France decided to send Syria humanitarian aid, but “at the expense” of the Syrians themselves!
Al-Akhbar newspaper
France decided to send Syria humanitarian aid, but “at the expense” of the Syrians themselves!
"Paris has agreed on using Syrian Escrow accounts to fund a nutritive aid to Syria," announced the spokesperson of the French Ministry of Trade, stating that her country had notified the EU members about the decision.
However, she neither mentioned how large the aid would be, nor the way of using the frozen money and the side that will monitor the process and ensure its integrity.
The French government, along with other countries, had announced on many occasions freezing Syrian businessmen and companies’ accounts since the beginning of the crisis.
International Lawyer Mohammad Naim Aqabiq described the French announcement as “illegal” since “the freezing process itself was illegal.” This is because France was applying a political rather than a judicial resolution, which makes it possible to restore the frozen money upon filing a lawsuit, which had happened in several cases.
In conversation with “al-Akhbar” newspaper, Aqabiq asserted that it is not the right of France to use the others’ money, and relief practices should be performed within a neutral society such as the Red Cross or the Red Crescent, or through the Syrian Ministry of Social Affairs. It should also be conducted under the supervision of the Syrian Government to be aware of the arriving substance as well as the receiving society.
Freezing usually refers to disabling the depositor from using his/her money upon putting it in an Escrow account in which money remains as a record, while, in reality, it is being used by the bank that adds the money to lending and investments; the country that freezes the money takes advantage as well.
Economic expert Riyadh Taqi Eddine explains that freezing money, legal-wise, means depriving its owner, whether a natural or moral person, from using it until the depriving reasons end and freezing becomes lifted by the legal side that decided to freeze.
Eventually, none could use the money until the legal hearings end and the judgment is announced. As for political reasons, they are insufficient in this domain for the resolutions of freezing and reusing the frozen money were issued by a side which is considered beneficiary.
In case freezing was lifted, “Frozen or taken over money would be restored via political dealing with the crisis. This is what Syria is seeking in various ways, in cooperation with the friend countries worldwide,” says Taqi Eddine.
However, it won’t prevent this money from the loss due to the decrease in their value as well as the damage of properties as time passes. This is what happened in Iraq when the bank accounts of many Iraqi companies were frozen, as well as those of which Iraq was having partnership in the US; freezing was not lifted before twenty years.
The UN also intended to freeze Iraq’s properties and accounts, among which were some civil airplanes that became old and were destroyed during this period.
The question that remains unexplained by the French spokesperson is: What is the criterion to be applied by those countries in using the frozen money, and what is the monitoring side that will follow up this process?
