CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

£45m deal for NHS masks collapses amid fraud claims

Exclusive: millions of respirators missing as medical company sues its supplier in US

Mark Harris and David Pegg
Tue 3 Nov 2020 

 

FFP3 respirator masks were supposed to have been flown in to Birmingham airport by June. Photograph: Stanislav Krasilnikov/TASS


Millions of medical masks purchased by the British government for £45m are missing after a major PPE deal collapsed amid accusations of fraud, the Guardian can reveal.

The Department of Health and Social Care paid its supplier Purple Surgical upfront for 5m FFP3 respirator masks, which were supposed to have been flown into Birmingham international airport by June.

But Purple Surgical, a Hertfordshire-based company that has signed deals worth almost £250m with the DHSC since the pandemic began, has been unable to supply the masks.

Purple Surgical has filed papers in California alleging fraud by its own supplier, a company in the British Virgin Islands (BVI).

The legal battle in San Francisco lays bare how the DHSC became embroiled in a global market for PPE reliant upon chains of suppliers and subcontractors, in this case stretching from the Caribbean to Hong Kong and South Korea.

Purple Surgical’s case in California is against Win Billion Investment Group, a BVI company that had promised to supply the respirators.

In April the government agreed a contract with Purple Surgical for £45m worth of 3M Aura 9332+ FFP3 masks, a medical-grade respirator, to be delivered in mid-May.

Purple Surgical then signed its own $27m (£21m) deal with Win Billion for 5m of the respirators. A chain of emails submitted as evidence to the California court by Purple Surgical reveals that the deal began to falter almost immediately.

In early June, Win Billion said it had received a first payment of 35% of the funds and that the goods were awaiting inspection. The next day, however, the company said documents relating to the order would be ready “within five days”.

After a further delay on 8 June, Purple Surgical’s chief executive, Robert Sharpe, warned Win Billion: “I MUST have this information by midday tomorrow as I have a call with the UK Govt at 1.00pm and they are expecting hard information.”

According to court documents Purple Surgical requested updates on the respirators throughout June, only to be advised of further delays.

One delay in early June was “due to some banking delay on the transfer for the down payment”, while another said Win Billion’s distributor had been affected by “a shortage of the raw materials and … overwhelming orders due to the Covid-19”.

Win Billion’s Hong Kong-based chief executive, Ric Wu, also provided Purple Surgical with emails purporting to show explanations for the delays sent from 3M to Win Billion’s distributor. The first, dated 18 June, read: “I am glad to inform you that your shipment to UK will be ready on the 25th this month and reach Birmingham airport before the 30th, we will forward you all the document once its available, again we sincerely apologise for the delay.”

In August Purple Surgical launched legal action against Win Billion, citing non-delivery of the masks. The company also claimed that, despite an agreement that the remaining 65% of the money would be held back until the masks had been inspected, it had since been informed that only $1m remained in the escrow account.

Jody Wong, the California lawyer hired as an escrow agent to transfer the money between the two companies in stages as the order progressed, denied any wrongdoing and said funds had only ever been disbursed from the account to secure production of the respirators. “To me it’s just a business transaction and they’re waiting for the goods,” he said.

He added he had not yet received any fee for his role. “I don’t know the reasons why it took so long,” he said. “I feel bad for everybody, because they should get their masks.”

Win Billion’s South Korean distributor denied involvement, though it subsequently claimed to have also been the victim of a fraud by yet another company.

3M said it had had no involvement in the transaction as described in Purple Surgical’s legal papers.

“References to 3M as part of the underlying transaction in the matter you described are entirely fraudulent,” said Jennifer Ehrlich, a spokesperson for the company. “None of the distributors and principals you mentioned have a relationship with 3M or are authorised distributors of 3M products.”

Ehrlich said more than 7,700 cases of fraud involving fake 3M PPE had been reported to the company during the pandemic. She said 3M had advised the British government in June that this particular order was unlikely to be legitimate.

Sharpe said Purple Surgical still intended to fulfil the DHSC’s order, but would repay the full value of the contract if unable to do so.

“We are deeply distressed by the suspected fraud that has been committed against Purple Surgical and, by extension, the NHS,” he said. He added that the company had fulfilled 95% of its UK government contracts despite the unprecedented pressures of the pandemic.


A DHSC spokesperson said: “We have been working tirelessly to deliver PPE to protect our health and social care staff throughout the pandemic, and proper due diligence is carried out for all government contracts and we take these checks extremely seriously.

“We cannot comment directly on individual allegations of fraud, but we take all allegations seriously and explore every available option to bring those who commit fraud to account.”

Win Billion has filed a motion for Purple Surgical’s case to be dismissed. However, the company’s lawyer said his client would formally deny the allegations should the case proceed. “Win Billion Investment Group Limited and Wu Yun Fai Rick [Ric Wu] deny any fraudulent intent at any time in this transaction,” he said.

BILL MORNEAU'S NEW JOB

OECD Announces Candidates For Next Secretary-General

Tuesday, 3 November 2020
Press Release: OECD

The OECD today issued an official list of candidates nominated by member countries for the position of Secretary-General of the Organisation. The OECD Council will select a candidate to succeed the current Secretary-General, Angel Gurría, for a five-year term that will begin on 1 June 2021.

The list of nominated candidates (in alphabetical order) is as follows:
Mathias Cormann (Australia)
Anna Diamantopoulou (Greece)
Vladimir Dlouhý (Czech Republic)
Philipp Hildebrand (Switzerland)
Kersti Kaljulaid (Estonia)
Ulrik Vestergaard Knudsen (Denmark)
Michal Kurtyka (Poland)
Christopher Liddell (United States)
Cecilia Malmström (Sweden)
William Morneau (Canada)

In the coming weeks, the Chair of the Selection Committee, Dean of the OECD Council, Ambassador Christopher Sharrock, Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, will invite each candidate to be interviewed by member countries at meetings of Heads of Delegations. Following the interviews, the Chair will carry out confidential consultations with individual members, in order to narrow the field of candidates and ultimately identify the candidate around whom consensus can be built for appointment as the Secretary-General.

Further details regarding the interview process will be announced in due course.


© Scoop Media

 

Biodiversity: Where The World Is Making Progress – And Where It’s Not

Friday, 2 October 2020, 5:46 am
Article: The Conversation

Biodiversity: where the world is making progress – and where it's not

Vlad61/Shutterstock

Tom Oliver, University of Reading

The future of biodiversity hangs in the balance. World leaders are gathering to review international targets and make new pledges for action to stem wildlife declines. Depending on whether you are a glass half-full or half-empty person, you’re likely to have different views on their progress so far.

More than 175 countries agreed to 20 targets under the banner of the Convention for Biological Diversity, which was signed in 1992. The most recent plan, published in 2010, was to halt the extinction of species and populations by 2020 to prevent the destruction of global ecosystems and to staunch the loss of genetic diversity – the variety within the DNA of species’ populations, which helps them adapt to a changing environment.

But the targets were missed. An optimist might say that’s because they were laudably ambitious, and we’re making good progress nonetheless. The protection of land particularly rich in biodiversity has increased from 29% to 44% in just a decade, which is a huge policy achievement. On the other hand, we failed to halt global biodiversity loss during a previous round of global targets ending in 2010 and, a decade later, we are still far behind where we need to be.

A recent UN report compiled detailed assessments of the world’s progress towards each of the 20 targets. It highlights some small victories, and where the greatest gulfs exist between present action and necessary ambition.

---

Read more:
How to reverse global wildlife declines by 2050

---

The good news

The international community has made progress on several goals. We have improved our global capacity to assess biodiversity trends, and funding for conservation roughly doubled over the previous decade to USD$78-91 billion annually.

There is now an international protocol governing the fair sharing of genetic resources discovered in nature, so they cannot be plundered by companies from rich countries. This gives countries added incentives to protect their biodiversity, which might lead to new medicines or technologies for use in food production.

Two of the biggest drivers of biodiversity loss are habitat destruction and invasive species. Through scientific research and monitoring programmes, scientists are now better at identifying the pathways by which invasive species colonise vulnerable habitats. Protected areas have expanded across the globe too. Achim Steiner, leader of the UN Development Programme, stated that the world is on track to achieve protection of 17% of land and 10% of marine areas identified under the programme by the end of 2020.

All this has had a tangible effect. Up to four times as many birds and mammals likely would have become extinct in the past three decades without such actions.

California condors were saved from extinction by humans. There were just 27 left in 1989; today, there are nearly 500.
FRAYN/Shutterstock

The bad news

So far, so good. But all these successes are partial and ambiguous. Yes, we have increased funding for biodiversity, but this is still swamped by more than £500 billion in environmentally harmful subsidies, such as aid for the fossil fuel industry. Although we have identified more of the ways in which invasive species spread, there has been limited progress in actually controlling them. Though a significant area of the world is now designated as “protected”, management within these areas is still often inadequate.

What’s more, for many of the other targets, things have actually got worse. The loss and fragmentation of the world’s forests continues, depriving biodiversity of habitat and exacerbating climate change. Deforestation rates are only one-third lower in 2020 compared to 2010, and may be accelerating again in some areas.

Essential ecosystem services – such as the provision of clean water, soil for farming and pollinating insects – continue to deteriorate, affecting women, indigenous communities, and the poor and vulnerable more than others. We are still unable to even track changes in the genetic diversity of wild species, meaning we cannot assess these hidden changes in biodiversity which are important for the long-term resilience of a species.

The fundamental problem is that we have failed to address the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss. Targets for reducing pollution, habitat loss and climate change all show negative progress. We have achieved several easy wins, but the tougher challenges remain. Overcoming these will mean stopping the activities that are at the root of biodiversity loss.

Only drastic action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect habitats will improve conditions for wildlife.
Aaron Kohr/Shutterstock

We need better regulation of harmful chemicals which pollute the environment. Of the over 100,000 chemicals used in Europe today, only a small fraction are thoroughly evaluated or regulated by authorities, despite many causing harm to health and the environment. We need strong trade policies that prevent the destruction of primary rainforest for products such as palm oil and soy. Perhaps most of all, we need radical action on climate change, which is expected to overtake other drivers to be the number one cause of biodiversity loss in coming years.

These systemic changes require action from states and industries. But we can also take action as citizens and consumers. We need fundamental changes in the way we live – how we invest our money, the food we eat and how we travel. Each of us, making internet orders at the click of a button, has hidden power to influence the state of the planet. What we choose to buy, or not to buy, can help decide whether wild species flourish across the globe.

If world leaders fail to regulate unsustainable markets, then we need to be even more savvy about potentially harmful connections to the natural world that lie behind our purchases. Perhaps then we can start to be both optimistic and realistic about the state of our planet’s biodiversity.

Tom Oliver, Professor of Applied Ecology, University of Reading

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

© Scoop Media

NZ ELECTION 2020

Four Year Term Self-Serving Power Grab By National & Labour

Thursday, 1 October 2020, 5:40 am
Press Release: Social Credit Party

LIKE ALBERTA THERE STILL IS A SOCIAL CREDIT PARTY IN NZ

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=SOCIAL+CREDIT+

Suggestions by the two J’s on the Leader’s Debate that they both favour a four year parliamentary term are simply a self serving attempt to further entrench the two party dominance of New Zealand’s political scene.

This is a classic example of the two old parties working together in an effort to keep other parties out of the political game.

Just as in the 1992 Tamaki by-election when Labour turned its entire canvassing data over to National when polls showed that the Alliance was likely to take the formerly safe seat off National.

At National’s election night celebration at the Tamaki Yacht Club, Labour Leader Helen Clark and Labour’s Tamaki candidate Verna Smith were welcomed as “our friends from the Labour Party”.

They also both dragged their heels on a change from the First Past the Post electoral system to MMP, to maintain their grip on power, despite promising to hold a referendum on the issue.

Labour’s own history proves that a three year term is plenty long enough to make major changes to the country’s direction if there is the commitment to do so.

Elected in 1935 Labour’s greatest Prime Minister, Michael Joseph Savage, had nationalised the Reserve Bank, commenced building thousands of state houses, introduced a 40-hour working week, instituted a large public works programme, put in place the foundations of the Welfare State, and much more in its first three years.

The Fourth Labour government, under Finance Minister Roger Douglas, floated the New Zealand dollar, removed agricultural subsidies, introduced GST, corporatised state owned enterprises, established the Department of Conservation, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Womens Affairs and turned NZ into an anti-nuclear nation.

ROGER DOUGLAS GOVERNMENT / POLICIES HAD A MAJOR INFLUENCE ON PRIVATIZATION IN ALBERTA UNDER THE KLEIN CONSERVATIVES

The current government has achieved more in the last 7 months with its response to Covid-19 than in the rest of its three year term, but it has also trampled on individual rights and is moving to centralise control of education, health and local council assets.

We strongly oppose any attempt to extend the parliamentary term to four years and would work with other parties and the public to ensure further reductions in democracy are not allowed to take place.

© Scoop Media

 

Foreign Correspondent: Rightwing Populism Will Make You Sick—Really

Saturday, 10 October 2020

Opinion: Reese Erlich

The four countries with the most confirmed COVID-19 infections in the world are all led by rightwing populists: the US, India, Brazil, and Russia. Throw in the United Kingdom, which has the largest infection rate in Europe, and you have a common pattern.

Leaders of these countries pose as men of the people battling the elites. In reality, they channel people’s darkest fears and prejudices into policies that benefit the ultra wealthy.

Rightwing populists initially downplayed the seriousness of the coronavirus, adopting dangerous public health policies that ultimately infected themselves, close supporters, and aides. These were not mistakes or bad luck, but rather the inevitable outcome of putting Dr. Frankenstein in charge of health policy and making Igor chief of implementation.

A virus has no politics

When the virus began to spread globally in March, it had no inherent politics. Public health officials worldwide agreed to use traditional anti-epidemic protocols: widespread testing, contact tracing, and quarantine. There were no leftwing masks or rightwing ventilators.

But as many countries failed to contain the pandemic, a battle broke out between medical officials who want to minimize public interaction and the big business class, which wants to keep companies open.

In general, union workers sided with medical experts in seeking to make workplaces safe. Corporate executives sought to open factories regardless of health costs, or at least receive massive government subsidies during the shutdown.

The administration of Donald Trump, wary of openly siding with its corporate bosses, instead played the populist card. Last May, in Michigan and some other states, a few hundred small business people and workers held demonstrations demanding that the government allow the economy to reopen.

Trump promoted the small protests as proof of a grassroots rebellion. A barbershop owner became the symbol of Americans demanding an end to pandemic shutdowns. Armed militia members stood guard as the barbershop’s owner, Karl Manke, reopened in defiance of a public health order. As one article reported, they were “wearing Trump sweatshirts and Trump cowboy hats and waving Trump flags.”

Mask: symbol of tyranny

In short order, the Trump Administration made refusal to wear a mask a symbol of American independence. The President’s followers eschewed wearing masks or keeping six feet apart at public events, or even while grocery shopping.

Few Americans have qualms about businesses protecting their operations by posting signs reading “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service.” But when the same businesses require customers to wear masks, it’s totalitarianism.

Trump became trapped by his own rhetoric and egotism. He rarely wears a mask at the White House and many of his staffers follow suit. The administration has held super spreader events, such as a September 26 Rose Garden celebration of the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

This week, Trump advisor Stephen Miller became the thirty-fourth White House denizen to test positive for COVID-19. Nearly all members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are quarantined after one high ranking officer tested positive.

But Trump was not alone in endangering his staff and the public.

Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson, who comes from an upper-middle-class family and studied at Oxford, portrays himself as a quirky man of the people. He and the Conservative Party won Britain’s last parliamentary election by calling for a quick withdrawal from the European Union, a long-time demand of the British left and popular with many workers.

During the pandemic, Johnson played the populist card by claiming to represent ordinary people who just wanted to return to work. Johnson claimed the United Kingdom could quickly develop herd immunity, which would immunize a majority of its residents, save lives, and produce a prosperous economy.

It didn’t work. The United Kingdom has faced several waves of contagion, and today it has one of the worst records in Europe: 544,000 confirmed cases and 42,500 deaths.

Johnson also made the mistake of believing his own propaganda by not taking precautions at 10 Downing Street. Starting in March, top U.K. leaders became infected, including Johnson, the health secretary, chief advisor to the prime minister, and the country’s chief medical officer.

While spouting platitudes about how well he was recovering at the time, Johnson later admitted he came close to death.

As with Trump, who celebrated his return from the hospital by ripping off his mask before walking into the White House, the experience has not made Johnson noticeably wiser. His pandemic policies still flounder and popularity plummets.

Disasters in common

The world’s major rightwing populist leaders share some disastrous policies in common. They downplay the significance of the pandemic, fail to follow the advice of medical experts, and fire advisors who insist on fact-based policies.

In August, Trump appointed Scott Atlas as a special advisor on the pandemic. He is not an epidemiologist or a public health expert. But he is a doctor who frequently appeared on Fox News and works at Stanford University’s rightwing Hoover Institution. One hundred-some of his Stanford colleagues wrote an open letter sharply criticizing Atlas’s pro-Trump views on the pandemic.

“Many of his opinions and statements run counter to established science and, by doing so, undermine public-health authorities,” they wrote.

Making Atlas a coronavirus advisor is like appointing Dr. Frankenstein to head the city morgue. He helped create a monster who stalks the streets of the US all the way to the White House.

Trump is now betting on the quick development of a vaccine, claiming it will be publically available later this year. Once again “America First” ignores developments elsewhere. Both China and Russia are already distributing vaccines. But it will take many more months to prove their efficacy and begin widespread inoculations.

Yet Trump says a US vaccine will be ready soon. Why shouldn’t we believe him? He’s done such a great job so far.

Reese Erlich's nationally distributed column, Foreign Correspondent, appears every two weeks. Erlich is an adjunct professor in International Studies at the University of San Francisco. Follow him on Twitter, @ReeseErlich; friend him on Facebook; and visit his webpage.

© Scoop Media

 

NZ ELECTION 2020

What Kind Of People Voted For The Different Political Parties?

Wednesday, 28 October 2020, 3:40 pm
Press Release: Auckland University of Technology

AUT Emeritus Professor of Sociology Charles Crothers has put together a document that looks at what types of people voted for different political parties.

It compares the social characteristics of electorates from the census data, as well as providing the voting data in different ways.

The resource will be useful for researchers and journalists looking for patterns in the preliminary results for the 2020 General Election.

Emeritus Professor Crothers hopes to provide a similar examination of the final vote count and the referenda after November 6.

Some results from the preliminary votes:

Electorates with more children tended to vote for the Labour Party, suggesting support amongst middle age adults.

The Green Party has more support in electorates with a younger population.

The National Party and especially ACT support is highest among electorates with an older population.

ACT support is high amongst electorates with more people born in New Zealand.

Green Party support is correlated with fewer people born in New Zealand.

National Party, and especially ACT support, is higher in electorates with more NZ-Europeans whereas, the reverse was true for the Labour Party.

People in stronger Labour Party electorates were more likely to be regular smokers, whereas those with more Green Party voters not.

The National Party and Act vote was correlated with electorates that have more married people, whereas the Labour Party and Green Party vote wasn't.

People in electorates that voted more for the National Party and ACT were more likely to own their dwelling.

National Party and ACT voting electorates were more self- employed while Labour Party and Green Party-voting electorates were wage-earning.

Electorates with more managers voted more for the National Party and ACT, but electorates with more professionals gave more votes to the Green Party.

Electorates with a higher Labour Party vote had a lower NZ Socio-Economic Index (NZSEI) and those with more Green Party votes a higher NZSEI.

The document Electorate VotingPatterns,PreliminaryResults2020can be downloaded here.

A previous analysis by Emeritus Professor Crothers looks at how New Zealanders’ attitudes to cannabis and euthanasia have changed over time.

© Scoop Media

 

Dr. Hanan Ashrawi: Trump Administration Is Preempting U.S. Elections By Recognizing Israeli Annexation Of The West Bank

Thursday, 29 October 2020, 6:39 am
Press Release: The Palestine Liberation Organization

"The agreement between Israel and the United States to gut all mention of the 1967 borders out of bilateral cooperation agreements between the two countries is a blatant unlawful act.

Extending US funding to the occupied West Bank, including illegal Israeli settlements, is a clear recognition of Israel´s annexation of Palestinian territory.

This upgrades the Trump administration’s involvement in Israeli war crimes to active and willful participation.

The Trump administration is now funding Israel’s colonization of Palestinian land and dispossession of its people with US taxpayer dollars.

The U.S. administration and Netanyahu government are scurrying to bring about this de facto recognition of Israeli annexation at the eleventh hour.

In a mad rush to provide Israel with deliverables before January 2021, including normalization, economic benefits, and endorsement of annexation, the Trump administration thinks it can deliver Palestine to Israel on a silver platter.

It is rewarding Israel with recognition of annexation in advance.

The Trump administration is pre-empting election results to bring its policy to its natural conclusion.

For this administration, the goal has always been facilitating and legitimizing annexation.

This agreement is an assault on the basic principles of international law and UN Security Council resolutions, including 2334 (2016).

The world is on notice: Israel and the US are upending international law by legitimizing annexation and aggression.

This must be a wake-up call to the European Union and individual European States.

Instead of contemplating an upgrade in EU-Israeli cooperation as a reward for a blatant lie, the European Union must show moral and legal leadership and hold Israel accountable for its crimes.

Realities resulting from illegal actions are null and void.

This agreement neither diminishes fundamental Palestinian rights nor changes the Palestinian people’s rightful demand for freedom.

We will not relent or surrender to this partnership of aggression."

© Scoop Media

 

US ELECTION 2020

There Are Anti-War Candidates

Saturday, 24 October 2020, 3:58 pm
Opinion: David Swanson

https://davidswanson.org/there-are-anti-war-candidates/

I don’t have any use for PEP politicians (progressive except on the Pentagon), but there are going to be serious members of the U.S. Congress next year who aren’t afraid of flags and war songs. There are going to be a lot more than (AOC+3) four of them.

CORI BUSH

One is going to be Cori Bush from St. Louis who won her primary against a long-time incumbent. She’s recently tweeted the following:

“If you’re having a bad day, just think of all the social services we’re going to fund after we defund the Pentagon.”

“Militarization makes up 64% of our federal budget. Medicare & Health are 6%. Education is 5%. Social Security, Unemployment, and Labor together are 3%. Ignorance is thinking those priorities keep our families safe.”

“220K+ people, including 1,700 healthcare workers, have died from COVID-19 due to our government’s inability to protect its citizens & pass pandemic relief. Ignorance is Trump’s Pentagon taking $1 billion in funding designated for PPE production to make jet engine parts.”

“@BernieSanders and @EdMarkey proposed a 10% cut on the Pentagon budget to use to fund health care, housing, childcare and educational opportunities for cities and towns experiencing a poverty rate of 25% or more. Ignorance is blocking this bill knowing it would save lives.”

“Ignorance is paying Lockheed Martin more than $1 trillion over the course of a 60 year contract for a dysfunctional F-35 program. Ignorance is letting their CEO take a $20 million dollar salary while military veterans go homeless.”

“The Department of Defense has never passed an independent audit, yet we continue to give them money unchecked. Ignorance is the Trump administration *INCREASING* the Pentagon budget by more than $100 billion since he was elected.”

“Ignorance is giving weapons of war to local police departments with no accountability or oversight. Ignorance is calling us radical for saying that’s wrong.”

Cori Bush may appreciate this billboard going up in St. Louis. And I’m sure she fully appreciates that she’s up against Joe Biden on all of the above just as much as Trump. But she’s not going to be alone.

JAMAAL BOWMAN

Jamaal Bowman of New York said of his now-defeated primary competition:

“My opponent, Representative Eliot Engel, and I do not share the same foreign policy vision. He voted for one of the worst policy disasters of my lifetime — an unjust and costly 2 trillion dollar war in Iraq. He voted against President Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement which put a lid on Iran’s nuclear program. He went on CNN this past year and said he didn’t want to tie Trump’s hands when it came to strikes on Iran. He was one of only 16 House Democrats in 2016 to vote against an amendment that blocked the transfer of cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia which has been relentlessly dropping them on Yemeni civilians. My opponent accepts donations from corporations and arms manufacturers like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon. He supports a hawkish and costly foreign policy agenda instead of focusing on the communities in our district that have been neglected for far too long. We must dramatically reduce the Pentagon’s budget over the next ten years, end the forever wars, and rebuild a diplomacy-first approach through the State Department. We have been in Afghanistan for 19 years, in Iraq for 17 years, and in Syria for five years. Congress must reassert its authority to bring our troops home.”

Engel stood by his warmongering and sank with it. This means that a different warmonger will become the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, while Engel likely heads off to make the big bucks from a yet-to-be-named weapons dealer.

MONDAIRE JONES

Mondaire Jones of New York also won his primary. His website says:

“The United States has been at war for most of my life — wars that have led to hundreds of thousands of people being killed and millions more displaced. We were led into the disastrous war in Iraq under false pretenses. The war in Afghanistan has been raging for almost 19 years. We are contributing to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, in Yemen, by providing weapons to the Saudi-led coalition. Extreme war powers, and a reluctance by members of Congress to exert oversight, have enabled the Trump Administration to bring us dangerously close to the brink of war with Iran. . . . Enough is enough. Our national security depends on a sane approach to American foreign policy that centers diplomacy, peace, human rights, and cooperation on the challenges facing our world. We must stop fighting endless wars. As a member of Congress, I will fight to finally repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which has given the executive branch a blank check to pursue foreign wars having nothing to do with the September 11th attacks. I will work to bring an end to existing conflicts, including the war in Afghanistan, through inclusive peace processes that center human rights, including women’s rights. I will support barring the sale of weapons to human rights violators, including Saudi Arabia, and I will support redirecting funds towards conflict prevention, including through development aid to reduce poverty and inequalities and combat climate change. . . . Our budgets reflect our values and priorities. Currently, the United States has chosen to prioritize investing in war and weapons ahead of providing for the basic needs of our people. The 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allocates a whopping $738 billion dollars for military spending. We spend more than approximately the next seven countries combined. It is estimated that we have spent almost $6 trillion dollars on the Global War on Terror alone. The United States maintains hundreds of costly military bases in dozens of countries throughout the world. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has gutted funding for the State Department and USAID, making the United States less able to lead on diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to address our world’s biggest challenges. As a member of Congress, I will push to reduce military spending and reinvest this money in the State Department, to strengthen diplomacy and peacebuilding, as well as domestically, in programs that meet the needs of our civilian population. I will fight to prioritize investment in human security approaches, which focus on meeting the human needs of people and protecting our environment.”

Those three are going to be added to Congress anew. That’s a big improvement. A couple more might get in, the first more likely than the second.

MIKE SIEGEL

Mike Siegel, who won his primary in Texas, has not a word on his website but has said this:

“Let’s rebuild the State Department and our diplomatic corps. Let’s revamp our foreign aid spending to encourage the development of civil society and local economies. And instead of over-spending on war industries, let’s invest in the domestic safety net and the conditions for peace around the world.”

QASIM RASHID

Qasim Rashid, who won his primary in hyper-militarized Virginia, says on his website:

“The United States spends twice as much on national defense as China and Russia combined. We can spend this money more wisely and find ways to cut costs. US defense spending priorities must focus on foreign threats, assemble the defense infrastructure necessary to protect Americans from these threats, and support the men and women who defend our way of life, while they’re serving and after they serve.”

“[W]e should not be running our foreign policy through the Pentagon. It’s time to invest in diplomacy, and take time during the COVID-19 pandemic to think about what national security truly means in a 21st century world.”

Then there are incumbents.

PRAMILA JAYAPAL

This co-chair from Washington State of the extremely unreliable Progressive Caucus recently said:

“This will be a top priority of the progressive caucus — to really get some meaningful budget cuts in Pentagon spending this next cycle.”

She recently tweeted:

“We must retire the days of incremental change and usher in a new age of bold, progressive transformation. That means finally cutting wasteful defense spending to make long overdue investments in health care, infrastructure, and clean energy.”

MARK POCAN

Jayapal and Pocan, of Wisconsin, recently wrote:

“Every dollar wasted at the Pentagon is a dollar not being spent on test kits, personal protective equipment or contact tracing. Every handout to Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman is money that could have been spent on ending this pandemic, keeping small businesses afloat and staving off an economic meltdown. We hope our colleagues will join us in voting to cut the Pentagon budget, so we can redirect funding to where it’s needed in our communities.”

KATIE PORTER

A possibly ally is Katie Porter who recently asked a Lockheed Martin executive:

“Why should the taxpayer foot the bill to help Lockheed Martin at this time?”

Then there are the five most reliably antiwar Congress Members of recent years:

ILHAN OMAR

RO KHANNA

RASHIDA TLAIB

AYANNA PRESSLEY

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ

That makes a possible baker’s dozen out of 435 House Members, not counting 100 Senators. There are more:

BARBARA LEE

In July, Congresswoman Lee of Oakland and Congressman Pocan announced the formation of a Defense [sic] Spending Reduction Caucus. I have been unable to learn who is in it.

PETER DEFAZIO

EARL BLUMENAUER

Defazio and Blumenauer of Oregon have been relatively outspoken, even on their websites.

JIM MCGOVERN

Congressman McGovern of Massachusetts is a pretty reliable vote.

There are others.

This year 93 House Members voted to move 10% of military spending to human needs on a vote that was not even close and on which none of them were threatened or bribed by their party “leadership” to vote the wrong way, and with Trump available as the target of their rhetoric. Could boosting the number of members willing to speak out against militarism to over a dozen boost the number willing to vote against it on even the weakest measures to over 93, even if the White House changes?

There are numerous other candidates for Congress whom people have claimed should be added to “the squad” but unless they will talk about war and peace, they’re not getting a jersey on my squad and they’re not serious about what they claim to be serious about.

There may be others I don’t know about. Please add them in the comments under this article on davidswanson.org.

Not a single one of these members of Congress has ever proposed their ideal federal budget. The Progressive Caucus has a budget proposal that is much improved over past years in that it would move a teeny bit out of military spending, specifically $63 billion out of the off-the-books slush fund, $38 billion out of supplemental spending, and $62 billion out of the Pentagon’s budget. That’s $163 billion moved to useful things out of well over $1 trillion going to militarism.

Most Democrats and all Republicans in Congress are not listed above. The same goes for almost all “white” Congress Members. Also wildly under-represented here: men in Congress. Almost all Democrats running for Congress have zero foreign policy or budget positions on their website at all, other than their great love for veterans. In my view, what happens will depend very largely on public activism. Can we make opposing militarism mainstream, respectable, acceptable? Can we make warmongering marginal, shameful, despicable? We have to try.

UPDATES HERE: https://davidswanson.org/there-are-anti-war-candidates/

--

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is executive director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.

Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook.

Help support DavidSwanson.org, WarIsACrime.org, and TalkNationRadio.org 

© Scoop Media