Latest News

Trump’s global tariffs ‘victory’ may come at a high price

Published

1 year ago

2025/08/1

Priyan

In April Donald Trump stunned the world by announcing sweeping new import tariffs – only to put most on hold amid the resulting global financial panic.

Four months later, the US president is touting what he claims are a series of victories, having unveiled a handful of deals with trading partners and unilaterally imposed tariffs on others, all without the kind of massive disruptions to the financial markets that his spring attempt triggered.

At least, so far.

Having worked to reorder America’s place in the global economy, Trump is now promising that the US will reap the benefits of new revenue, rekindle domestic manufacturing, and generate hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign investment and purchases.

Whether that turns out to be the case – and whether these actions will have negative consequences – is still very much in doubt.

What is clear so far, however, is that a tide that was gently turning on free trade, even ahead of Trump’s second term, has become a wave crashing across the globe. And while it is reshaping the economic landscape, it hasn’t left the kind of wreckage in its wake that some might have predicted – though of course there is often a lag before impact is fully seen.

What’s more, for many countries, this has all served as a wake up call – a need to remain alive to fresh alliances.

And so, whilst the short term result might be – as Trump sees it – a victory, the impact on his overarching goals is far less certain. As are the long-term repercussions, which could well pan out rather differently for Trump – or the America he leaves behind after his current term.

For all the wrong reasons, 1 August had been ringed on international policymakers’ calendars. Agree new trading terms with the US by then, they’d been warned – or face potentially ruinous tariffs.

While White House trade adviser Peter Navarro predicted “90 deals in 90 days” and Trump offered an optimistic outlook on reaching agreements, the deadline always appeared to be a tall order. And it was.

By the time the end of July rolled around, Trump had only announced about a dozen trade deals – some no more than a page or two long, without the kind of detailed provisions standard in past negotiations.

REUTERS/Suzanne Plunkett/Pool U.S. President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer hold a signed Trade Agreement during a meeting at the G7 summit — *The baseline 10% applied to most British goods raised eyebrows at first – but was a relief compared to the 15% rate on other trading partners [BBC]*

The UK was first off the blocks, perhaps inevitably. Trump’s biggest bugbear is, after all, America’s trade deficit, and trade is in broad balance when it comes to the UK.

While the baseline 10% applied to most British goods may initially have raised eyebrows, it provided a hint of what was to follow – and in the end came as a relief compared to the 15% rate applied to other trading partners such as the EU and Japan, with whom the US has larger deficits; $240bn and $70bn respectively last year alone.

And even those agreements came with strings attached. Those countries that weren’t able to commit to, say, buying more American goods, often faced higher tariffs.

South Korea, Cambodia, Pakistan – as the list grew, and tariff letters were fired off elsewhere, the bulk of American imports are now covered by either an agreement or a presidential decree concluded with a curt “thank you for your attention to this matter”.

Capacity to ‘damage’ the global economy

Much has been revealed as a result of this.

First, the good news. The wrangling of the last few months means the most painful of tariffs, and recession warnings, have been dodged.

The worst fears – in terms of tariff levels and potential economic fallout (for the US and elsewhere) – have not been realised.

*The greatest fears – the warnings of potential disaster – have receded [BBC]*

Second, the agreement of tariff terms, however unpalatable, reduced much of the uncertainty (itself wielded by Trump as a powerful economic weapon) for better – and for worse.

For better, in the sense that businesses are able to make plans, investment and hiring decisions that had been paused may now be resumed.

Most exporters know what size tariffs their goods face – and can figure out how to accommodate or pass on the cost to consumers.

That growing sense of certainty underpins a more relaxed mood in financial markets, with shares in the US notably gaining.

*Trump hailed the size of the agreement of the US with the EU – but these are not the tariff-busting deals equated with tearing down trade barriers in the past [BBC]*

But it’s for the worse, in the sense that the typical tariff for selling into the US is higher than before – and more extreme than analysts predicted just six months ago.

Trump may have hailed the size of the agreement of the US with the EU – but these are not the tariff-busting deals we equated with tearing down trade barriers in previous decades.

The greatest fears, the warnings of potential disaster, have receded. But Ben May, Director of global macro forecasting at Oxford Economics, says that US tariffs had the capacity to “damage” the global economy in several ways.

“They are obviously raising prices in the US and squeezing household incomes,” he says, adding that the policies would also reduce demand around the world if the world’s largest economy ends up importing fewer goods.

Winners and losers: Germany, India and China

It’s not just about the size of tariff, but the scale of trading relationship with the US. So while India potentially faces tariffs of over 25% on its exports to the US, economists at Capital Economics reckon that, with US demand accounting for just 2% of that nation’s gross domestic product, the immediate impact on growth could be minor.

The news is not so good for Germany, though, where the 15% tariffs could knock more than half a percentage point off growth this year, compared to what was expected earlier in the year.

That’s due to the size of its automotive sector – unhelpful for an economy that may be teetering on the brink of recession.

*India became the top source of smartphones sold in the US recently, after fears of what may lie in store for China [BBC]*

Meanwhile, India became the top source of smartphones sold in the US in the last few months, after fears of what may lie in store for China prompted Apple to shift production.

On the other hand, India will be mindful that the likes of Vietnam and the Philippines – which face lower tariffs when selling to the US – may become relatively more attractive suppliers in other industries.

Across the board, however, there’s relief that the blow, at least, is likely to be less extensive than might have been. But what has been decided already points to longer-term ramifications for global trading patterns and alliances elsewhere.

And the element of jeopardy introduced into a long-established major relationship with the US, lent added momentum to the UK’s pursuit of closer ties with the EU – and getting a trade deal with India over the line.

For many countries, this has served as a wake up call – a need to remain alive to fresh alliances.

A very real political threat for Trump?

As details are nailed down, the implications for the US economy become clearer too.

Growth in the late spring there actually benefitted from a flurry of export sales, as businesses rushed to beat any higher tariffs imposed on American goods.

Economists expect that growth to lose momentum over the rest of the year.

Tariffs that have increased from an average of 2% at the beginning of the year to around 17% now have had a notable impact on US government revenue – one of the stated goals of Trump’s trade policy. Import duties have brought in more than $100bn so far this year – about 5% of US federal revenue, compared to around 2% in past years.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he expected tariff revenue this year to total about $300bn. By comparison, federal income taxes bring in around $2.5tn a year.

American shoppers remain in the front line, and have yet to see higher prices passed on in full. But as consumer goods giants such as Unilever and Adidas start to put numbers on the cost increases involved, some sticker shock, price rises, loom – potentially enough to delay Trump’s desired rate cut – and possibly a dent to consumer spending.

*If the current tariffs trigger a foundational realignment, the results may not ultimately break in favour of the US [BBC]*

Forecasts are always uncertain, of course, but this represents a very real political threat for a president who promised to lower consumer prices, not take actions that would raise them.

Trump and other White House officials have floated the idea of providing rebate checks to lower-income Americans – the kinds of blue-collar voters who have fuelled the president’s political success – that would offset some of the pocketbook pain.

Such an effort could be unwieldy, and it would require congressional approval.

It’s also a tacit acknowledgment that simply boasting of new federal revenue to offset current spending and tax cuts, and holding out the prospect of future domestic job and wealth creation is politically perilous for a Republican party that will have to face voters in next year’s midterm state and congressional midterm elections.

The deals yet to be hammered out

Complicating all this is the fact that there are many countries where a deal is yet to be hammered out – most notably Canada and Taiwan.

The US administration has yet to pronounce its decisions for the pharmaceuticals and steel industry. The colossal issue of China, subject to a different deadline, remains unresolved.

Trump agreed to a negotiating extension with Mexico, another major US trading partner, on Thursday morning.

Many of the deals that have been struck have been verbal, as yet unsigned. Moreover it is uncertain if and how the strings attached to Trump’s agreements – more money to be spent purchasing American energy or invested in America – will actually be delivered on.

In some cases, foreign leaders have denied the existence of provisions touted by the president.

*Trump’s overarching aim – to return production and jobs to America – may meet with very limited success [BBC]*

When it comes to assessing tariff agreements between the White House and various countries, says Mr May, the “devil is in the detail” – and the details are light.

It’s clear, however, that the world has shifted back from the brink of a ruinous trade war. Now, as nations grapple with a new set of trade barriers, Trump aims to call the shots.

But history tells us that his overarching aim – to return production and jobs to America – may meet with very limited success. And America’s long-time trading partners, like Canada and the EU, could start looking to form economic and political connections that bypass what they no longer view as a reliable economic ally.

Trump may be benefitting from the leverage afforded by America’s unique position at the centre of a global trading order that it spent more than half a century establishing. If the current tariffs trigger a foundational realignment, however, the results may not ultimately break in favour of the US.

Those questions will be answered over years, not weeks or months. In the meantime, Trump’s own voters may still have to pick up the tab – through higher prices, less choice and slower growth.

***[BBC]***

JOHN G MABANGLO/EPA/Shutterstock A sailboat sails past a container ship at the Port of Oakland in Oakland, California — *The baseline 10% applied to most British goods raised eyebrows at first – but was a relief compared to the 15% rate on other trading partners [BBC]*

The UK was first off the blocks, perhaps inevitably. Trump’s biggest bugbear is, after all, America’s trade deficit, and trade is in broad balance when it comes to the UK.

While the baseline 10% applied to most British goods may initially have raised eyebrows, it provided a hint of what was to follow – and in the end came as a relief compared to the 15% rate applied to other trading partners such as the EU and Japan, with whom the US has larger deficits; $240bn and $70bn respectively last year alone.

And even those agreements came with strings attached. Those countries that weren’t able to commit to, say, buying more American goods, often faced higher tariffs.

South Korea, Cambodia, Pakistan – as the list grew, and tariff letters were fired off elsewhere, the bulk of American imports are now covered by either an agreement or a presidential decree concluded with a curt “thank you for your attention to this matter”.

Capacity to ‘damage’ the global economy

Much has been revealed as a result of this.

First, the good news. The wrangling of the last few months means the most painful of tariffs, and recession warnings, have been dodged.

The worst fears – in terms of tariff levels and potential economic fallout (for the US and elsewhere) – have not been realised.

*The greatest fears – the warnings of potential disaster – have receded [BBC]*

Second, the agreement of tariff terms, however unpalatable, reduced much of the uncertainty (itself wielded by Trump as a powerful economic weapon) for better – and for worse.

For better, in the sense that businesses are able to make plans, investment and hiring decisions that had been paused may now be resumed.

Most exporters know what size tariffs their goods face – and can figure out how to accommodate or pass on the cost to consumers.

That growing sense of certainty underpins a more relaxed mood in financial markets, with shares in the US notably gaining.

*Trump hailed the size of the agreement of the US with the EU – but these are not the tariff-busting deals equated with tearing down trade barriers in the past [BBC]*

But it’s for the worse, in the sense that the typical tariff for selling into the US is higher than before – and more extreme than analysts predicted just six months ago.

Trump may have hailed the size of the agreement of the US with the EU – but these are not the tariff-busting deals we equated with tearing down trade barriers in previous decades.

The greatest fears, the warnings of potential disaster, have receded. But Ben May, Director of global macro forecasting at Oxford Economics, says that US tariffs had the capacity to “damage” the global economy in several ways.

“They are obviously raising prices in the US and squeezing household incomes,” he says, adding that the policies would also reduce demand around the world if the world’s largest economy ends up importing fewer goods.

Winners and losers: Germany, India and China

It’s not just about the size of tariff, but the scale of trading relationship with the US. So while India potentially faces tariffs of over 25% on its exports to the US, economists at Capital Economics reckon that, with US demand accounting for just 2% of that nation’s gross domestic product, the immediate impact on growth could be minor.

The news is not so good for Germany, though, where the 15% tariffs could knock more than half a percentage point off growth this year, compared to what was expected earlier in the year.

That’s due to the size of its automotive sector – unhelpful for an economy that may be teetering on the brink of recession.

*India became the top source of smartphones sold in the US recently, after fears of what may lie in store for China [BBC]*

Meanwhile, India became the top source of smartphones sold in the US in the last few months, after fears of what may lie in store for China prompted Apple to shift production.

On the other hand, India will be mindful that the likes of Vietnam and the Philippines – which face lower tariffs when selling to the US – may become relatively more attractive suppliers in other industries.

Across the board, however, there’s relief that the blow, at least, is likely to be less extensive than might have been. But what has been decided already points to longer-term ramifications for global trading patterns and alliances elsewhere.

And the element of jeopardy introduced into a long-established major relationship with the US, lent added momentum to the UK’s pursuit of closer ties with the EU – and getting a trade deal with India over the line.

For many countries, this has served as a wake up call – a need to remain alive to fresh alliances.

A very real political threat for Trump?

As details are nailed down, the implications for the US economy become clearer too.

Growth in the late spring there actually benefitted from a flurry of export sales, as businesses rushed to beat any higher tariffs imposed on American goods.

Economists expect that growth to lose momentum over the rest of the year.

Tariffs that have increased from an average of 2% at the beginning of the year to around 17% now have had a notable impact on US government revenue – one of the stated goals of Trump’s trade policy. Import duties have brought in more than $100bn so far this year – about 5% of US federal revenue, compared to around 2% in past years.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he expected tariff revenue this year to total about $300bn. By comparison, federal income taxes bring in around $2.5tn a year.

American shoppers remain in the front line, and have yet to see higher prices passed on in full. But as consumer goods giants such as Unilever and Adidas start to put numbers on the cost increases involved, some sticker shock, price rises, loom – potentially enough to delay Trump’s desired rate cut – and possibly a dent to consumer spending.

*If the current tariffs trigger a foundational realignment, the results may not ultimately break in favour of the US [BBC]*

Forecasts are always uncertain, of course, but this represents a very real political threat for a president who promised to lower consumer prices, not take actions that would raise them.

Trump and other White House officials have floated the idea of providing rebate checks to lower-income Americans – the kinds of blue-collar voters who have fuelled the president’s political success – that would offset some of the pocketbook pain.

Such an effort could be unwieldy, and it would require congressional approval.

It’s also a tacit acknowledgment that simply boasting of new federal revenue to offset current spending and tax cuts, and holding out the prospect of future domestic job and wealth creation is politically perilous for a Republican party that will have to face voters in next year’s midterm state and congressional midterm elections.

The deals yet to be hammered out

Complicating all this is the fact that there are many countries where a deal is yet to be hammered out – most notably Canada and Taiwan.

The US administration has yet to pronounce its decisions for the pharmaceuticals and steel industry. The colossal issue of China, subject to a different deadline, remains unresolved.

Trump agreed to a negotiating extension with Mexico, another major US trading partner, on Thursday morning.

Many of the deals that have been struck have been verbal, as yet unsigned. Moreover it is uncertain if and how the strings attached to Trump’s agreements – more money to be spent purchasing American energy or invested in America – will actually be delivered on.

In some cases, foreign leaders have denied the existence of provisions touted by the president.

*Trump’s overarching aim – to return production and jobs to America – may meet with very limited success [BBC]*

When it comes to assessing tariff agreements between the White House and various countries, says Mr May, the “devil is in the detail” – and the details are light.

It’s clear, however, that the world has shifted back from the brink of a ruinous trade war. Now, as nations grapple with a new set of trade barriers, Trump aims to call the shots.

But history tells us that his overarching aim – to return production and jobs to America – may meet with very limited success. And America’s long-time trading partners, like Canada and the EU, could start looking to form economic and political connections that bypass what they no longer view as a reliable economic ally.

Trump may be benefitting from the leverage afforded by America’s unique position at the centre of a global trading order that it spent more than half a century establishing. If the current tariffs trigger a foundational realignment, however, the results may not ultimately break in favour of the US.

Those questions will be answered over years, not weeks or months. In the meantime, Trump’s own voters may still have to pick up the tab – through higher prices, less choice and slower growth.

***[BBC]***

All News Advertisement

Latest News

Will Jacks five-for seals comfortable England defence of 265

Published

46 mins ago

2026/09/23

Priyan

Will Jacks dismissed Kusal Mendis on the way to a five-wicket haul [Cricinfo]

England are finally on the rise again in ODIs, after a long period of stagnation and decline. They pulled off their lowest successful defence in four years as they cruised past Sri Lanka at the Riverside in Durham, and have now won five matches out of seven since the start of this year under Harry Brook and Brendon McCullum.

The first ODI was more competitive than any of the three T20Is last week, as England wobbled against Sri Lanka’s debutant legspinner Sachindu Colombage in the middle overs. They failed to hit a six on a two-paced, end-of-season surface, and Brook – who threw his head back in frustration when he carved to deep point – was the only batter to find any real fluency.

But Sri Lanka’s run chase never got going. Captain Kusal Mendis made 42 on his return from a hamstring injury and Dunith Wellalage landed a few late blows, but their middle order went missing against Jamie Overton’s cross-seamers and Will Jack’s offbreaks. This was an unglamorous and forgettable win, but England have not had enough of those in recent years.

Jacks took three wickets in four balls to finish things off, giving him outstanding figures of 5 for 22 – the second best in an ODI by an England spinner. It meant that Adil Rashid, ruled out of the series with a hand injury, was hardly missed, and completed an impressive all-round performance by Jacks after he cracked 46 not out to drag England to 265.

England’s ODI results have tailed off sharply since they won their first World Cup under Eoin Morgan’s captaincy, with 50-over cricket slipping to the bottom of the ECB’s list of priorities. Across the six years after their 2019 triumph, they won 33 and lost 40 in ODIs and suffered humiliating group-stage exits in both the 2023 World Cup and the 2025 Champions Trophy.

They started 2026 ranked eighth in the world by the ICC, and with players and management anxious to secure automatic qualification for next year’s World Cup, but things have started to click for them. They have come from behind to win series against Sri Lanka (away) and India (home) this year, and will now target wins at Headingley and The Oval to seal a whitewash.

It has been a turbulent summer for McCullum, who lost his job as Test coach after England’s chaotic, self-sabotaging series defeat to New Zealand. But his partnership with Brook has been a revelation: England’s white-ball teams have won 10 completed games out of 11 this summer, and are finally starting to develop a clear identity.

Brook cited strike rotation and playing longer innings as two areas for England’s batters to improve before this series, and their new mentor Kevin Pietersen led a “spin masterclass” at Monday morning’s training session. They showed in this match that there is still plenty of scope to get better, stumbling against Colombage as they lost 4 for 29 in 7.5 overs through the middle.

A legspinner with an idiosyncratic action, Colombage spent last summer playing club cricket for Downham Stow in the East Anglian Premier League, but won his call-up after impressing in the recent Lanka Premier League. He was picked ahead of Wanindu Hasaranga in Chester-le-Street and made Joe Root his first victim in taking 3 for 44 on international debut.

England lost Tom Banton early to an Asitha Fernando outswinger – which trimmed the off bail – after choosing to bat, but Root started brightly. He pinged two early cover drives for four to take England to 64 for 1 after the initial powerplay, before they lost Ben Duckett lbw as he tried to sweep Wellalage’s left-arm spin.

Root had an early scare when he survived an lbw review off Colombage’s third ball, but was busy with Brook through the middle overs. They scampered between the wickets, though perhaps slightly too enthusiastically: Brook very nearly ran Root out on 42 with an optimistic single, though Colombage did for him an over later, finding just enough turn to beat the bat.

It ended a 404-run, five-innings stretch between dismissals for Root in ODIs, and when Brook miscued a charging slap to deep point off Dusmantha Chameera, it set a wobble in motion: Buttler was lbw to Colombage, Charith Asalanka’s direct hit did for Rehan Ahmed, and Overton played around a straight one from Colombage.

Jacks offered some resistance from No. 6, hitting four fours in a row off Chameera when the field came up due to Sri Lanka’s painfully slow over-rate. But the impressive Dilshan Madushanka pegged back Gus Atkinson’s off stump, and two Fernando yorkers accounted for Jofra Archer and Josh Tongue to leave Jacks stranded on 46 not out.

England’s 265 proved far more than enough. Kamindu Mendis fell tamely plinking Atkinson to midwicket, and Pathum Nissanka edged behind flashing at Tongue, while Banton held an excellent low catch at cover to get Pavan Rathnayake. Jacks had Asalanka and Mendis lbw sweeping, and Overton’s hard lengths did for Janith Liyanage.

When Rehan’s googly did for Colombage, Sri Lanka were 133 for 7 and the game was up. Wellalage smeared Archer for the game’s first six, clearing Duckett on the rope, and cracked Rehan for 4-4-6 to put a dent in the margin. But he picked out mid-on for 45 off Jacks, who finished the game by having Fernando caught at long-on then cleaning up Madushanka.

It was Jacks’s second five-wicket haul as an England player and his first since his Test debut four years ago, and he won the match award after a stellar all-round effort. He is Brook’s vice-captain for this series in Jacob Bethell’s injury-enforced absence, and is becoming an increasingly important player.

Scores:
England 265 in 48.1 overs (Joe Root 44, Harry Brook 67, Will Jacks 46*; Asitha Fernando 3-53, Sachindu Colombage 3-44, ) beat Sri Lanka 176 in 37 overs (Dunith Wellalage 45, Kusal Mendis 42; Jamie Overton 2-21, Will Jacks 5-22) by 89 runs

[Cricinfo]

Latest News

India survive Japan scare in thrilling Sano contest

Published

14 hours ago

2026/09/22

Priyan

Japan's spinners and fielders did not let India run away with the bat [Cricinfo]

If India playing T20I cricket in Japan is the modern equivalent of Don Bradman playing in Ceylon during a whistlestop in 1930, there was nearly a repeat of Bradman’s first-ball hit-wicket dismissal that day.

India, however, survived the banana peel of a five-over shootout on what was a possible reincarnation of the mythical sticky dog (a pitch with excessive moisture exposed to the sun).

In the process, they created the record for the smallest total successfully defended in a five-over T20, winning a thriller by two runs despite scoring only 32.

It wasn’t just the sticky dog in the middle. The outfield was excruciatingly slow, and the umpiring left a lot to be desired. In fact, the square-leg umpire had to intervene and overturn one of the two wides called in the final over as Japan got very close to India’s total and the friendly vibes disappeared.

The Japanese umpire Chris Thurgate kept calling leg-side wides even as the left-hand batter Alexander Shiraai Patmore gave up his leg-side privileges by attempting reverse hits. The second of those calls brought the equation down to 5 off 4, turning the bemusement on Indian faces at the first call into displeasure.

This was when the New Zealander Chris Brown called his colleague over and had the call overturned. It was still a tight last over to bowl, but Axar Patel did enough with figures of 2-0-7-0 to save India’s blushes.

It was a long wait to get the game started after heavy rain on the two preceding days. Understandably, the facilities to dry the surface weren’t cutting edge, which delayed play even on a day with no rain. The umpires brought the players on with just enough time left for the shortest possible contest to constitute a T20I match.

Probably expecting the light to deteriorate, India decided to bat first after Shreyas Iyer won his 11th toss in 13 matches. Not quite Bradman, but arguably the best T20 batter in the world, Abhishek Sharma did recreate the golden duck when he tried a shovel-sweep off the first ball he faced.

The pitch was so slow and turned so much that each of the 10 overs was bowled by spinners. Only four boundaries were hit in the entire match. Having seen the top order perish trying to find the boundary, Iyer decided to dial down the ambition and drove India’s innings with 16 off 12.

It was apparent from the first ball of the defence that Axar was going to be crucial to the result. He conceded just two runs in the first over, with a direct hit from deep square leg by Ishan Kishan resulting in a close run-out of Lachlan Yamamoto-Lake. It didn’t matter how close it was because there was no third umpire in this match.

At 8 for 2 after two overs, Japan looked down for the count, but they took 10 and seven off the third and fourth overs, bowled by Ravi Bishnoi and Washington Sundar respectively. It left Axar eight to defend in the last over, which was too close for comfort, especially with the dubious wide calls. Axar, however, showed remarkable accuracy on a pitch turning so much to deny Japan a winning hit.

Scores: [Five overs a side]

India32 for 4 in 5 overs ( Shreyas Iyer 16; Charlie Hara-Hinze 2-17, Ibrahim Takahashi 1-13, Benjamin Ito Davis 1-02 ) beat Japan 30 for 3 in 5 overs (Kendel Kadowaki-Fleming 12; Washington Sundar 2-13)by two runs

[Cricinfo]

Latest News

High Court convicts 14 over deadly Easter bombings

Published

15 hours ago

2026/09/22

Priyan

Security personnel stand guard outside Colombo High Court after escorting the accused involved in Sri Lanka's Easter Sunday attacks of 2019, during the verdict in the trial in Colombo on September 22, 2026 [Aljazeera]

The High Court has convicted 14 of the 24 men accused of being directly involved in the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, which killed 279 people.

The three-judge bench read out its decision on Tuesday after a five-year trial and said sentencing would take place later, the AFP news agency reported.

The charges included murder and conspiracy to commit terrorism.

Nine others were acquitted, while another defendant was found guilty of only some of the charges, the court said.

[Aljazeera]