Biden Administration Criticized for Not Imposing New Sanctions on Syria

US President Joe Biden and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin meet for the US-Russia summit at Villa La Grange in Geneva, Switzerland, June 16, 2021. (Reuters)
US President Joe Biden and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin meet for the US-Russia summit at Villa La Grange in Geneva, Switzerland, June 16, 2021. (Reuters)
TT
20

Biden Administration Criticized for Not Imposing New Sanctions on Syria

US President Joe Biden and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin meet for the US-Russia summit at Villa La Grange in Geneva, Switzerland, June 16, 2021. (Reuters)
US President Joe Biden and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin meet for the US-Russia summit at Villa La Grange in Geneva, Switzerland, June 16, 2021. (Reuters)

With the US Treasury issuing exemptions for the Syrian regime to enable it to face the COVID-19 pandemic, criticism targeted US President Joe Biden’s handling of the Syrian file and his abstention from imposing new sanctions under the Caesar Act.

Although the US Treasury, which issued the new guidance on Thursday afternoon, noted that they were part of the administration’s efforts to review financial and economic sanctions in order to ease COVID-19 assistance, the exemptions included two Syrian companies affiliated with the regime, namely Letia and Polymedics.

According to the Treasury statement, the two companies, which were sanctioned by the US in 2020, were allowed to conduct all activities pertaining to the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of the Covid-19 virus.

The Treasury also gave the green light to practice “all transactions and activities related to the exportation, re-exportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, of services to Syria that are related to the prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of COVID-19 (including research or clinical studies relating to COVID-19).”

The US Treasury said that this general license comes in line with the clarifications it issued in April that the sanctions pertaining to the Caesar Act did not include humanitarian aid related to food and medicine. However, its timing coincided with the lifting of sanctions on individuals accused of financing the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which raised several questions on Biden’s policy towards Syria.

Earlier this month, the Treasury lifted sanctions on two companies affiliated with Syrian businessman Samer Foz. The Treasury justified its decision by saying that it was due to a change in the behavior of the groups on which sanctions were imposed.

This justification presented by the Treasury Department did not convince the skeptical members of Congress, especially since the move coincided with the start of the sixth round of the Vienna negotiations with Iran over its nuclear deal, and before Biden’s meeting with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, on Wednesday.

Congressmen accused the US president of making concessions to both Iran and Russia, pointing to the administration’s leniency with the Assad regime.

Rep. Congressman Joe Wilson said that Samer Foz directly benefited from the regime’s war crimes and destruction in Syria, and built luxurious communities on lands stolen from Syrians who were forced to flee their homes.

These criticisms were not limited to Republicans alone. Leading Democrats have joined them in calling on Biden to implement the Caesar Act.

They put forward a draft resolution in the Senate that coincided with the tenth anniversary of the Syrian revolution, in which they urged Biden to implement the law and impose sanctions. They recalled that the goal of Caesar Act was to hold the regime and its international backers accountable for the “atrocities they committed against the Syrian people”, and to strip it of resources to finance the war machine.

The draft resolution also points to the Iranian and Russian military role in supporting the regime and participating in violations against civilians in order to advance their interests, which led to the strengthening of extremist groups in the country.



UN Chief Outlines Four Options for Embattled Palestinian Relief Agency UNRWA

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres attends a press briefing during the third United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC3) at the Center des Expositions conference center in Nice, France, June 10, 2025. (Reuters)
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres attends a press briefing during the third United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC3) at the Center des Expositions conference center in Nice, France, June 10, 2025. (Reuters)
TT
20

UN Chief Outlines Four Options for Embattled Palestinian Relief Agency UNRWA

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres attends a press briefing during the third United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC3) at the Center des Expositions conference center in Nice, France, June 10, 2025. (Reuters)
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres attends a press briefing during the third United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC3) at the Center des Expositions conference center in Nice, France, June 10, 2025. (Reuters)

A review of the embattled United Nations Palestinian relief agency UNRWA, ordered by Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, has identified four possible ways forward for the organization that has lost US funding and been banned by Israel.

The proposals, seen by Reuters, are: inaction that could see the potential collapse of UNRWA; a reduction of services; the creation of an executive board to advise UNRWA; or maintaining UNRWA’s rights-based core while transferring services to host governments and the Palestinian Authority. While Guterres ordered the strategic assessment of UNRWA in April as part of his wider UN reform efforts, only the 193-member UN General Assembly can change UNRWA’s mandate.

UNRWA was established by the General Assembly in 1949 following the war surrounding the founding of Israel. It provides aid, health and education to millions of Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.

“I believe it is imperative that Member States take action to protect the rights of Palestine refugees, the mandate of UNRWA and regional peace and security,” Guterres wrote in a letter dated on Monday and seen by Reuters submitting the UNRWA assessment to the General Assembly. The review comes after Israel adopted a law in October, which was enacted on January 30, that bans UNRWA's operation on Israeli land - including East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed in a move not recognized internationally - and contact with Israeli authorities.

UNRWA is also dealing with a dire financial crisis, facing a $200-million deficit. The US was UNRWA's biggest donor, but former President Joe Biden paused funding in January 2024 after Israel accused about a dozen UNRWA staff of taking part in the deadly October 7, 2023, attack by the Palestinian Hamas group that triggered the war in Gaza. The funding halt was then extended by the US Congress and President Donald Trump.

FOUR OPTIONS

The UN has said nine UNRWA staff may have been involved in the Hamas attack and were fired. A Hamas commander in Lebanon - killed in September by Israel - was also found to have had an UNRWA job. The UN has vowed to investigate all accusations and repeatedly asked Israel for evidence, which it says has not been provided. Israel has long been critical of UNRWA, while UNRWA has said it has been the target of a "fierce disinformation campaign" to "portray the agency as a terrorist organization." Guterres and the UN Security Council have described UNRWA as the backbone of the aid response in Gaza.

The first possible option outlined by the UNRWA strategic assessment was inaction and the potential collapse of the agency, noting that “this scenario would exacerbate humanitarian need, heighten social unrest, and deepen regional fragility” and “represent a significant abandonment of Palestine refugees by the international community.”

The second option was to reduce services by “aligning UNRWA’s operations with a reduced and more predictable level of funding through service cuts and transfer of some functions to other actors.”

The third option was to create an executive board to advise and support UNRWA’s commissioner-general, enhance accountability and take responsibility for securing multi-year funding and aligning UNRWA’s funding and services. The final potential option would see UNRWA maintain its functions as custodian of Palestine refugee rights, registration, and advocacy for refugee access to services, “while progressively shifting service provision to host governments and the Palestinian Authority, with strong international commitment to funding.”