SIGN UP I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our Privacy notice Lenders have avoided potentially having to pay compensation to millions of drivers, after the Supreme Court ruled they are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes, but some motorists may still receive payouts. The UK's highest court ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act 'altruistically' in the customers' interest. The decision comes after two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, challenged a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments, paid by buyers to dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021, without the motorist's fully informed consent, were unlawful. The ruling in October last year found that three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation after they were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. On Friday, Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Hamblen ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act only in the customers' interest, and that the Court of Appeal was wrong. But they said that some customers could still receive payouts by bringing claims under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said it will confirm by Monday whether it will consult on a redress scheme, while one of the three drivers said he was 'dumbfounded' by the ruling. Handing down the judgment, Lord Reed said the car dealer 'was at all times pursuing its own commercial interest in achieving a sale of the car on profitable terms'. He continued: 'In reaching the opposite conclusion, the Court of Appeal failed to understand that the dealer has a commercial interest in the arrangement between the customer and the finance company. Get a free fractional share worth up to £100. Capital at risk. Terms and conditions apply. Go to website ADVERTISEMENT Get a free fractional share worth up to £100. Capital at risk. Terms and conditions apply. Go to website ADVERTISEMENT 'The court mistakenly treated the dealer as acting solely in the interests of the customer once the customer had chosen a car and agreed a price.' The FCA, which intervened in the case, previously said it would set out within six weeks whether it would consult on a redress scheme. But a spokesperson said after the ruling that it would confirm whether it will consult on any such scheme by 8am on Monday 'to provide clarity as quickly as possible'. Lord Reed said the Supreme Court had decided to deliver its ruling on a Friday afternoon, outside of trading hours and after the markets had closed for the weekend, to avoid the risk of 'market disorder'. The three drivers involved in the case, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, all used car dealers as brokers for car finance arrangements for second-hand cars worth less than £10,000 before January 2021. Only one finance option was presented to the motorists in each case, the car dealers made a profit from the sale of the car and received commission from the lender. The commission paid to dealers was affected by the interest rate on the loan. The schemes were banned by the FCA in 2021, and the three drivers took legal action individually between 2022 and 2023. After the claims reached the Court of Appeal, three senior judges ruled the lenders were liable to repay the motorists the commission because of the lack of disclosure about the payments. Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April that the decision was an 'egregious error', while the FCA claimed the ruling went 'too far'. In their 110-page judgment, the five Supreme Court justices found that 'an offer to find the best deal is not the same as an offer to act altruistically'. They said: 'No reasonable onlooker would think that, by offering to find a suitable finance package to enable the customer to obtain the car, the dealer was thereby giving up, rather than continuing to pursue, its own commercial objective of securing a profitable sale of the car.' However, the judges upheld a claim brought by Mr Johnson under the CCA that his relationship with the finance company had been 'unfair'. Mr Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid the £1,650.95 in commission as part of his finance agreement with FirstRand for the Suzuki he purchased. The Supreme Court ruled he should receive the commission and interest, which Mr Johnson told the PA news agency totalled 'just over £3,000'. Mr Johnson said that he was 'dumbfounded' by the ruling, which he said 'does not sit right with me'. He said: 'I am obviously happy that my case was successful, but for so many other people that were also overcharged, I just don't like the message it sends to the UK consumer.' He said the ruling 'sounds like it's fine to secretly overcharge customers for commission'. A Treasury spokesperson said it would work to 'understand the impact for both firms and consumers'. They said: 'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted. That is why we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act. 'These reforms will deliver a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment for businesses and consumers, while ensuring that products are sold to customers fairly and clearly.' Close Brothers said it was 'considering' the judgment and 'will make any further announcements as and when appropriate'. Kavon Hussain, founder and lawyer at Consumer Rights Solicitors, which represented Ms Hopcraft and Mr Wrench, said it was 'disappointing' the Supreme Court did not fully uphold the Court of Appeal's ruling. He said: 'The Supreme Court ruling supports our view that lenders had acted unfairly in millions of car finance deals. 'This should now pave the way for the biggest compensation payout to motorists in British legal history. 'We will fight to get consumers the money they are owed by these lenders.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Donald Trump's latest Liberation Day means another dark day for America
Precisely what poor, benighted Syria and prosperous, neutral Switzerland have done to deserve US tariffs of 41 per cent and 39 per cent respectively is hard to discern. Neither is the kind of industrial superpower that represents a threat to America's economic hegemony, and both would, in their different ways, prefer to stay on reasonably good terms with the Trump White House. It is, sadly, easier to see why Canada got whacked with a 35 per cent levy on some of its exports – and Donald Trump's tariff tactics do have a hint of the mob about them. Mr Trump suggested that Canada's decision to recognise the state of Palestine as a sovereign nation would make it harder to achieve a trade deal, and he also mentioned the scourge of fentanyl. But then again, Mexico, which has also recognised Palestine and is by far the more important source of the drug, has been granted a 90-day tariff reprieve. Ever since the opening salvo in the Trump tariff war on 2 April – so-called Liberation Day – the shifting schedules and random pauses have lacked both rhyme and reason. Even at the time, their supposed 'reciprocity' was ridiculed. They have generated huge uncertainty, and, for a time, did so much damage to the dollar and US Treasuries on the capital markets that even Mr Trump had to make a tactical retreat. In fact, the US president's observed tendency to cave in whenever a trading 'partner' showed any sign of resistance led to the unwelcome 'Taco' sobriquet – 'Trump Always Chickens Out'. Some countries, such as the UK, Japan and the EU member states, have breathed a sigh of relief that they have escaped the worst, while others – often impoverished ones with no diplomatic leverage, such as Bangladesh and Lesotho – will find it difficult to cope with tariffs that are now considered moderate, but would have seemed shocking even a few years ago. Yet the game, even now, is not over. China – the second-largest economy in the world, and America's most formidable rival – has been left out of this supposedly final list of tariff increases. The trade talks between the two economic giants in Stockholm are dragging on, the prohibitive mutual tariffs having been abandoned, and they may well be extended past the next deadline of 12 August. President Trump met his match in Xi Jinping, and will not be imposing any further punitive trade sanctions on China for fear of another tit-for-tat escalation. Thus far, the markets have received the latest news of tariffs with some equanimity, but a collapse in trade between the world's two greatest economies would generate the kind of turmoil Mr Trump doesn't need right now. Even assuming that the eventual trade truce with China avoids disaster, these US tariffs are, in broad terms, the highest since 1934 and the era of the notorious Smoot-Hawley Act, which helped to strangle world trade and exacerbated the Great Depression. The Trump tariffs are no less damaging to world trade, and thus to economic growth, including that of the United States. But these restrictions on trade are what Mr Trump's Maga 'base' voted for, the folk memory of the previous disastrous experiment with tariffs having faded. The president's winning slogan was 'America First', epitomising a zero-sum, nationalistic view of the world, and unfortunately, he has proved as good as his word on inauguration day: 'Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens.' Words that were both misguided and economically illiterate, naturally – but a promise kept. Many of the worst fears of America's friends and allies are coming true in these early months of Mr Trump's second term. With far more preparation than took place prior to his first term (which followed an election that, reputedly, he never expected to win), the US president has pressed on with his protectionist, isolationist, natalist agenda with speed and determination, surrounded by mostly underqualified, grotesquely sycophantic cronies. The judiciary is increasingly cowed, and Congress is listless in defending the constitution. The tendency to Caesarism is apparent in everything from the theatrical executive orders to the grandiose golden remodelling of the White House, and the contempt for the chair of the US Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell – a 'moron', apparently. Mr Trump thinks he can, with a stroke of a Sharpie, abolish the birthright to citizenship enshrined in the 14th amendment, passed in 1868. His conception of 'America First' is more America Alone, yet everything he does weakens American power and prosperity. It is an inward-looking, selfish, exclusionary approach. Undoubtedly it enjoys a political constituency, but ultimately it will prove self-defeating.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Hong Kong firm appeals for legal protection of investors as its Panama Ports contract faces lawsuits
A subsidiary of a Hong Kong conglomerate entangled in U.S.- China tensions appealed on Friday for legal protection for businesses in the Central American country after the company's contract over its Panama Canal port assets has been faced with lawsuits. Respect for the rule of law is essential to assure businesses that Panama is a safe place to invest in, Panama Ports Company, under Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings, said in a statement. Panama's Comptroller General filed two lawsuits on Wednesday, seeking to declare unconstitutional a contract that granted the operation of ports at both ends of the canal to the Hong Kong subsidiary, and to nullify its renewal four years ago, saying it was 'abusive' of Panama's interests. In turn, Panama Ports Company said its operations have had a positive impact, from building world-class ports to creating more than 25,000 direct and indirect jobs and contributing billions of balboas — Panama's currency — to the country's economy. It said it wants to work with the government in Panama for a better future. 'Regarding the ongoing legal actions, we firmly believe that respect for legal protection and the rule of law are essential in order to provide businesses and investors with the certainty that Panama is a safe country to invest in,' it said. The company operates the ports of Balboa, in the Pacific, and Cristobal, in the Atlantic, under a concession contract approved in 1997 and renewed in 2021 for 25 more years. CK Hutchison is controlled by the family of Li Ka-shing, the southern Chinese city's richest man. Panama's comptroller authority in April said that an audit of Panama Ports Company found irregularities in the renewal of the concession. But the company denied allegations that it had failed to pay about $1.2 billion to the Central American country. CK Hutchison Holdings' initial plan, announced in March, to sell its port assets in dozens of countries to a group that includes the U.S. investment firm BlackRock Inc., also got caught up in tensions between Beijing and Washington. U.S. President Donald Trump, who has alleged that China interferes with the canal, initially welcomed that plan. However, it apparently angered Beijing and drew a review by Chinese anti-monopoly authorities. After months of uncertainty, Hutchison said on Monday that it may seek a Chinese investor to join a consortium of buyers, which also includes BlackRock subsidiary Global Infrastructure Partners and Terminal Investment Limited, a subsidiary of the Mediterranean Shipping Company. The initial deal, valued at nearly $23 billion, including $5 billion in debt, would have given the consortium control over 43 ports in 23 countries, including the two at the Panama Canal. Panama Ports Company said Friday it would communicate with the Panamanian government 'at the appropriate time,' affirming that it believes engaging with the government 'is vital to discuss the way forward for' the company. Panama's government maintains it has full control over the canal and that the operation of the ports by Hutchison does not mean Chinese control of it.
