US Negotiations: Masters of Defeats

By James Petras

March 10, 2019 “Information Clearing House” – The US is currently engaged in negotiations with at least a dozen countries; which involve fundamental political, military and economic issues.

The US has adopted diplomatic strategies in the face of its ‘inability’ to secure military victories. The purpose of adopting a diplomatic approach is to secure through negotiations, in part or fully, goals and advantages unattainable through military means.

While diplomacy is less subject to military and economic losses it does require making concessions. Negotiations are only successful if there are reciprocal benefits to both parties.

Those regimes which demand maximum advantages and minimum concessions, usually fail or succeed because they are based on very unequal power relations.

We will proceed to evaluate Washington’s success or failure in recent negotiations and analyze the reasons and consequences for the outcome.

US – North Korea Negotiations

President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un have been engaged in negotiations, for nearly a year. The White House has prioritized the ‘de-nuclearization’ of the peninsula which includes dismantling nuclear weapons, missiles, test sets and other strategic military objectives.

North Korea seeks the end of economic sanctions, the signing of a US-Korean peace treaty and diplomatic recognition. A decisive meeting between the two took place Feb. 26-27, 2019 in Hanoi.

The negotiations were a total failure. Washington failed to secure any gains, nor did they advance the peace process; and there are no future prospects.

Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?

Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter

No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media

North Korea offered three significant concessions which were not reciprocated. President Kim Jong-Un proposed to (1) dismantle nuclear testing sites (2) announce a moratorium on nuclear tests and inter-continental range ballistic missiles tests (3) agreed to partially dismantle missile engine test sites.

Washington offered nothing in return – instead it demanded total disarmament; no lifting of sanctions; no signing of the end of the US-Korea war.

Washington’s asymmetrical ‘negotiations’ were pre-determined to fail. The US underestimated the capacity of the North Koreans to insist on reciprocity; they believed that future verbal promises would entice the North Koreans to disarm. The Koreans were fully aware of the recent US record of reneging on signed agreements with Iran, China and its partners in the Belt and Road agreement.

Moreover, North Korea had powerful allies in China and Russia and nuclear weapons to resist added US pressure.

US – Iran Negotiations

US and Iran negotiated an agreement to terminate economic sanctions in exchange for ending nuclear weapons development. It temporarily succeeded but was quickly reversed by the Trump regime. The White House demanded Iran dismantle its missile defense program and threatened a military attack. Washington did not bargain, it sought to impose a one-sided ‘solution’. The UK,France,Germany Russia and China, co-signers of the agreement, rejected the Trump dictate, but a number of major EU multi-national corporations capitulated to the White House demand to tighten sanctions.

As a consequence, the US deliberate sabotage of negotiations pushed Iran closer to Russia, China and alternative markets while the US remained wedded to Saudi Arabia and Israel. The former engaged in a losing war with Yemen, the latter remained an international pariah receiving billions of US handouts.

US – China Negotiations

The US has engaged in negotiations with China to downgrade its economy and retain US global supremacy. Beijing has agreed to increase its imports from Washington and tighten controls over Chinese use of US technology, but the US has not offered any concessions. Instead Washington has demanded that China end the state’s role in financing its cutting- edge technology, artificial intelligence and communication innovations.

In other words, China is expected to surrender its structural advantages in order to avoid harsh White House tariffs which would reduce Chinese exports.

There is no reciprocity. The Trump regime operates by threats to China which, however, will have negative effects on US farmers dependent on Chinese markets; on US importers, especially the retail sector which imports Chinese products; consumers who will suffer higher prices for goods purchased from China.

In addition, China will deepen its links with alternative markets in Asia, Africa, Russia, Latin America and elsewhere.

As of the most recent year (2018) China’s positive trade balance with the US rose to $419 billion dollars while the US was forced to increase its subsidies to US agro-exporters to compensate for loss of sales to China.

After several months of negotiations US representatives have secured trade concessions but failed to impose a breakdown of China’s economic model.

By the middle of 2019, while negotiations continue, the likelihood of a ‘grand bargain’ is dismal. In large part this is because Washington fails to recognize that its weakened global position requires that the US engage in ‘structural changes’, which means that the Treasury invests in technology; labor upgrades and education. The US should practice reciprocal relations with dynamic trading partners;to do so, Washington needs to invest billions to upgrade its domestic infrastructure; and reallocate federal spending from military spending and wars to domestic priorities and productive overseas agreements. US diplomatic relations with China based on threats and tariffs are failing and economic negotiations are deteriorating.

US – Venezuela: Non-Negotiations a Formula for Defeat

Over the past half- decade (2015 – 2019) Washington has succeeded in restoring client regimes in Latin America, by military coups, political intervention and economic pressure. As a consequence, the White House has successfully ‘negotiated’ one-sided political, economic, social and diplomatic outcomes in the region … with the exception of Cuba and Venezuela.

President Trump has broken negotiated agreements with Cuba to no advantage; US threats have led to Cuba securing greater ties with Europe, China, Russia and elsewhere without affecting Cuba’s tourist business.

The Trump regime has escalated its political and economic propaganda and social war against Venezuela. Multiple overt coup efforts have backfired beginning in April 2002 to February 2019.

While the US succeeded in the rest of Latin America in consolidating hemispheric hegemony, in the case of Venezuela, Washington has suffered diplomatic defeats and the growth of greater popular resistance.

US interventionist and sanctions policies have sharply reduced the presence of its middle and lower middle class supporters who have fled abroad. US propaganda has failed to secure the support of the Venezuelan military which has become more ‘nationalist’ with very few desertions.

The White House appointment of the convicted felon Elliott Abrams, known as the ‘butcher of Central America’, has certainly undermined any prospect of a favorable diplomatic settlement.

US sanctions of political and military leaders precludes efforts to co-opt and recruit leaders. The US appointed as its ‘interim ruler’ one Juan Guido who has little domestic support – widely seen domestically as an imperial stooge.

The US non-negotiated successes in Latin America have blinded Washington to the different conditions in Venezuela; where structural socio-economic reforms and nationalist military training consolidated political support.

In the case of Venezuela, the US refusal to enter into negotiations has led to greater polarization and multiple defeats, including the failed coup of February 23/24 2019.

US – Russia: Colluding with Failed Diplomacy

Washington succesfully‘negotiated’ the surrendered and break-up of the Soviet Union and the subsequent pillage of Russia. It was the US’ most successful ‘negotiations’ of the century. The US ‘negotiations’ allowed it to expand NATO to the Russian frontier, incorporated most of East Europeans into the EU and NATO and led the US to boast of creating a ‘unipolar world’.

Excess hubris led the US to launch prolonged (and losing) wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and elsewhere.

With the election of President Putin, Russia made a comeback, which led to the Kremlin reconstituting its military, economic and geopolitical power.

The White House reacted by attempting to ‘negotiate’ Russia’s military encirclement and to undermine Moscow’s economic growth.

When Russia refused to submit to US dictates, Washington resorted to economic sanctions and power grabs in the Ukraine, Central Asia and the Middle East (Iraq and Syria).

Washington rejected a diplomatic approach in favor of economic intimidation, especially as some US backed oligarchs were arrested or fled with their wealth to the UK and Israel.

The US refused to recognize the opportunities which still existed in Russia – a neo-liberal economic elite, a mainly mineral export economy and Moscow’s conciliatory approach toward US military engagement in Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Iran.

US ‘negotiations’ were non-starters. The White House defined Russia as an enemy to be undermined. Sanctions became the weapon to deal with Russia’s attempt to regain its world standing. Washington’s aggressive posture included its refusal to recognize that the world had become multi-polar; that Russia had allies in China, partners in Germany, military bases in Syria; and has a loyal and advanced scientific elite.

The US ,operating from a past image of Russia from the Yeltsin era. failed to adapt to the new realities – a resurgent Russia willing to bargain and secure reciprocal advantages.

The US failed to recognize potential allies and economic advantages in open negotiations with Russia. Many Russian economists close to the Kremlin were neo-liberals, ready and willing to open the economy to US penetration. Russia was willing to concede the US a major role in the Middle East and offered to negotiate their oil export policies.

Instead the US refused to negotiate power sharing .US sanctions forced Russia to embrace China; Washington’s drive for global dominance encouraged Russia to build ties with Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Syria and other independent nations.

Washington’s unipolar policies turned a potentially lucrative and long-term strategic relation into costly confrontations and failed diplomacy.

US and the European Union: Dead End Deals

Bullying Europe has been a successful endeavor, which the US has put on display on innumerable occasions in recent times. Washington negotiates agreements with the French, English and German to end economic sanction on Iran and then reneges and turns around to apply sanctions on European firms which comply with the US and disobey their own government.

The US negotiates with Europe on trade policies and then abruptly threatens to impose sanctions on its crucial auto exports.

Europe negotiates with Washington on NATO security issues and then the White House threatens them in order to raise their military spending.

The US claims that the EU is a strategic ally but treats it as a junior partner.

Negotiations between the two has been a one-sided partnership: the US sells arms and names adversaries ,while Europe argues, dissents and submits, sending troops to fight US wars in Syria. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere.

The US dictates sanctions against Russia, increasing the price of EU imports of gas and oil . Germany debates, discusses, hems and haws and avoids an outright rejection.

The US has steadily encroached on EU prerogatives to the point where it claims if the EU fails to comply with the White House’s “America First” agenda, it would cause the US to withdraw from NATO.

Despite a longstanding alliance, the White House no longer negotiates policies – it threatens and expects compliance. Despite a history of EU submission and pro forma debates, as Washington has hardened its opposition to Russia, China and Iran it no longer considers EU trade relations a point of negotiations. While Europe might consider the US as an ally, it will not be allowed to be treated as such, because it is viewed as a trade adversary.


Washington has succeeded in securing non-reciprocal agreements with weak countries. This was the case in post war Europe, post Gorbachev Russia and among Latin America’s current colonized regimes.

In contrast Washington’s rejection of reciprocal agreements with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela has been a failure. US trade wars with China have led to the loss of markets and allowed China to pursue global agreements through its massive ,billion dollar Belt and Road infrastructure projects.

US one-sided hostile policies toward Russia has increased ties between the Kremlin and Beijing.

Washington has lost opportunities to work with neo-liberal oligarchs in Russia in order to undermine President Putin. Washington has failed to negotiate reciprocal ties with North Korea which would ‘de-nuclearize’ the peninsula in exchange for lifting economic sanctions and opening the door for a capitalist restoration.

Demanding unilateral concession and submission has led to uniform failures; whereas negotiated compromises could have led to greater market opportunities and long-term political advances.

President Trump and his top policy makers and negotiators have failed to secure any agreements.

The Democratic Congress has been as ineffective and even more bellicose – demanding greater military threats to Russia, expanded trade wars with China and less negotiations with North Korea, Iran and Venezuela.

In a word, failed negotiations and non-reciprocal diplomacy has become the hallmark of US foreign policy.

James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York.

Do you agree or disagree? Post your comment here

==See Also==

Note To ICH Community

We ask that you assist us in dissemination of the article published by ICH to your social media accounts and post links to the article from other websites.

Thank you for your support.

Peace and joy

 The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Source: Leaked Documents Show the U.S. Government Tracking Journalists and Immigration Advocates Through a Secret Database

The documents detail an intelligence-gathering effort by the United States and Mexican authorities, targeting more than 50 people including journalists, an attorney, and immigration advocates

By Tom Jones, Mari Payton and Bill Feather

March 10, 2019 “Information Clearing House” –  Documents obtained by NBC 7 Investigates show the U.S. government created a secret database of activists, journalists, and social media influencers tied to the migrant caravan and in some cases, placed alerts on their passports.

At the end of 2018, roughly 5,000 immigrants from Central America made their way north through Mexico to the United States southern border. The story made international headlines.

As the migrant caravan reached the San Ysidro Port of Entry in south San Diego County, so did journalists, attorneys, and advocates who were there to work and witness the events unfolding.

But in the months that followed, journalists who covered the caravan, as well as those who offered assistance to caravan members, said they felt they had become targets of intense inspections and scrutiny by border officials.

One photojournalist said she was pulled into secondary inspections three times and asked questions about who she saw and photographed in Tijuana shelters. Another photojournalist said she spent 13 hours detained by Mexican authorities when she tried to cross the border into Mexico City. Eventually, she was denied entry into Mexico and sent back to the U.S.

These American photojournalists and attorneys said they suspected the U.S. government was monitoring them closely but until now, they couldn’t prove it.

Now, documents leaked to NBC 7 Investigates show their fears weren’t baseless. In fact, their own government had listed their names in a secret database of targets, where agents collected information on them. Some had alerts placed on their passports, keeping at least two photojournalists and an attorney from entering Mexico to work.

Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?

Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter

No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media

The documents were provided to NBC 7 by a Homeland Security source on the condition of anonymity, given the sensitive nature of what they were divulging.

The source said the documents or screenshots show a SharePoint application that was used by agents from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Border Patrol, Homeland Security Investigations and some agents from the San Diego sector of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI).

The intelligence gathering efforts were done under the umbrella of “Operation Secure Line,” the operation designated to monitor the migrant caravan, according to the source.

The documents list people who officials think should be targeted for screening at the border.

The individuals listed include ten journalists, seven of whom are U.S. citizens, a U.S. attorney, and 48 people from the U.S. and other countries, labeled as organizers, instigators or their roles “unknown.” The target list includes advocates from organizations like Border Angels and Pueblo Sin Fronteras.

To view the documents, click here

NBC 7 Investigates is blurring the names and photos of individuals who haven’t given us permission to publish their information.

The documents are titled “San Diego Sector Foreign Operations Branch: Migrant Caravan FY-2019, Suspected Organizers, Coordinators, Instigators and Media” and are dated January 9, 2019.

Emblazoned on it are the American and Mexican flags, with a banner that reads: “ILU-OASSIS-OMEGA.” An official at the Department of Homeland Security said the seal indicates that the documents are a product of the International Liaison Unit (ILU), which coordinates intelligence between Mexico and the United States.

“I was very transparent about what I was doing,” Drehsler said. “Sometimes you would see me carrying a camera and if I was asked by an agent what was I doing, I would tell them I was photographing the [migrant] shelters.”

But on December 30, 2018, when Drehsler was crossing back into the United States, she was pulled into secondary inspection and questioned by border agents.

“Two people in plainclothes came down and took me to another room,” Drehsler said. “They questioned me in a small room, asking me questions about the shelter, what was I seeing there, who was I working for.”

“They said that I was on the ground and they’re not, which I thought was really interesting.”

After about an hour, Drehsler said she was allowed to leave but agents warned her that an alert had been placed on her passport and that she would be pulled into a secondary screening again if she crossed the border. The agents told her to plan accordingly, given the screenings could last an hour or more. When she asked why this alert was placed on her passport, agents told her they had no idea.

Drehsler said she was pulled into secondary screenings two more times while crossing the border. Each time she said she was questioned by the same agents in plainclothes. The second time was on Jan. 2, 2019, and the third time was on Jan. 4, 2019.

On the third occasion, Drehsler said she was told to leave her gear, including her camera and cell phone, on a table outside of the interview room. When she returned, she said it didn’t appear to her that the gear had been looked through. Agents asked Drehsler if she could show them the photos she had taken but she said she declined.

Some of the questions agents asked Drehsler on the third screening struck her as odd.

“They asked about the new caravan and if word had gotten out about how difficult it is to seek asylum in the U.S.,” Drehsler said. “Then before I left, the female agent asked if I rented or owned my home.”

Drehsler told NBC 7 the personal details listed for her in the leaked screenshots are accurate. She confirmed the photo officials used came from her passport. The screenshots include a green “X” over Drehsler’s photograph, indicating she had been interviewed by agents.

Sharing the documents with Drehsler, she told NBC 7 she was “blown away.”

“I have so many questions; I have more questions than answers,” she said. “Personally, I don’t understand what [agents] are hoping to find.”

Other journalists and attorneys have previously told news outlets like NPR and The Intercept that they too faced the same kind of increased scrutiny surrounding their work involving the migrant caravan.

Evidence of increased scrutiny of journalists at the border was detailed in an October 2018 reportprepared by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ.)

The report identified 37 journalists who said they found the secondary screenings by border officials “invasive,” and said 20 cases involved border agents “conducting warrantless searches of [the journalists’] electronic devices.”

The journalists featured in the leaked documents said they were separated from their electronic devices and gear but had no evidence that agents had gone through their items.

Kitra Cahana is another freelance photojournalist and U.S. citizen listed as a target in the documents. By phone from Honduras, Cahana told NBC 7 she also faced increased scrutiny and was eventually denied entry into Mexico for no apparent reason.

Cahana’s work has been featured in National Geographic magazine, The New York Times and the CBC out of Canada. One night in late December, she said Mexican authorities photographed her passport while she and other journalists were working near the border.

Then, on Jan. 17, 2019, while traveling from Canada to Mexico City, Cahana said she had a connecting flight in Detroit, Michigan. Cahana said in Montreal, her passport was flagged while going through U.S. Customs pre-clearance. Cahana said she was pulled into a secondary screening where border agents asked her a list of questions about her work.

“They were interested in whether I had an assignment when I was going down to cover the caravan,” Cahana said. “And they wanted to know how I was funding my work.”

Cahana said she was asked to explain how freelance photojournalism works, which she found strange. Afterward, her passport was flagged again in Detroit but eventually, she was allowed to board her flight and fly to Mexico City.

But when she arrived in Mexico, her passport was flagged again. Cahana said she brought this to a Mexican official and was taken into a back room with another group of detained individuals.

There, Cahana said her phone was taken away and she couldn’t leave the room. When she needed to use the restroom, an agent escorted her.

“I wasn’t allowed to be in communication with anyone, I wasn’t allowed to contact my embassy,” Cahana said. “It was very confusing because my Spanish is quite limited and no one there really spoke English.”

Cahana said the whole ordeal lasted 13 hours and in the end, she was denied entry into Mexico. She had to wait until a plane arrived that could take her back to Detroit, where her flight originated.

Since then, Cahana said she tried one more time to cross the border into Mexico.

“I was trying to cross into Mexico through Guatemala to continue my work covering the caravan and then I was denied again,” Cahana said.

NBC 7 Investigates confirmed another journalist was denied entry into Mexico after covering the caravan in January. That journalist is also listed in the SharePoint files leaked to NBC 7.

In the documents shared with NBC 7, Cahana confirmed her personal details were accurate and that the photo used is from her passport. Cahana said she’s been in contact with the Committee to Protect Journalists and the ACLU as far as the alert placed on her passport, preventing her access to Mexico.

Cahana said the increased scrutiny by border officials could have a chilling effect on freelance journalists covering the border.

“In the current state of journalism, it’s really freelancers who are bringing so much news to the public,” Cahana said. “And the uncertainty of having an alert placed on your passport and not knowing where and when that’s going to prevent you from doing your work is really problematic.”

Correction: A previous version of this story stated three photojournalists were denied entry into Mexico. After speaking with those involved, it was clarified that only two photojournalists were denied entry into Mexico. The article above has been updated to reflect this.

Want to know if you’re on the target list? Have you faced increased scrutiny while covering a story at the border? NBC 7 Investigates wants to hear from you. Contact us at

This article was originally published by NBC San Diego” –

Do you agree or disagree? Post your comment here

==See Also==

Note To ICH Community

We ask that you assist us in dissemination of the article published by ICH to your social media accounts and post links to the article from other websites.

Thank you for your support.

Peace and joy

 The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Chelsea Manning is in jail. Our silence is shameful

The DoJ’s persecution of Manning is simply judicial cruelty. It deserves our full attention.

By James Ball

March 10, 2019 “Information Clearing House” –   As I write these words, Chelsea Manning is in a jail cell.

This is not her first time in US prison: she spent nearly seven years in US jail, first awaiting trial and then post-conviction – after a guilty plea – on 22 counts relating to leaking material to WikiLeaks.

Too often, we brush past that fact as a mere sentence of biography, or of background. Let’s dwell on it for a moment: from the release of the first material leaked by Manning in 2010, we as the world’s public got an unprecedented view of US military and foreign affairs.

In the video titled “collateral murder” we could watch first-hand both the shocking callousness and the casualness of the crew of a US Apache as it gunned down a group of suspected militants, which included two Reuters journalists who were killed in the attack. Minutes later we see the same crew launch a Hellfire missile against a home – without even bothering to wait for a pedestrian simply walking near the house to pass.

Material in nearly 90,000 leaked documents from the Afghan conflict revealed similar abuses on a far larger scale – including even the existence of Task Force 373, a death squad revealed to have killed civilians and even Afghan police officers on its missions.

A similar cache of documents from Iraq, this time nearly 400,000 of them, revealed the huge civilian death toll of US operations in the country, shedding new light on so-called “escalation of force” incidents – a military euphemism for checkpoint shootings – and more.

Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?

Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter

No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media

More than 250,000 US diplomatic cables showed how the US used its soft power overseas, revealed corruption among US-allied governments, how the US spies on its allies as enthusiastically as its enemies, Middle Eastern power plays, and more.

And a final cache of documents relating to Guantanamo Bay showed what a hollow lie claims that only the “worst of the worst” were sent there, detailing how senile men in their 80s, taxi drivers, and other blameless civilians found themselves shipped halfway around the world, incarcerated without trial, and abused.

For revealing these things to the world – which the US government has repeatedly publicly acknowledged caused no physical harm to anyone – Chelsea Manning spent nearly seven years in jail, until Barack Obama commuted her sentence as one of his presidency’s final acts.

And now she is back there.

This time, she is in prison for refusing to testify at a Grand Jury hearing clearly intended at seeking prosecution of Julian Assange – and possibly others involved in WikiLeaks (where, as disclosure) I worked for some time during this period) – for its work publishing these cables.

Only someone blinkered by the minutiae of legal procedure – which technically allows such incarcerations to compel testimony – could fail to see the staggering injustice at play here. Manning is being persecuted needlessly for failing to play a part in a show trial to a Grand Jury which does not need her testimony.

Julian Assange is – as has been publicly stated in outlets across the world – a terrible housemate, an egotistical prick, and a misogynist who deserved to face proper judicial procedure in Sweden. He is also, when it comes to covering his ass legally, an idiot.

If the US wants to prosecute Assange, they do not need Chelsea Manning’s testimony to attempt it. They have her electronic chat logs with Adrian Lamo, the so-called journalist who turned her in to the authorities. They have their own records from that investigation. They have her extensive testimony from her 2013 court martial. They have the evidence of a WikiLeaks volunteer close to Assange who became a paid FBI informant. Thanks to the running habit of WikiLeaks sources to end up caught by authorities, they even have records of Assange working with hackers in 2012 to connect to a server being operated by the FBI.

Dragging Manning in front of a Grand Jury, then, is simply prosecutorial overreach – an overzealous and vindictive act aiming to punish her again for an act which many, rightly, see as one of heroism, and one which even its most ardent critic could not call a selfish or violent crime.

But the whole prosecution is a dangerous one. You do not need to be an admirer of Julian Assange to believe pursuing him in this way is a challenge to a free press and a free society.

Indeed, that’s the exact view that the Department of Justice and its then-Attorney General Eric Holder took when this prosecution was last active: seeing no way to prosecute Assange without opening the door to prosecute the Guardian, the New York Times, and others involved in publishing the Manning leaks, the prosecution was shuttered. The threat to the freedom of the press – protected by the constitution itself – was too great.

Why, under President Donald Trump, then, has it been reopened? It is impossible not to wonder whether the consequence the Obama administration feared is the one the Trump White House wants. The president, hardly a friend to the free press, now threatens its existence in a way far more consequential than temporarily throwing out a loudmouth correspondent from a press room.

Pursuit of Assange would be the act of a thuggish and vindictive government, and a banner moment in the decline of US press freedom. Needlessly jailing Chelsea Manning in the pursuit of that shows just how small the leaders of the US have become.

Chelsea Manning is in jail.

The US media may come to regret not making that bigger news.

James Ball is an award-winning freelance journalist. He tweets @jamesrbuk

This article was originally published by New Statesman” –

Do you agree or disagree? Post your comment here

==See Also==

Note To ICH Community

We ask that you assist us in dissemination of the article published by ICH to your social media accounts and post links to the article from other websites.

Thank you for your support.

Peace and joy

 The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Kids got 11 vaccines in 1986 and 53 in 2017… why? The answer is all about Big Pharma profits

Image: Kids got 11 vaccines in 1986 and 53 in 2017… why? The answer is all about Big Pharma profits

Sunday, March 10, 2019 by: 

(Natural News) A bombshell video snippet from Del Bigtree (see below) dares to ask the all-important question: Why have the number of vaccines given to children skyrocketed over the last three decades?

The answer may shock you. In 1986, Congress passed a law granting legal immunity to vaccine manufacturer, but only for vaccines on the childhood immunization schedule. Since then, vaccine makers have worked to push as many vaccines as possible onto that schedule for the sole purpose of enjoying legal immunity from lawsuits for faulty products and vaccine damage.

Thus, children have become a “dumping ground” for faulty vaccines that are manufactured with near-zero quality control measures because forcing those vaccines onto the childhood immunization schedule grants Big Pharma corporations legal immunity from lawsuits.

The skyrocketing number of vaccines now given to children, in other words, has nothing to do with science or medicine. It has everything to do with maximizing profits and shielding vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits for all the millions of children their products continue to maim and kill.

Del Bigtree explains more in this Brighteon video that has been banned across all the tech giants and social media sites:

Where to learn more about vaccine awareness

With the tech giants now banning all truthful information about vaccine ingredients, vaccine injury and vaccine awareness, where do you go to learn the truth about vaccines? See the sources below, and listen to this important podcast about why the tech companies are essentially declaring that no human opinions will be allowed on controversial topics, including vaccines, cancer, GMOs, fluoride, 5G cell towers, geoengineering and more.

100% organic essential oil sets now available for your home and personal care, including Rosemary, Oregano, Eucalyptus, Tea Tree, Clary Sage and more, all 100% organic and laboratory tested for safety. A multitude of uses, from stress reduction to topical first aid. See the complete listing here, and help support this news site.

Learn the truth at: – This is the top independent media source for vaccine truth breaking news, published daily. – The National Vaccine Information Center, publishes stories about vaccine legislation and the push for mandatory vaccines. – The non-profit led by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Children’s Health Defense seeks to expose the true science behind vaccines, mercury and the aluminum poisoning of children. – A cutting-edge vaccine truth news site, featuring bombshell articles and reports from scientists. – The free-speech-friendly alternative to YouTube, welcoming vaccine truth videos and natural health topics.

“Vaccines and Vaccination” channel on – Now featuring 300+ videos about vaccines and vaccinations, this is becoming one of the top video channels on the internet about vaccine awareness. – An alternative to Google News, features breaking news headlines from websites that are censored by the tech giants. All stories are updated in near-real time.

Also see this video of Sen. Rand Paul blasting the dishonest science behind mandatory vaccines: