Refuse bids from those ‘involved in Israeli war crimes’, legal groups tell UK rail construction company
MEMO | February 5, 2021
A new legal brief has deemed it legal for the company building the UK’s new high-speed railway, HS2 Ltd, to exclude firms “involved in Israeli war crimes” from its tender process.
Drafted by Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights and the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC), the legal brief states that the rail project is “legally entitled” to reject Spanish manufacturer Construcciones Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles (CAF)’s bid, on the grounds of “grave professional misconduct” and breaches of international law.
In 2019, CAF and the Israeli infrastructure company Saphir was chosen by Israel’s finance ministry to expand the settlement railway project, known as the Jerusalem Light Rail (JLR).
CAF and Saphir won the $2 billion contract to extend the railway to more illegal Israeli settlements, particularly in occupied East Jerusalem.
Under international law, the West Bank and East Jerusalem are occupied territories and all Jewish settlements there are illegal.
CAF is one of five companies which have issued bids to secure a £2.75 billion ($3.76 billion) contract to supply high-speed trains to the HS2 rail project.
ELSC, an NGO based in Amsterdam which defends and empowers the Palestine solidarity movement in Europe through legal means, said companies “involved in war crimes should have no standing in public tenders.”
“HS2 Ltd has the legal right and a moral obligation to exclude CAF from the tender procedure,” said the group’s Programme Director Giovanni Fassina.
The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) national committee’s Europe campaigns co-ordinator, Alys Samson Estape, added: “The JLR project is part of the ongoing process of entrenchment of Israel’s apartheid, illegal settlement enterprise and theft of Palestinian land in and around occupied East Jerusalem.”
JLR is so blatantly illegal that other multinationals which had participated in the initial stages of bidding for the project, including Alstom, Siemens, Systra, Bombardier and Macquarie, withdrew from the call for tenders, leaving just two consortiums bidding.
“Public institutions, including the UK government, should exclude CAF from its public tenders due to its violations of international law until it stops profiting from Israel’s illegal occupation.”
Palestine Solidarity Campaign Director, Ben Jamal, explained: “All public contract authorities must discharge their responsibilities to cease complicity in ongoing violations of international law.”
“This means HS2 Ltd must exclude CAF, and any other company violating Palestinian human rights, from the bid to provide rolling stock.”
Belgrade may postpone or end transfer of Serbian embassy to Jerusalem

By Paul Antonopoulos | February 5, 2021
After the Israeli recognition of the so-called independent state of Kosovo on Monday, Belgrade finds itself in a difficult position and will reconsider its decision to move the Serbian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Serbia committed itself to this step by signing the September 2020 Washington Agreement suspecting that Kosovo and Israel would recognize each other eventually. Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić now says that his country will “build relations with the Jewish state in accordance to the new circumstances,” suggesting the embassy move might not occur at all.
The Washington Agreement was always tailored to the interests of Israel and Kosovo and not Serbia, yet Vučić still signed it to the dismay of Serbs. The agreement signed by Kosovo’s so-called Prime Minister Avdullah Hoti and then U.S. President Donald Trump states that Kosovo and Israel agree to mutual recognition. The agreement signed between Vučić and Trump specifies that Belgrade has an obligation to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by July 1, 2021.
As much as the move between Israel and Kosovo was expected, it was probably not anticipated that the last item from the Washington Agreement would actually become the first. This is especially painful for Serbia as Vučić agreed with Kosovo’s authorities that the two would not engage in efforts for countries to recognize or stop recognizing Kosovo. This will likely bring new consequences to Serbia’s engagement with Israel.
As Serbian Foreign Minister Nikola Selaković noted, it will be interesting to observe whether there will now be Muslim and Arab countries that will recognize Kosovo or stop recognizing the illegal entity after its normalization with Israel.
So what will Muslim countries do?
Last year, thanks in large to Trump’s efforts, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco normalized their relations with Israel, while Saudi Arabia and the Jewish state have been cooperating for many years behind closed doors.
Turkey, despite being the first Muslim majority country to recognize Israel, has hypocritically reacted to the signing of the agreement between Pristina and Tel Aviv. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan claims that it does “not serve the Palestinian issue” and undermines the vision of a two-state solution. Erdoğan’s outrage is despite his country having multi-billion-dollar trade exchanges with Israel that was increasing year-on-year before the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs also stated that by signing the agreement, Kosovo, which it also recognizes, “undertook to open its embassy in Jerusalem, which is contrary to international law.” Again, Turkey made another contradiction considering it violated United Nations Resolution 550 and 789 by partially reopening the town of Varosha in occupied northern Cyprus last year, and by violating the United Nations Charter Law of the Sea by illegally entering Greece’s maritime space for much of 2020.
The question of relocating the Serbian embassy also entails the question of the status of Jerusalem – while the Israelis consider it their capital, the Palestinians say it is an occupied city. Palestinian Ambassador to Serbia, Mohammed Nabhan, said immediately after the signing of the Washington Agreement that 57 countries from the Arab League and the Islamic Organization for Cooperation could withdraw their recognition of Kosovo due to their agreement with Israel. There have been no such announcements from these Islamic organizations or their members.
This is an empty threat by Nabhan as the position of Muslim and Arab states regarding Israel are no longer united, something the Palestinian Authority appears to be oblivious to. Islamic countries are extremely divided over the issue of Israel and Kosovo. Several Muslim states like Iran, Syria, Iraq and Morocco do not recognize the independence of the breakaway Serbian province. Self-proclaimed Kosovo has been recognized by leading Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt. It is difficult to expect that there will be any changes, especially since the voice of the Palestinian Authority is no longer as important as it used to be. The Palestinian question, which was once a major global issue, is now reduced, especially in the Arab World as they are now mostly focused on containing Turkish expansionism and Iranian influence.
Immediately after the signing of the Washington Agreement, it was speculated that Serbia might not fulfill what it signed if Israel recognizes the self-proclaimed independence of Kosovo. The very act of recognition is only a consequence of what was already signed in Washington last year. The new American administration are most likely not against Trump’s September 2020 Agreement, meaning they will try and implement it, or at the minimum not stop it. Belgrade’s only trump card is that they can postpone or end the transfer of the Serbian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.
Armed conflict between Venezuela and Guyana will involve US forces
By Lucas Leiroz | February 3, 2021
A new focus of tensions is emerging in South America. Since the discovery of oil in Guyana, this country has been increasingly approaching Washington both as an economic partner and as a political ally. The Americans see the partnership with the Guyanese as an opportunity to fill the void left in the global oil market with the economic sanctions imposed on Venezuela. But, in addition to a mere economic alliance, the ties between both countries are also rising to the military sphere, which is generating concerns in Caracas.
On January 21, regional tensions reached their peak. Guyanese fishing boats Nady Nayera and Sea Wolf were intercepted by Venezuela after an illegal incursion into Venezuelan territory. Caracas, not having authorized the entry of the vessels, interpreted the maneuver as dangerous to national security and kept the boats under its control. However, this Venezuelan version of the facts was denied by Georgetown, which claimed that the ships were detained within Guyana’s Exclusive Economic Zone.
Some noteworthy factors preceded this escalation of tensions. On January 7, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro signed a decree that establishes the formation of a new maritime territory on the Atlantic coast. The decree includes part of the Essequibo region, in which there is a territorial dispute with Guyana. The so-called “Guyana Essequiba” refers to a territory currently under the rule of Guyana that previously belonged to Venezuela, having been transferred to Guyanese possession after an arbitrary sentence in an international court organized by the United Kingdom at the end of the 19th century.
Venezuela has since claimed sovereignty over Essequibo, but tensions have been mild most of the time. However, Guyana, since aligning with the US, has been adopting more aggressive measures in the region. The US armed forces recently began military exercises in Guyana and deployed several military ships along Essequibo’s 159,000 km². The territory is rich in oil and the American justification for the exercises is precisely to protect the oil extraction bases installed by the company ExxonMobil. In the midst of such circumstances, Venezuela has its national sovereignty violated and is therefore trying to establish minimum measures to guarantee its interests.
However, despite the rivalry having resumed an old territorial dispute, it is necessary to emphasize that there is an agreement in force on Essequibo that Guyana is directly violating. In 1966, Guyana and Venezuela signed the Geneva Agreement, mediated by the United Nations, which determined which activities would be permitted in which area of Essequibo. In this document, oil exploration by foreign companies is not allowed. Since 2015, the Guyanese government has violated the pact, allowing multinationals to explore for oil there. In 2018, Venezuela had already intercepted ExxonMobil vessels that invaded its territory to explore oil. Now, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has determined the creation of a Special Strategic Zone to increase security over Essequibo because the tendency is for territorial violations to increase further, considering that regional diplomacy is already broken, and that Guyana has become a satellite nation of Washington’s interests – which publicly plans to overthrow Maduro. The Venezuelan decision was condemned by the president of Guyana, Irfaan Ali, which prompted Caracas to issue a statement saying that such positions suggested preparation for an armed confrontation.
The Guyanese attitude has not changed over time. Now, once again, ships have entered Venezuelan territory, leading to their capture by the Bolivarian forces. If that situation continues, the Venezuelan response to foreign incursions may become increasingly rigid and the armed forces are likely to start taking down invasive vessels, which will lead to Washington’s severe responses. Currently, we can no longer regard the South American scenario as “unlikely” for a war to arise. The security crisis is widespread and with Biden in power many experts suggest that American foreign policy will become more aggressive and interventionist. Guyana has a much weaker military apparatus than the Venezuelan State and cannot face the neighboring country with its own forces. It remains to be seen what Washington’s willingness to invest in a conflict in South America will be.
More than ever, a new international agreement is needed to establish a new regulation for the region. The agreement, however, must be impartial and try to favor both nations. In an ideal scenario, the other South American nations, being co-participants in the disputes, should mediate such an agreement. But, today, the political structure of South America is absolutely broken, and no nation has sufficient diplomatic strength to resolve a demand of this nature.
Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
Foreign Office maintains deafening silence on Chagos Islands despite UN ruling
Press TV – February 2, 2021
Five days after a legal body of the United Nations dismissed British claims of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, the Foreign Office continues to avoid meaningful engagement the issue.
The United Nation’s International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ruled on January 28 that Mauritius has sole sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, thus delivering a fatal blow to the UK’s weak legal position.
The UN body’s judgment follows a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in February 2019 that the UK must end its occupation, which in turn triggered a vote to that effect in the UN General Assembly in May 2019.
Despite the gravity of the situation, the British Foreign Office has hitherto released just a single terse statement on the issue, essentially reaffirming the UK’s recalcitrant attitude.
“The UK has no doubt as to our sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), which has been under continuous British sovereignty since 1814. Mauritius has never held sovereignty over the BIOT and the UK does not recognize its claim”.
That curt statement, and the subsequent silence, underscores the UK’s resolve to flout international law and maintain a stranglehold over the occupied Chagos Islands.
But despite London’s oft-stated determination to hold onto the Chagos Islands indefinitely, there will inevitably be concerted legal push back by the international community, the state of Mauritius and even by individual aggrieved Chagos islanders.
On the issue of Chagos islanders – who were forcibly removed from their ancestral lands by the UK in the mid-1960s – the long-delayed issue of compensation by the British government is finally attracting attention.
According to the Observer (January 31), less than £12,000 of a £40 million fund set up to compensate Chagos islanders for the loss of their homeland has actually been given to those islanders living in Britain.
The fund was reportedly set up four years ago and yet the Foreign Office has distributed less than one percent in direct support to Chagos islanders who have lost homes and livelihoods as a result of the 55-year British occupation.
According to the Observer, which claims to have seen internal documents, the “English council” tasked with allocating the money has “abandoned the work” and “returned the funds” to the Foreign Office.
The FCO’s mistreatment of Chagos islanders over a 55-year period has even elicited criticism from some sections of the ruling Tories, a party committed to keeping occupied territories around the world.
The Tory MP Henry Smith, whose Crawley constituency is home to the majority of Chagossians living in the UK, has described the process of extracting compensation money from the Foreign office as “tortuous”.
“While there’s some uncertainty among the Chagos community about engaging with the UK government over these funds, it’s outrageous that next to none of this funding has actually been utilized. The fact that this sort of funding hasn’t been deployed is another failure of Foreign Office promises over half a century to the Chagossian community”, Smith said.
It remains to be seen if class action undertaken by the Chagossian community – coupled with pressure from the UN and the broader international system – will produce a shift in the UK’s position in the mid to long term.
US forces ‘transporting by choppers’ Daesh terrorists in Afghanistan: Taliban
Press TV – February 1, 2021
The Taliban says the US occupation forces in Afghanistan are engaged in “transporting by their choppers” members of the Daesh Takfiri terrorist group in the war-torn country’s east.
Senior members of a Taliban delegation, who are on an official visit to Iran for talks on the Afghan peace process and relevant topics, made the assertion in a news conference in Tehran on Monday, saying that the US forces in Afghanistan are assisting the Daesh terrorists to escape the areas that are coming under the Taliban control.
“Daesh were in Nangarhar and Kunar; they existed in those areas. They were eliminated by the Taliban there but their members were transferred by choppers,” Suhail Shaheen, a negotiating member of the Taliban told reporters, adding, “When the Taliban laid a siege on them, we saw that only American choppers could fly as the Afghan airspace is fully under the control of Americans.”
The senior Taliban member also referred to the escalation of violence in Afghanistan after the US-Taliban deal last February and said the US forces were to blame as they defaulted on their obligation to end their occupation and resumed the assault.
“After the signing of the agreement, we gave a chance to the Americans to withdraw their troops from Afghanistan and we were committed not to launch any attacks, so if they terminated the occupation we were committed to refrain from any assaults or attacks so it would pave the way for intra-Afghan talks but unfortunately new attacks were launched against us and we were forced to defend ourselves and they even tried to capture our region and they conducted nightly attacks,” he said.
“We have no access to the media but they have. They attribute violence to us and that is not true. They start the violence. They start the violent action and that’s still continuing.”
During the news conference, the Taliban negotiator said the group was after an “inclusive system and establishment” in Afghanistan and not after “monopolizing power,” adding that they would reconsider the agreement with US if foreign forces failed to withdraw from Afghanistan.
“We have resisted the occupation of Afghanistan for 20 years and we will continue resistance against occupation if foreign forces remain in the country,” the senior Taliban member said.
Last week, the Taliban political delegation arrived in Tehran at the invitation of the Iranian Foreign Ministry, the latest of such visits that have been paid several times over the past months.
Iran strongly supports the realization of peace and stability in Afghanistan, which has been embroiled in decades of militancy fueled by foreign military intervention.
The intra-Afghan talks started after the United States agreed to withdraw 12,000 US troops from Afghanistan in exchange for the Taliban’s halting of their attacks on international forces under a deal between the two sides in February 2020.
The deal was intended to result in the reduction of bloodshed, but violence continues to take a heavy toll on the country.
In recent months, deadly attacks and high-profile assassinations have seen a rise in Afghanistan. The Taliban have denied responsibility for the killings, but Afghan and US officials have pinned the blame on the group.
Despite the ongoing talks between Kabul and the Taliban, the administration of US President Joe Biden has said it would review the peace deal reached last year.
The US first invaded Afghanistan in 2001 under the banner of fighting “terrorism.” The invasion toppled the Taliban, but the group has never stopped its attacks, citing the foreign military presence as one of the main reasons behind its continued militancy.
Since the US invasion of Afghanistan, Washington has spent more than two trillion dollars for the war on the impoverished country, according to some estimates. Over 2,400 US soldiers and tens of thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed.
Hezbollah fighters intercept, shoot down Israeli reconnaissance drone in southern Lebanon
Press TV – February 1, 2021
The Lebanese Hezbollah resistance movement says it has intercepted and shot down an Israeli unmanned aerial vehicle as it crossed into Lebanon’s airspace near the border village of Blida in the south of the Arab country.
Hezbollah said in a brief statement that the drone was struck on Monday morning, adding that it was now in the control of the drone. It did not provide any further details.
The Israeli military, however, asserted that the drone had fallen in Lebanese territory during an operation, alleging that “there is no risk of breach of information.”
The development came a day after Palestinian resistance fighters brought down an Israeli quadcopter conducting an espionage mission against the besieged Gaza Strip.
The drone was shot down on Sunday while taking images over Beit Hanoun Crossing, which is located on the enclave’s northern border with the occupied territories, the Arabic-language Palestine al-Yawm news agency reported.
Israel frequently violates Lebanon’s airspace. Lebanon’s government, Hezbollah and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) have repeatedly condemned Israel’s overflights, saying they are in clear violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and the country’s sovereignty.
The resolution, which brokered a ceasefire in the war Israel launched against Lebanon in 2006, calls on the Tel Aviv regime to respect Beirut’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
On August 23 last year, Hezbollah resistance movement said it had downed and seized an Israeli drone as it flew over the Lebanese border.
The Israeli military claimed back then that a drone had fallen in Lebanon during operational activity along Lebanese border, claiming that there was no risk of breach of information.
Tensions have been running high between Israel and Hezbollah since July 20 last year, when Tel Aviv killed Hezbollah member Ali Kamel Mohsen in an airstrike in Syria.
The Israeli military has placed its forces near the Lebanese and Syrian borders on high alert after Hezbollah promised retaliation.
Israeli forces shelled the Lebanese village of Habaria in late July 2020 to stop an alleged Hezbollah offensive, but the Lebanese movement dismissed the allegation, calling it the result of tension and confusion among Israeli forces.
US military lands Daesh terrorists behind PMU positions in Jurf al-Sakhar: Report
Press TV – January 31, 2021
The US military airlifts groups of Daesh Takfiri terrorists to areas behind the positions of the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) in Jurf al-Sakhar region in the central province of Babil, says an Iraqi security expert.
Sabah al-Akili told Iraq’s al-Maloumeh news website on Sunday that the move is aimed at infiltrating and targeting the PMU positions and sabotaging power transmission lines.
“The strategic military goal of the US forces is to cause division in Jurf al-Sakhar in order to create a threat to nearby provinces and to invent a pretext for American forces to stay in Iraq,” he said.
Al-Akili argued that the move also provides a justification for the Iraqi government to ask the US troops to remain in the Arab country.
“Foreign and [Iraqi] political parties, backed by the US, are doing their utmost to drive the Hashd al-Sha’abi (PMU) forces out of Jurf al-Sakhar, which connects the provinces of Babil, al-Anbar and Baghdad via the holy [city of] Karbala,” he added.
The remarks came a day after the PMU announced its forces had thwarted an attack launched by the remnants of Daesh on Jurf al-Sakhar.
The PMU’s communication office said in a statement that the attack was repelled by the Al-Jazirah Operation Headquarters Command.
Jurf al-Sakhar was liberated from Daesh terrorists in 2014 in Operation Ashura, which was led by Iran’s top anti-terror commander Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani, who was killed by the US military in January 2020, in an assassination lauded by Daesh. Over 200 Takfiri terrorists were killed during Operation Ashura.
Iraq declared victory over Daesh in December 2017, after over three years of death and destruction by the terrorist group against the Iraqi people. However, remnants of Daesh still carry out terrorist attacks across the country from time to time.
Earlier this month, a twin bombing by the Takfiri terrorist group in a busy square in Baghdad killed more than 30 people.
Iraq’s Kata’ib Hezbollah, which is part of the PMU, blamed the “American-Saudi-Israeli alliance” for the bombing, and warned that Iraqi resistance forces will target the main source of Takfiri violence.
“The perpetrators of the massacres in Iraq are the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel,” Abdul-Ali al-Asgari, Katai’b’s security chief, wrote in a tweet on January 24.
“Revenge should be exacted by retaliating against the source and fountainhead of fire, not its branches,” he added.
Biden Regime Puts The Brakes On Trump’s Germany Troop Draw Down
By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | January 29, 2021
Perhaps as expected, it didn’t take long for the Biden administration to begin putting the brakes on Trump’s previously ordered troop draw downs which occurred in the last two months of his presidency, particularly in Germany, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
The defense analysis and news site Military.com is reporting that new defense secretary under the Biden administration Lloyd Austin is reviewing the withdrawal of 12,000 US troops from Germany:
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has voiced his commitment to shoring up close ties with NATO ally Germany that were strained under the Trump administration, and suggested that the plan to withdraw 12,000 U.S. troops from the country is open to discussion.
The prior Trump plan to cut nearly one-third of total American military personnel from the country was predictably fought from Congressional corners known for being hawkish on Russia, with even some American and European security officials having called the move a “gift to Putin”.
Later in December the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act attempted to override the draw down order, and according to German officials early this year there’s yet to be significant movement of troops from the country.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin this week held phone calls with NATO allied officials in Europe. The Military.com report continues:
In a phone call to his German counterpart, Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, Austin “expressed his gratitude to Germany for continuing to serve as a great host for U.S. forces, and expressed his desire for a continued dialogue on U.S. force posture in Germany,” according to a Pentagon readout of the call released Wednesday.
He also sought “to reinforce the value the United States places on the bilateral defense relationship with one of our closest NATO Allies,” the readout from Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby states.
By all appearances the some 36,000 total American troops in Germany have gone nowhere despite the plan initiated under Esper.
Recent polling of the German public also suggests half or more want to see US troops gone, after being there since World War II.
As the report concludes of Defense Secretary Austin’s phone call, it is “the latest sign of the Biden administration’s intent to reverse or water down the policies of former President Donald Trump, who repeatedly questioned NATO’s worth to the U.S. and rattled allies with demands for more defense spending.”
US military refusal to pull out troops to be met with Iraqi nation’s resistance, MP warns
Press TV – January 29, 2021
An Iraqi lawmaker has stressed the need for the implementation of a resolution adopted by Iraq’s parliament concerning the expulsion of US-led foreign forces from the Arab country, saying that the Iraqi nation will resort to resistance in case the Pentagon refuses to abide by the decision.
“The decision to remove foreign troops from Iraq is an Iraqi matter. If the Iraqi government’s political solutions for the withdrawal of foreign forces do not succeed, we will then resort to resistance to attain the objective,” Mohammed al-Baldawi, a member of the Iraqi Parliament’s Security and Defense Committee, told the Arabic-language Baghdad Today news agency on Thursday.
He made the remarks as the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday that authorities in Washington are counting on reconsidering the decision of former US president Donald Trump’s administration to reduce the number of US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The newspaper quoted Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby as saying that the official decision to review the number of US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq has not yet been taken.
He asserted, however, that the current US [proclaimed] President Joe Biden’s administration “is counting on a better understanding of the current situation with regard to operations in both countries.”
Baldawi added, “The decision to expel foreign troops from Iraq has been finalized and it is irreversible. Foreign troops have no option but to withdraw. We are working with the government to implement the [parliamentary] resolution.”
“The presence of US-led foreign troops in Iraq poses a dangerous threat to the security and stability of the country as well as the region, because the United States wants to plunge Iraq into turmoil. This is completely rejected,” the Iraqi legislator concluded.
Anti-US sentiment has been running high in Iraq since the assassination of top Iranian anti-terror commander Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), and his Iraqi trenchmate, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Units, along with their companions in a US terror drone strike authorized by Trump near Baghdad International Airport on January 3 last year.
Iraqi lawmakers approved a bill two days later, demanding the expulsion of all foreign military forces led by the United States from the Arab country.
6 Warning Signs from Biden’s First Week in Office
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | January 27, 2021
It’s been a busy first week for the 46th President [sic] of the United States, there are the 20,000 troops occupying the capitol city to organise, as well as the totally unprecedented show-trial of his immediate predecessor.
You know, usual democracy type stuff.
On top of that, Biden has now signed at least 37 executive orders in his first week. The record for any President, and more than the previous four presidents combined.
What do these orders, or any of his other moves, tell us about the future plans of the recently “elected” administration? Nothing good, unfortunately.
1. VACCINATION PASSPORTS
I still remember people claiming the introduction of vaccination passports (or immunity passes or the like) was just a “conspiracy theory”, the paranoid fantasy of fringe “covidiots”. All the way back in December, when they were getting fact-checked by tabloid journalists who can’t do basic maths.
These days they are rebranded as “freedom certificates” which are “divisive, politically tricky and probably inevitable”.
Many countries are already preparing to roll it out, including Iceland the UK and South Africa. Biden’s “Executive Order on Promoting COVID-19 Safety in Domestic and International Travel” adds the US to this list:
International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis. Consistent with applicable law, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of HHS, and the Secretary of Homeland Security (including through the Administrator of the TSA), in coordination with any relevant international organizations, shall assess the feasibility of linking COVID-19 vaccination to International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis (ICVP) and producing electronic versions of ICVPs.
2. CABINET APPOINTMENTS
Biden’s cabinet is praised as the “most diverse” in history, but will hiring a few non-white people really change the decades-old policies of US Imperialism? It certainly doesn’t look like it.
His pick for Under Secretary of State is Victoria Nuland, a neocon warmonger and one of the masterminds of the Maidan coup in Ukraine in 2014. She is married to Robert Kagan, another neocon warmonger, co-founder of the Project for a New American Century and senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and one of the masterminds behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The incoming Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, is also an inveterate US Imperialist, arguing for every US military intervention since the 1990s, and criticised Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria.
Biden’s pick for Defence Secretary is the first African-American ever appointed to this role, but former General Lloyd Austin is hardly going be some kind of “progressive” voice in his cabinet. He’s a career soldier who retired from the military in 2016 to join the board of Raytheon Technologies, an arms manufacturer and military contractor.
As “diverse” as this cabinet may be in skin colour or gender… there is most certainly no “diversity” of opinion or policy. There are very few new faces and no new thoughts.
So, it looks like we can expect more of the same in terms of foreign policy. A fact that’s already been displayed in…
3. IRAQ…
Despite heavy resistance from the military and Deep State, Donald Trump wanted to end the war in Iraq and pledged to pull American troops out of the country. This was one of Trump’s more popular policies, and during the campaign Biden made no mention of intending to reverse that decision.
Then, on the very day of Biden’s inauguration, ISIS conducted their deadliest suicide bombing for over three years, and suddenly the situation was too unstable for the US to leave, and Biden is being forced to “review” Trump’s planned withdrawal.
The Iraqi parliament has made it clear it wants the US to take its military off their soil, so any American forces on Iraqi land are technically there illegally in contravention of international law. But that never bothered them before.
4. … AFGHANISTAN…
Turns out the US can’t withdraw from Afghanistan either. Last February Trump signed a deal with the Taliban that all US personnel would leave Afghanistan by May 2021.
Joe Biden has already committed to “reviewing” this deal. Sec. Blinken was quoted as saying that Biden’s admin wanted:
“to end this so-called forever war [but also] retain some capacity to deal with any resurgence of terrorism, which is what brought us there in the first place”.
As a great man once said, nothing someone says before the word “but” really counts. The US will not be withdrawing from Afghanistan, and if there is any public pressure to do so, the government will simply claim the Taliban broke their side of the deal first, or stage a few terrorist attacks.
5. … AND SYRIA
Far from simply continuing the on-going wars, there are already signs Biden’s “diverse” team will look to escalate, or even start, other conflicts.
Syria was another theatre of war from which Donald Trump wanted to extricate the United States, unilaterally ordering all US troops from the country in late 2019.
We now know the Pentagon ignored those orders. They lied to the President, telling Trump they had followed his orders… but not withdrawing a single man. This organized mutiny against the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces was played for a joke in the media when it was finally revealed.
There will be no need for any such duplicity now that Biden is in the Oval Office, he was a vocal critic of the decision to withdraw, claiming it gave ISIS a “new lease of life”. Indeed, within two days of his being sworn in a column of American military vehicles was seen entering Syria from Iraq.
6. DOMESTIC TERRORISM
We called this before the inauguration. They made it just too obvious. Before the dirty footprints had been cleaned from Nancy Pelosi’s desk it was clear where it was all going.
Within 24 hours of being sworn in as president, Biden had ordered a “review of the threat posed by domestic terrorism”.
As usual, the press are laying down the covering fire for this. Talking heads have been busily comparing MAGA voters to al Qaida in television interviews. The Washington Post and New Yorker journal have cut-and-paste pieces about this supposed threat. Politico published an article titled “Biden vowed to defeat domestic terrorism. The how is the hard part”, which outlines what Biden could do:
Direct the Justice Department, FBI and National Security Council to execute a top-down approach prioritizing domestic terrorism; pass new domestic terrorism legislation; or do a bit of both as Democrats propose a crack down on social media giants like Facebook for algorithms that promote conspiracy laden posts.
That last part is key. The “crack down on social media” part, because the anti-Domestic Terrorism legislation will likely be very focused on communication and so-called “misinformation”.
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has publicly called for a congressional panel to “rein in” the media:
We’re going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation,”
And who will be the target of these crack downs and new legislations? Well, according John Brennan (ex-head of the CIA and accomplished war criminal), practically anybody:
They’re casting a wide net. Expect “extremist”, “bigot” and “racist” to be just a few of the words which have their meanings totally revised in the next few months. “Conspiracy theorist” will be used a lot, too.
Further, they are moving closer and closer toward the “anyone who disagrees with us is literally insane” model. With many articles actually talking about “de-programming” Trump voters. The Atlantic suggests “mental hygiene” would cure the MAGA problem.
Again AOC is on point here, clearly auditioning for the role of High Inquisitor, claiming that the new Biden government needs to fund programs that “de-radicalise” “conspiracy theorists” who are on the “spectrum of radicalisation”.
*
As I said at the beginning, it’s been a busy week for Joe Biden, but you can sum up his biggest policy plans in one short sentence: More violence overseas, less tolerance of dissent and strict clampdowns on “misinformation”.
How progressive.
