The Use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War Essay

Introduction

Agent Orange used during the US war in Vietnam has sparked off interest from various stakeholders because of various reasons. These reasons have been expressed through questions such as ‘Did the government know short and long term effects of dioxin use and why did it continue to use it if it did?’, ‘Why did the government respond differently to the problem?’, ‘Were veterans’ litigations justified?’, ‘Was the justice system impartial to claims?’ and ‘Were veterans just as susceptible as Vietnamese citizens?’ the paper shall attempt to shed some light on these matters and many more surrounding the Agent Orange debate.

Background information

Agent Orange is a code for the chemical mixture of 2-4-5 trichlorophenoxyacetic acid and 2-4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in equal measure. During the manufacturing process, these chemicals produce a residue known as TCDD or dioxin and the latter is a highly toxic substance. The US military utilized herbicides such as Agent Orange to eliminate plant coverage (through defoliation or forcefully making leaves fall) in enemy territory to expose adversaries. Although some other toxic substances were used, Agent Orange by far has generated the most controversy because of both the long and short-term effects of its component chemical – dioxin. (Tuyet and Johnson, 156) In the lab, dioxin has been shown to affect the reproductive system and internal organs of animals. In Sweden, research has demonstrated that these lab findings can be generalized to cancerous and skin-related complications in humans.

The Vietnam scenario is quite different from earlier researches on the latter herbicide because, at that time, the US military had requested large amounts of it. To meet this rising demand, chemical industries had to speed up the manufacturing process thus resulting in higher concentrations of the by-product dioxin. Reports assert that the concentration of dioxin that the Vietnamese and American veterans may have been exposed to was twenty-seven times more than usual agricultural uses. Consequently, the effects brought on by the sprays may have been more than had been anticipated. In fact, concerns raised by the Environmental protection agency in the 1970s assert certain mammals could be killed by moderate concentrations of dioxin such as mice. These concerns have now been accepted by the scientific community as factual. Furthermore, dioxin could get into the human body through inhalation, skin contact, or oral consumption. This implies that their penetration levels are very high.

The controversy

Government assertions and reactions

As stated earlier, the late nineteen sixties witnessed unprecedented spraying of the toxic substance in Vietnam and these actions did not go unnoticed by the scientific community in the US. The Association of American Advancement of science prompted the US government to allow investigations into the effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam in 1968. In response, the US secretary of state and the US embassy in Vietnam hand-picked a scientist from the Department of Agriculture in that same year to carry out those investigations. Upon coming back, he reported that there were no long-term effects of the chemicals and that warm-blooded animals could not be affected by Agent Orange adversely. His report can be found in a 1969 science magazine issue. (Sutton, 10) Several stakeholders following this story affirmed that this scientist’s report was done to avoid friction between the Government and chemical companies. The government combined these findings with what had been done earlier by a research firm known as Midwest Institute which exonerated any blame on the government.

Given such strong assertions, one would wonder whether the government was aware of the problems associated with the use of such a chemical. In a letter to Congress by one military scientist – Dr. Clary, it was asserted that he (together with other military colleagues) was well aware of the excessive concentration of the toxin and the dangers to human life that it would cause. However, he asserted that little attention was given to this since the parties who would be affected were Vietnamese citizens and that in case any American veteran was exposed, then chances are that the government would act to mitigate these effects. (Sutton, 22)

In 1984, another report was released by the US health and human services. They were experimenting to determine whether the lives of their veterans were in danger because of exposure to this chemical. The findings were similar to earlier government assertions that Operation Ranch soldiers were not in any danger. In other words, the Government’s stance on this matter is that Agent Orange posed no serious health implications and that those who purported so were just using propaganda against the nation. However, the controversial element about these assertions is that the government appeared to be using double standards on the matter. Back in the US, war veterans have received compensation in the past thus denoting that higher authorities do see some elements of truth in their cases. Critics assert that if the government is responding to their needs, then it is acknowledging that dioxin does affect the human body.

Reported effects and damages

Since Vietnam has minimal resources, its government has not sponsored scientists to investigate the effects of Agent Orange. However, international organizations have carried out their researches there in this decade. For instance, a Canadian institute called Hatfield Consultants has demonstrated that there are still substantial amounts of dioxin in the food chain and that these could pose serious threats to the lives of Vietnamese soldiers. (Denselow, 5) Therefore, approximately two decades and a half after the US war in Vietnam, it has been found necessary to safeguard the public’s health by removing people from areas that have been deemed highly toxic in this country. Other Vietnamese scientists have asserted that without even carrying out thorough investigations, one can deduce the harm caused by dioxin by the high cases of deformities noted in areas that were intensely sprayed by Agent Orange.

Pilot studies carried out by local doctors such as Nguyen Nhan have found that children born in areas that were sprayed by this herbicide have a three times higher than normal chance of having: cleft palates, extra toes and fingers, hernias and mental retardation. In response to these excessive cases of deformities, the Vietnamese government had to create over ten special schools to take care of children born with those disabilities (Denselow, 8). Another pilot study carried out in Vietnam by Tuyet and Johnson (156) among 200 women through semi-structured interviews found that those participants who had undergone high levels of exposure to Agent Orange had higher chances of undergoing miscarriages or bearing handicapped children. On top of the latter, seemingly normal children would develop disabilities in their first years of life. This imposed huge emotional and psychological challenges to the participants of the research as caring for such children necessitates financial resources which are not readily available in these Vietnamese homes.

As much as the US has tried to downplay these effects, what it did not know was that its military personnel in Vietnam would be just in as much danger as ordinary Vietnam citizens. During the war, some US soldiers in the latter country would store fruits in Agent Orange drums, store petroleum products which would then be placed in cars and inhaled, others would place water in the drums for bathing and the like – thus making them highly exposed to the chemicals. This was witnessed as soon as the latter Veterans’ settled back in America. Most of them reported liver, stomach, lung and skin disease. Others reported birth defects in their children while others had emotional complications. All these cases were prevalent among individuals exposed to this controversial herbicide.

Reactions of veterans to the problem

In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences NAS (5) released a report linking several diseases among US veterans in the Vietnam War and exposure to Agent Orange. The latter group asserted that out of the two hundred and thirty studies carried out by the latter group, there were sufficient links to soft sarcoma, Hodgkin’s diseases, lymphoma, liver disorder and chloracne. Consequently, the Department of Veteran Affairs was advised to compensate former US soldiers who had these diseases. Nonetheless, it ruled out other possibilities such as cancer, reproductive and neurological effects citing either inadequate evidence or no association with these kinds of disease. Therefore, the latter cases were not eligible for compensation.

However, the latter findings did not stop US veterans from taking action against chemical manufacturing companies responsible for producing Agent Orange for the US military at the time of their serving. Thousands of cases have been launched against these groups with most veterans asserting that the birth defects they are experiencing or other health complications like cancer have been caused by this very problem. Most of them were well aware of the political implications of their cases but chose to proceed with litigations anyway. Analysts (Marcus, 104) assert that different Veterans were motivated by different reasons. Some were sincerely suffering and needed a way out of their predicaments; others were bitterly disillusioned by the war and wanted some justice while others may have been idealists who believe that the government should be involved in addressing the damage done by their actions in war.

How the legal system has responded to the controversy

In most cases, excessive amounts of money were involved; consequently, some lawyers took up these litigations out of a financial need. On the other hand, some plaintiff lawyers knew the publicity that these cases have and the exposure that it would create for their careers or their futures. Consequently, a lot of bickering and jockeying was witnessed in these trials amongst lawyers who were more interested in meeting their needs rather than fighting for justice on behalf of their clients. (Marcus, 78) often paints a picture of a very naïve group of US army veterans in these legal tussles. These individuals thought that they could fight it out with huge chemical companies and win. What they had missed was that most of these firms were well connected and therefore untouchable. Additionally, the judges involved in these cases could not just carry out rulings without considering the ramifications of their actions to the larger political society.

It should be noted that there has been a different pattern of response to the plight of affected US veterans in the judicial system over the past two and half decades. In 1984, a range of Agent Orange manufacturers like Diamond Shamrock, Uniroyal, Monsanto and Dow Chemical were directed by the Supreme Court to pay one hundred and eighty million dollars as compensation to affected parties between 1988 and 1996. Therefore, the Supreme court asserted that any Veterans who had been diagnosed from 1996 onwards were eligible to sue manufacturers afresh.

However, Chemical companies soon gained an upper hand after a hearing in 2005 by the second circuit court of appeals. The latter found that based on military contractor’s doctrine, then chemical companies were not liable to pay Veterans any compensation. This had been set out by Judge Weinstein in the Agent Orange litigation case no 381. The latter assertions by the Supreme Court were made in 2007 after concluding the 2005 case. In 2008, some Veterans also made claims i.e., Stephenson and Isaacson. The Second Court of Appeals dismissed these civil cases. (Lamb, 2)In 2009, appeals launched by Stephenson and Isaacson cases were denied with no viable explanations on the why Supreme Court judged opted to do that. Consequently, Agent Orange lawsuits have hit a deadlock as Veterans cannot rely on the legal system to air out their complaints.

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding Agent Orange use stems from some issues. First, government-sponsored reports are contradictory on the effects as some claim that only selected diseases are linked to chemical orange while others claim that there is no linkage at all. Independent reports carried out by international organizations like Canadian and Swedish-based institutes have found strong correlations between this herbicide and several diseases including those that were overruled by government scientists. Additionally, how victims have been treated has also generated controversy as some veterans before 1996 have been compensated while others in recent times have been denied this opportunity. No satisfactory actions have been given on this discontinuation thus prompting observers to think that there may be something that higher authorities are trying to hide.

Works Cited

Tuyet Le Thi Nham & Johansson Annika. “Impact of Chemical Warfare with Agent Orange on Women’s Reproductive Lives in Vietnam: A Pilot Study.” Reproductive Health Matters, 9.18(2001): 156. JSTOR. Web.

Marcus, Richard. “Review: Agent Orange on Trial: Mass Toxic Disasters in the Courts.” Michigan Law Review, 85.5 (1987): 1267-1296. JSTOR. Web. Mar.

Sutton Paul. “The History of Agent Orange use in Vietnam. US- Vietnam Scientific conference on Agent Orange health and environmental effects.” Agent Orange and Dioxin Committee. 2002. Web.

Lamb, Thomas. Agent Orange cases. Lamb law office, 2010. Web.

Denselow, Robin. Agent Orange blights Vietnam. BBC news. 1998. Web.

NAS. Report links diseases to herbicides for exposed Vietnam Veterans. Press release 1993. Web.