WRITE for ATol ADVERTISE MEDIA KIT GET ATol BY EMAIL ABOUT ATol CONTACT US
WSI
Asia Time Online - Daily News
             
Asia Times Chinese
AT Chinese



    Southeast Asia
     Mar 16, 2005
Agent Orange victims' suffering continues
By Tran Dinh Thanh Lam

HO CHI MINH CITY - Vietnamese victims of the notorious Agent Orange have condemned a US court's decision to dismiss their legal action against manufacturers of the highly toxic defoliant used to deprive communist forces of forest cover during the Vietnam War.

On March 7, a federal court in New York dismissed a legal action brought by Vietnamese plaintiffs over the use of the defoliant by US forces from 1961-71, when large quantities of Agent Orange were sprayed across parts of Vietnam.

The plaintiffs had sought compensation from the firms that manufactured the chemical, which allegedly caused birth defects, miscarriages and cancer. They said use of the defoliant - to strip away forest cover during the conflict - was a war crime against millions.

But Judge Jack Weinstein ruled there was no legal basis for their claims. Delivering a 233-page ruling, Weinstein said "there is no basis for any of the claims of plaintiffs under the domestic law of any nation or state or under any form of international law".

The vice president of Vietnam's Association of Victims of Agent Orange (VAVA), Nguyen Trong Nhan, responded by saying, "We are disappointed ... Weinstein has turned a blind eye before the obvious truth. It's a shame for him to put out that decision. It's wrong, unfair and irresponsible."

VAVA general secretary Tran Xuan Thu exclaimed, "It's totally ridiculous. The Agent Orange laden with the highly toxic chemical dioxin was a poison barred by international laws of war."

Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange filed their suit in January 2004 in a New York federal court, accusing 37 US chemical firms including Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Hercules, Occidental Chemical, Ultramar Diamond Shamrock, Maxus Energy, Uniroyal Inc and Wyeth, of producing and supplying toxic defoliants used by the US Army in Vietnam.

The lawsuit won mass support in Vietnam, where 11.5 million people signed a petition.

This is the first time Vietnamese citizens have ever sought legal compensation for the effects of Agent Orange, which contains the toxic chemical dioxin - linked to cancer, diabetes and birth defects among Vietnamese soldiers and civilians and US veterans.

Exposure to Agent Orange can result in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), the US National Institute of Medicine said in a 2003 report. The report, based on a reassessment of six studies of herbicide exposure, concluded there were "enough data to support an association of exposure to these chemicals and the development of CLL", a form of cancer of the blood.

Professor Phan Thi Phi Phi, one of the first three Vietnamese Agent Orange victims to petition for compensation in a US court, said there was ample proof in Vietnam of the horrible effects of the defoliant on humans. He said the US Army sprayed more than 72 million liters of herbicide over the jungles of Vietnam from 1961-71.

About 44 million liters of these defoliants were Agent Orange, with close to 170 kilograms of dioxins, affecting as many as 2 million Vietnamese.

Ngo Thanh Nhan, a US linguist who participated in the lawsuit campaign, told the Tuoi Tre newspaper, "if the medical files [of Vietnamese victims] are not convincing enough, we will use the ones of the American soldiers ... There's no reason why those who sprayed chemical products got compensation for their contamination ... and the direct victims' suit is rejected by the US court."

In a class-action settlement in 1984, chemical manufacturers agreed to pay US$180 million to US war veterans who died or became ill after exposure to defoliants. Ironically, the judge who decided on this matter was Weinstein.

Nhan said there were some contradictions in Weinstein's arguments.

"In one part he wants to defend the principle of judicial independence and in the other part he wants to accept the US president's powers to direct US armed forces in wartime," Nhan told the Tuoi Tre newspaper. "Weinstein did not want to see more 'victims of war' coming to ask for US compensation."

Many international observers feel similarly, and point out that the case is a test of the reach of the US courts as it considers the power of the US president to authorize the use of hazardous materials during a time of war.

"It's not only a legal matter. The two aspects, legal and moral, have to be examined," said Nguyen Van Tuan, an Australian scientist of Vietnamese origin.

But as John McAutiff, executive director of the New York-based Fund for Reconciliation and Development (FRD), remarked in a statement, "Judge Weinstein has made it easier for our country to continue to evade moral responsibility for the consequences of its action.

"Regardless of how much chemical companies and the US government knew about the poisonous dioxin, they should not hide behind legal and scientific technicalities to avoid facing their obligation," said McAutiff, referring to the defendants' argument that neither the US government nor chemical firms knew about Agent Orange's toxic properties.

FRD Hanoi representative Andrews Wells-Dang also said the US should practice what it preaches in accepting responsibility.

"We think the US has a moral obligation to assist people who are affected in the US as well as Vietnam, and regardless of whether the US intended or foresaw those consequences - that's still a responsibility that we have," said Wells-Dang. "We are very quick to call on others to accept responsibility for their past actions; we should be willing to accept that ourselves as a country."

In theory, Weinstein's March 7 decision can be appealed and then taken to the US Supreme Court.

When asked about her impression about the ongoing lawsuit, Nguyen Thi Oanh, a mother of a boy and a girl deformed by dioxin, told Inter Press Service: "I hope it would come to something. Someone should be responsible [for] the toxic chemical that ruins my children's lives."

This hope was also voiced by VAVA vice president Nguyen Trong Nhan when he met other VAVA members over the weekend in Hanoi to discuss further steps to take in their quest for justice.

"The case will be time-consuming, just similar to the lawsuit filed by US veterans. But we believe that we will win," he said. "We will pursue with the lawsuit until justice is done."

(Inter Press Service)

 

 
 

All material on this website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written permission.
Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd.
Head Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong Kong
Thailand Bureau: 11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110

Asian Sex Gazette  Southeast Asian Sex News