Connect with us

Politics

Trump team debating how to tackle plan to ease sanctions on Syria – National TenX News

Published

on


Since President Donald Trump announced his intent to end a half-century of U.S. sanctions on Syria, a debate has developed in his administration over how quickly and thoroughly that should happen.

At risk could be the future of a transitional government run by those who drove Syrian leader Bashar Assad from power late last year and hopes that it can stabilize the country after a devastating 13-year civil war that has left millions dead or displaced, the economy in ruins and thousands of foreign fighters still on Syrian soil.

Story continues below advertisement

U.S. presidents have piled up penalties over the years on the autocratic family that previously controlled Syria, and those could be quickly lifted or waived through executive action. But Congress imposed some of the strictest measures and would have to permanently remove them.

Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa, the former militant commander who led the overthrow, says he is working to build an inclusive government friendly to the West. Some Trump administration officials are pushing to lift or waive sanctions as fast as possible without demanding tough conditions first.

Others in the administration have proposed a phased approach, giving short-term waivers soon on some sanctions and then tying extensions or a wider executive order to Syria meeting conditions, which could substantially slow — or even permanently prevent — longer-term relief. That would impede the interim government’s ability to attract investment and rebuild Syria after the war, critics say.

“The Syria sanctions are a complex web of statutes, executive actions and United Nations Security Council resolutions that have to be unwound thoughtfully and cautiously,” White House National Security Council spokesman Max Bluestein said.


Click to play video: 'Trump says U.S. will lift sanctions on Syria, gets standing ovation in Saudi Arabia'


Trump says U.S. will lift sanctions on Syria, gets standing ovation in Saudi Arabia


The administration is “currently analyzing the optimal way to do so” and would have an announcement soon, Bluestein said in a statement Thursday to The Associated Press.

Story continues below advertisement

A State Department proposal circulated among officials after Trump’s pledge on his Middle East trip last week lays out sweeping conditions for future phases of relief or permanent lifting of sanctions, including dismantling Palestinian militant groups as a top demand, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the plan, who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Additional proposals are circulating, including one shared this week that broadly emphasized taking all the action possible, as fast as possible, to help Syria rebuild, the official said.

A welcome U.S. announcement in Syria

People danced in the streets of Damascus after Trump announced in Saudi Arabia last week that he would “be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness.”

Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.

Get daily National news

Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.

“We’re taking them all off,” Trump said a day before meeting the country’s new leader. “Good luck, Syria. Show us something special.”

Story continues below advertisement

This week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio advocated for a hedged approach in testimony before U.S. lawmakers.

Rubio pushed for sanctions relief to start quickly, saying Syria’s five-month-old transition government could be weeks from “collapse and a full-scale civil war of epic proportions.”

But asked what sanctions relief should look like overall, Rubio gave a one-word explanation: “Incremental.”

Washington has levied sanctions against Syria’s former ruling family since 1979 over its support for Hezbollah and other Iranian-allied militant groups, its alleged chemical weapons program and its brutality against civilians as the Assad family fought to stay in power.

The sanctions include heavy penalties for outside companies or investors doing business there. Syria needs tens of billions of dollars in investment to restore its battered infrastructure and help the estimated 90% of the population living in poverty.


Click to play video: 'Canada must ensure ‘darker forces’ don’t take over Syria: Special envoy'


Canada must ensure ‘darker forces’ don’t take over Syria: Special envoy


Syria’s interim leaders “didn’t pass their background check with the FBI,” Rubio acknowledged to lawmakers this week. The group that al-Sharaa led, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, was originally affiliated with al-Qaida, although it later renounced ties and took a more moderate tone. It is still listed by the U.S. as a terrorist organization.

Story continues below advertisement

But al-Sharaa’s government could be the best chance for rebuilding the country and avoiding a power vacuum that could allow for a resurgence of the Islamic State and other extremist groups.

“If we engage them, it may work out, it may not work out. If we do not engage them, it was guaranteed to not work out,” Rubio said.

Mouaz Moustafa, executive director of the U.S.-based Syrian Emergency Task Force and an advocate who has been influential in helping shape past U.S. policy on Syria, said he has been circulating a framework for a proposed executive order that would allow Trump to quickly remove many of the sanctions.

Trump’s move to lift the penalties is aimed at “preventing a failed state and ending perpetual violence,” but some in the administration are trying to “water down” the decision, Moustafa asserted.

Debate within the Trump administration

The initial document sent out last week by the State Department’s policy and planning staff proposed a three-phase road map for sanctions relief, starting with short-term waivers. Progress toward additional relief and an outright lifting of penalties in future phases would be tied to tough conditions that generated pushback from some officials.

Story continues below advertisement

Removing “Palestinian terror groups” from Syria is first on the list of requirements to get to the second phase. Supporters of sanctions relief say the condition might be impossible, given the subjectivity of determining which groups meet that definition and at what point they can be declared removed.

Other conditions for moving to the second phase are for the new government to take custody of detention facilities housing Islamic State fighters in northeast Syria and to carry out a recent deal with the U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces — which manages the detention facilities — that includes the SDF being incorporated into the Syrian army.

To get to phase three, Syria would be required to join the Abraham Accords — normalized relations with Israel — and to prove that it had destroyed all of the previous government’s chemical weapons.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu previously pushed for the Trump administration not to lift sanctions on Syria. Israel has been suspicious of the new government, although Syrian officials have said publicly that they do not want a conflict with Israel.

Since Assad fell, Israel has launched hundreds of airstrikes and seized a U.N.-patrolled buffer zone in Syria.

Congressional sanctions on Syria will take much longer to lift

While some of the sanctions can be lifted by executive action, others face a more complex process.

Story continues below advertisement

The most difficult could be the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, a wide-reaching set of sanctions passed by Congress in 2019 in response to alleged war crimes by Assad’s government.

It specifically blocks reconstruction activities, and although it can be waived for 180 days by executive order, investors are likely to be wary of reconstruction projects when sanctions could be reinstated after six months.

In a meeting last week in Turkey with Syria’s foreign minister, Rubio and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham explained that they supported Trump’s call to ease sanctions immediately but that permanent relief would require action by the Syrian government to meet conditions that the president laid out, according to other U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

“We have a moment here to provide some capability to this new government that should be conditions-based,” Graham said this week. “And I don’t want that moment to pass.”

Sewell reported from Beirut. AP Diplomatic Writer Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

“Unacceptable’: Allies react to Trump Greenland tariff threats – National TenX News

Published

on


World leaders are raising alarm after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to impose sweeping tariffs on European allies in an effort to pressure Denmark into negotiations over Greenland.

The move is sparking protests across the Arctic and sharp rebukes from Europe and Canada.

On Saturday, thousands of people marched through snow and ice in Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, chanting “Greenland is not for sale,” waving national flags.

Police described the demonstration as the largest they have ever seen in the city.

About 825 kilometres away, dozens of people rallied in Iqaluit, Nunavut, in a show of solidarity with Greenlanders.

“Greenland is owned by the Greenlandic people,” protesters chanted in Inuktut as they marched for an hour in freezing, windy conditions.

The protests came as Trump announced he would impose a 10 per cent import tax starting next month on goods from eight European countries.

Story continues below advertisement

These nations include Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland, because of their opposition to U.S. control of Greenland.

For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.

Get breaking National news

For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.

The tariff would rise to 25 per cent on June 1 if no deal was reached for what Trump called the “Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.”

The president suggested the tariffs were leveraged to force talks over Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark that Trump says is vital to U.S. national security.

French President Emmanuel Macron said France stands firmly behind Greenland’s sovereignty and rejected the use of trade threats.


“Tariff threats are unacceptable and have no place in this context,” Macron wrote on social media, adding that Europeans would respond “in a united and coordinated manner” if the measures are confirmed.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Greenland’s future is for Greenlanders and Denmark to decide.

“Applying tariffs on allies for pursuing the collective security of NATO allies is completely wrong,” Starmer said, adding the issue would be raised directly with the U.S. administration.

Bob Rae, former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations, also chimed in on Trump’s announcement.

The tariff threat could mark a significant rupture between the U.S. and its NATO allies.

Story continues below advertisement

Greenland already hosts the U.S.-run Pituffik Space Base under a 1951 defence agreement with Denmark, supporting missile warning, missile defence and space surveillance for the U.S. and NATO.

“There is no sign of the Trump war of aggression against Greenland and Denmark letting up. It is not about ‘security’ any more than Venezuela was about ‘narco-terrorism.’ They are both about seizing control and plunder.”

He further added, “No country, including my own, Canada, is safe or secure.”

The tariff threat could mark a significant rupture between the U.S. and its NATO allies.

Trump is expected to face questions about the proposed tariffs and Greenland later this week.

He is scheduled to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, alongside several European leaders he has threatened with tariffs.

— With files from The Canadian Press 

&copy 2026 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.



Continue Reading

Politics

Canada talks trade with Qatar as Carney touches down in Doha – National TenX News

Published

on


Prime Minister Mark Carney arrived in Doha on Saturday as part of a push to attract foreign investment and deepen Canada’s economic partnerships beyond its traditional allies.

Carney’s visit comes on the heels of his visit to China and follows the recent presentation of a new federal investment budget aimed at positioning Canada as a stable, attractive destination for global capital.

In a news conference on Saturday, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said Canada is working to broaden its economic relationships as global trade patterns shift.

Qatar is viewed by Ottawa as a strategic partner, with officials pointing to the country’s significant investment capacity and growing influence on the global stage.

For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.

Get breaking National news

For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.

“We need to reduce our dependence and increase our self-reliance to find a strategic path forward,” Champagne said.

Story continues below advertisement

“Engaging with the Middle East and China is necessary for Canada, just like our European partners have done,” Champagne added.  “We buy more from the U.S.A. than anywhere else, but the trading climate right now is different.”

The conference highlighted Canada’s industrial capacity and trade advantages as key selling points for potential investors.

Champagne also said international engagement is critical as Canada works to raise its profile among global investors.

“We are one of the G7s with very big industries. We build cars, planes, ships, we have an abundance of energy, and we are the only one with free trade with all G7,” Champagne said. “With the way the world is changing, you better diversify, supply chain is changing and we need to adapt.”

Prime Minister Carney is expected to meet with senior Qatari officials, including Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, as well as representatives of the Qatar Investment Authority.

His office says the talks will focus on expanding trade access and forging partnerships in artificial intelligence, infrastructure, energy and defence.

The visit comes amid heightened geopolitical tensions in the region, though officials say the schedule remains unchanged.


&copy 2026 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.



Continue Reading

Politics

How could Canada, EU, NATO respond to a U.S. takeover of Greenland? – National TenX News

Published

on


The possibility of a forceful U.S. takeover of Greenland is raising many unprecedented questions — including how Canada, the European Union and NATO could respond or even retaliate against an ostensible ally.

A high-level meeting between Greenlandic, Danish and U.S. officials this week did not resolve the “fundamental disagreement” over the territory’s sovereignty but did set the stage for more talks. The White House made clear Thursday that U.S. President Donald Trump’s desire to control Greenland has not changed after the meeting.

“He wants the United States to acquire Greenland. He thinks it’s in our best national security to do that,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.

Denmark and European allies are sending more troops to the territory in a show of force and to display a commitment to Arctic security.


Click to play video: 'Trump says ‘not a thing’ Denmark can do if Russia or China wants to ‘occupy’ Greenland'


Trump says ‘not a thing’ Denmark can do if Russia or China wants to ‘occupy’ Greenland


Experts say there are other, non-military measures available in the event of a U.S. annexation or invasion of Greenland, or which could at least be threatened to try and get Trump to back down.

Story continues below advertisement

Whether those economic measures are actually used is another matter, those experts say.

“I think it remains highly unlikely that we’ll get to that point where we have to seriously discuss consequences for a U.S. move on Greenland,” said Otto Svendsen, an associate fellow with the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“So it remains contingency planning for a highly unlikely event. That being said … Denmark would certainly do everything in its power to rally a very robust European response.”

Here’s what that could entail.

EU trade, tech disruptions?

Experts agree the biggest pressure points that can be used in the U.S. surround trade and technology.

The European Parliament’s trade committee is currently debating whether to postpone implementing the trade deal signed between Trump and the EU last summer to protest the threats against Greenland, Reuters reported Wednesday.

Story continues below advertisement

Many lawmakers have complained that the deal is lopsided, with the EU required to cut most import duties while the U.S. sticks to a broad 15 per cent tariff for European goods.

Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.

Get daily National news

Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.

An even bolder move would be triggering the EU’s anti-coercion instrument — known as the “trade bazooka” — that would allow the bloc to hit non-member nations with tariffs, trade restrictions, foreign investment bans, and other penalties if that country is found to be using coercive economic measures.

Although the regulation defines coercion as “measures affecting trade and investment,” Svendsen said it could feasibly be used in a diplomatic or territorial dispute as well.

“EU lawyers have proven themselves to be very creative in recent years,” he said.

However, David Perry, president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said in an email that economic measures against the U.S. are unlikely “given the massive asymmetry in the defence and economic relationship between the U.S.” and other western nations.

“Any kind of sanction against the U.S. doesn’t make sense for the same reason they can impose tariffs on others: they have the power,” Perry added.


Click to play video: 'Denmark, U.S. still disagree on Greenland’s future after White House talks'


Denmark, U.S. still disagree on Greenland’s future after White House talks


Target U.S. tech companies?

The likeliest — and potentially least harmful — scenario for retaliation in the event of an attack on Greenland, Svendsen said, would be fines or bans against U.S. tech companies like Google, Meta and X operating in Europe.

Story continues below advertisement

That’s because the Trump administration has taken particular focus on preventing what they call “attacks” on American companies by foreign governments seeking to regulate their online content or tax their revenues, which has led to calls on Canada, Britain and the EU to repeal laws like digital services taxes.

“I think that would be a really smart and targeted way to get to economic interests very close to the president, while minimizing the direct impact on the on the European economy,” Svendsen said, calling such a move “low-hanging fruit.”

He also compared a future U.S. tech platform ban to how Europe moved to wean itself off Russian gas after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

“If you told anyone back then that Europe would basically rid itself of its dependence on Russian gas basically within a two-year period … that would have been considered completely impossible,” he said.

“Weaning the European economy off of U.S. tech would certainly be painful in the short term, but they’ve proven that they can get off those dependencies quickly if there is political will behind it in the past.”

A U.S. hostile takeover of Greenland would mean the “end” of the NATO alliance, experts and European leaders have said.

Story continues below advertisement

Trump himself has acknowledged it could be a “choice” between preserving the alliance or acquiring Greenland.

There is no provision within the NATO founding treaty that addresses the possibility of a NATO member taking territory from another, and how the alliance should respond to such an act.

A NATO spokesperson told Global News it wouldn’t “speculate on hypothetical scenarios” when asked how it could potentially act.


Click to play video: 'NATO countries concerned about Arctic security as Trump pushes for Greenland ownership'


NATO countries concerned about Arctic security as Trump pushes for Greenland ownership


“None of this would be actionable in a NATO sense,” Perry said. “It’s an alliance that’s organized to bind the U.S. to European security, and revolves around the U.S. So there’s no scenario of NATO doing that to the U.S.”

Denmark and other European nations could move to reduce or close U.S. military bases in their countries as a possible response, experts say.

Story continues below advertisement

Balkan Devlen, a a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and director of its Transatlantic Program, said in an interview that a U.S. annexation of Greenland would force Canada to focus entirely on boosting its defences in the Arctic.

That may include trying to decouple from NORAD, the joint northern defence network with the U.S., in favour of a purely domestic Arctic command, he said — although that process would take years and require Canada to increase defence spending even further.

“Never mind five per cent (of GDP) — we will probably need to go like seven, eight, nine per cent on defence spending to be able to do anything of that sort,” he said. “It’s not even clear that we’ll be able to have enough people to do that.”

Devlen added that any retaliatory action, whether military or financial, needs to be targeted and proportionate to what the U.S. does.

“The problem with nuclear options is that once you use it, it’s gone,” he said. “And if it doesn’t do the damage or make the change of behaviour on the other party, you’ve basically lost a lot of leverage and you might actually sustain a lot more loss yourself.”




Continue Reading

TRENDING

Copyright © 2022 TenX News Network