Vietnamese children 
     
    
         
OPEN FORUM
     
Following the conference, an open forum was established for anyone who wished to pose questions about, take issue with, or in any other way comment upon the subcommittee reports and the issues they address. That correspondence is reproduced below, starting with the final entry dated 3 May 2005.
     
Links
Cancelled-research debate: Part 3
Open letter from the Vietnam-USA Society
Beyond dispute
Cancelled-research debate: Part 2
Cancelled-research debate: Part 1

Petition of sympathy and regret
Vietnam Dioxin Collective
Open letter to the American people
Petition in support of AO law suit
U.S. law suit for Vietnamese AO Victims
Significance of new dioxin figures
New, higher figures on dioxin exposure
Threat of perpetual war & vigilante revenge
An appeal for united action
The question of Vietnamese war dead
Query re: bombed areas

      
Cancelled-research debate: Part 3
    

"I stand by what I wrote"
    
Mark Rapaport’s response to my commentary was a more than adequate response to the opinion piece I wrote after discussing the U.S. decision to unilaterally terminate the joint Vietnam-American Agent Orange research. I have been urged to respond to each point Dr. Rapaport made but have decided not to engage in a public dialog which will serve no good. [See below: "Cancelled AO research" and "Response to criticism of AO research grant cancellation".]
    
Suffice it to say that I stand by what I wrote. I would be agreeable to engage in a continued e-mail dialog with Dr. Rapaport which he can publish if he wishes. The anger over the decision by Dr. Anne Sassaman is addressed clearly in other articles by other authors that have appeared recently in the Vietnamese media. It seems that blaming the victim (alleging that the behavior of the Vietnamese authorities is the cause for this termination) merely perpetuates the historical attitude of the American government toward the Vietnamese victims.
    
I would like to note that the written statements of U.S. Ambassador Ray Burghardt provide for the reader the attitude of the American government at the beginning of this now defunct project. Nevertheless, research by scientists that have been completed over the years have made the case for US compensation not only for its own military veterans but also for the Vietnamese who have been exposed to Agent Orange. For the non-scientists, a simple Internet search finds numerous studies to substantiate this claim.
    
The decision of Judge Weinhart was quickly followed by the decision of Dr. Anne Sassaman. Both ignore previous scientific studies and conclusions. Other nations are now compensating their American war victims for Agent Orange related disabilities, as America has for years. America seems to find it inappropriate to assist the three generations in Vietnam whose exposure was more dramatic than soldiers who were briefly exposed during the war. Many cloud the obvious with suspicion of folic acid deficiencies, pesticide exposure, and nutritional problems. These certainly have been problems, too, but they do not negate the effects of Agent Orange. The argument could go on endlessly. The recently cancelled study would have been one more. I suppose we will not know if it would have had the results of so many others that attributed so many disabilities to Agent Orange.
    
The unexpected unilateral cancellation of this research provoked my anger. My discussions with some directly involved in the project provided the details of my commentary. I fabricated none of my allegations, but do own responsibility for my rhetoric and would probably write the same article again today. My direct aid work with the children in Danang and Quang Nam Province who have been identified as victims of Agent Orange is a frustrating but necessary effort to help those forgotten by history. These are people without hope. The American decision to reject the lawsuit and to terminate the research reminded many of these affected families of not merely America’s seeming calloused disregard of their pain but also America’s refusal to accept responsibility for what appears to be a major war crime.
    
Dr. Rapaport provides praiseworthy service in Vietnam and should be congratulated for it. Defending another imperialist decision by our government, however, by blaming the victim and attacking the messenger is not advancing the cause of an obvious truth. The truth is that 20,000,000 gallons of Agent Orange were dumped on a small country, the US government and the chemical corporations who produced it knew it was dangerous, those who sprayed the chemical and developed physical problems or their children who developed identified physical problems have been compensated, and our government rejects the claim that similar Agent Orange related effects occur in Vietnam and refuse to compensate Vietnamese victims while existing research findings are rejected.
    
While the arguments may continue, the daily struggle for affected families continues, too. The work to help them and the effort to get the American government to own responsibility for what it has done will not end.
    
Kenneth J. Herrmann, Jr.
Associate Professor
Director, SUNY Brockport Vietnam Program
Director, The Danang/Quang Nam Fund, Inc.
E-mail: kherrman@rochester.rr.com

    
3 May 2005
    
Return to top of page

* * * * *
    

Open letter from the Vietnam-USA Society
    

Thirty years ago, the war ended and peace was restored in Vietnam. This made it possible to open up a new stage in Vietnam-US relations.
    
On this occasion, we would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to all peace-and-justice loving Americans for their opposition to the American war in Vietnam. At the same time, we express our deep sympathy with the pain of American families who lost their loved ones in the war. We highly appreciate the great efforts Americans, including veterans, made in promoting relations of friendship and cooperation between the people of our two countries.
    
Vietnam today is no longer a land of war, but a country of growing prosperity. Our people’s earnest desire is to live in peace, independence and freedom, to develop the country along the path of our own choice and to have relations of friendship and equal cooperation with all countries. We welcome all Americans to come and see first-hand the changes in all aspects of life in Vietnam.
    
The two countries experienced a difficult and complicated period in their relations. They now enjoy a normal relationship. The past 10 years since the establishment of diplomatic relations have seen multi-faceted bilateral cooperation taken shape. In the spirit “shelve the past while not forgetting it, and look forward to the future”, we wish to contribute to building equal and mutually beneficial cooperation with the United States on a lasting and stable basis. In pursuit of their humanitarian tradition, the Vietnamese people have been willingly working with the American side to address the war legacy, including the POW/MIA issue. We look forward to the goodwill of the American side in solving the war consequences on Vietnamese people.
    
On this occasion, we call on all Americans to join the common efforts in healing the wounds of the past and build friendly relations between Vietnam and the United States for a better future of the people of our two countries.
    
We wish you a life of peace and prosperity.
    
Vietnam-USA Society
Hanoi
    
30 April 2005
    
Return to top of page

* * * * *

Beyond dispute
    
Things to keep in mind
about the American War and its consequences
    
It is hardly surprising that the decision by the U.S. government to cancel plans for joint research with its Vietnamese counterpart have aroused speculation and debate (see following two items). The cancelled project was intended primarily to seek answers to the question of links between genetic defects and contamination by dioxin contained in Agent Orange and other components of the U.S. chemical warfare against Vietnam and Laos.
    
That is certainly an important issue. But it would be unfortunate if the uncertainty and controversy surrounding it were to divert attention from what is already known about the war and its consequences.
    
On this, the thirtieth anniversary of Vietnam's reunification, it is therefore appropriate to recall that:
    
• links between dioxin poisoning and a number of serious medical problems, including one of genetic origin, have already been acknowledged by the U.S. government and manufacturers of Agent Orange
    
• there is a broad range of other public health, ecological and economic consequences of the war, concerning which there is little or no dispute
    
• the United States bears a grave and largely unfulfilled responsibility to ameliorate the consequences of its war of aggression against the countries of Indochina.
    
Those basic circumstances are documented in the conference reports (see left column). Accordingly, there is every reason for the United States to fully compensate the peoples of Indochina for the suffering inflicted upon them, and opinion surveys have consistently indicated that a sizeable majority of U.S. citizens would support such a policy.
    
Unfortunately, there is also a vengeful minority, driven by a malignant complex of emotions stemming from imperial arrogance and the shame of military defeat, which continues to prevent the United States as a whole from coming to terms with the fact and the consequences of its massive crimes against the peoples of Indochina. Among other things, those negative forces helped to determine the outcome of last year's presidential election, with a series of vicious and lavishly funded attacks against Senator John Kerry for his powerful testimony against the war upon returning home from it.
    
For that and related reasons which are discussed in the conference report on ethical, legal and policy issues, it is exceedingly unlikely that the U.S. government will accept and act upon its responsibilities within the foreseeable future. Accordingly, it has been left to positive forces in the United States (of which there are many) and in the rest of the world to shoulder the responsibilities of the U.S. government.
    
Although the need vastly exceeds the available resources, much has already been done. It might be useful to regard all such efforts as reparations made on behalf of the United States until such time as it achieves sufficient maturity to accept its responsibilities. If and when that happens, it would be reasonable to expect the U.S. government to at least match the value of the reparations made on its behalf. In the meantime, it would also be appropriate to present the government and the people of the United States with an accounting, from time to time, of what has been done on their behalf to date.
    
Needless to say, developing such a system of accounts would be a large and complex task, and I am not at all certain that it is feasible. But anyone who would like to explore the possibility is welcome to contact me via e-mail.
    
Al Burke, Co-ordinator
Environmental Conference on Cambodia, Laos & Vietnam
    
Note: The foregoing are personal views which have not been discussed with and are not necessarily shared by members of the steering committee or anyone else associated with the conference.
    
30 April 2005
    
Return to top of page

* * * * *
    

Cancelled-research debate: Part 2
    
Response to criticism of AO research-grant cancellation
    
A response to the published commentary of Ken Herrmann,
by someone involved with the grant

    
I believe that it is essential to respond to Mr. Ken Herrmann's commentary on the cancellation of the Agent Orange research grant [see following item]. His commentary was first published in a Vietnamese newspaper Tuoi Tre on March 22, 2005, and then put up on its web site (without any implied agreement) by the Fund for Reconciliation and Development. As one of many people who spent up to five years trying to make this project a reality, I am very disturbed to see both the project and its cancellation terribly mischaracterized, and further, a number of people who worked incredibly hard on this issue described in very disrespectful terms. Most importantly, I am disturbed that Mr. Herrmann's interpretation will, perhaps inadvertently, have negative effects on future efforts to make progress on the Agent Orange/dioxin issue. Left unchallenged, his statement could unnecessarily polarize and discourage people, both American and Vietnamese.
    
I will limit my comments to ten points, although I take issue with many more of Mr. Herrmann's statements.
    
1. He asserts that Dr. Anne Sassaman, the senior official of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) who is responsible for the area in which this project fell, did not support this study from the beginning.
       The project would not have gotten as far as it did, with $3. million set aside in the bank for this study, had Dr. Sassaman opposed it, as alleged by Mr. Herrmann. First, she worked with Dr. David Carpenter, the American principal investigator, to convert the proposal to a cooperative, inter-university agreement after the peer review process was completed.
       This strategy greatly increased the likelihood that the proposal would obtain the needed funding, and it may have been the key to that initial success within NIEHS. Second, she made two trips to Vietnam, travelling to Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City for site visits and meetings, to try to get closure on the protocols and other issues.
       Third, she had agreed to have NIEHS pay a substantial portion of the salary of the U.S. Embassy's Health Attaché, Dr. Marie Sweeney, a scientist with strong expertise in dioxin research, in order to guarantee that she could allocate a good part of her long working hours to this project.
    
2. Mr. Herrmann alleges that Dr. Sassaman and Dr. Sweeney "demanded that the project be performed only as they required."
       In fact, the "requiring" was done by the NIEHS panels, regulations, review committees, advisory groups and the like. Sassaman and Sweeney were communicating these requirements, which are the same ones applied to all research projects requesting NIH funding. Virtually all of the requirements are aimed at assuring the integrity of the science and protecting human subjects, a major concern in this case.
       Further, Herrmann's implication is that only the Americans made such demands or had such requirements. In fact, the Vietnamese scientists and officials (researchers, government officials, review panels, etc.) insisted upon their own requirements, a function of their own concerns, those of involved ministries and committees, and pre-existing policies of the government of Viet Nam. Making certain that all official requirements were met was the appropriate role for all those involved, both Vietnamese and American.
    
3. Mr. Herrmann states that the "protocol was neither cooperative nor rationally geared toward achieving results with mutual cooperation."
       First, this statement is so broad as to be meaningless, especially since Mr. Herrmann offers no evidence to support it. Secondly (and, in my opinion more importantly), it is an insult to all the Vietnamese and American scientists who spent almost five years developing and refining a study that could be done well with the money that could be anticipated; could compete successfully against all the other projects that sought funding from the same pool of dollars; could satisfy the extremely stringent NIH requirements; and could address all the concerns of the various units of the Vietnamese government.
       When two parties lack a history of trust and collaboration, stronger and more detailed protocols are essential to assuring the quality of the research and, before the research is even begun, to give all parties enough confidence to attempt to work together in an area that is as scientifically complex and politically contentious as Agent Orange/dioxin.
    
4. Mr. Herrmann states that the behavior of Dr. Sassaman and Dr. Sweeney, "seemed geared toward sabotaging the project from the very beginning."
       Herrmann gives no evidence to back up this statement. I have been involved since 2000 in the planning of the study, and thus I can confidently state that his statement has no validity. Dr. Sweeney is an established researcher on reproductive health, especially as it relates to toxins. At some periods in the course of our effort to get the study started, we met and spoke often-- sometimes daily. She provided advice, assistance and advocacy in many, many ways. One significant part of her efforts was to get two successive U.S. ambassadors to Viet Nam involved personally-- writing, calling, requesting and attending meetings-- in advancing the discussions between the Vietnamese and American parties.
    
5. Mr. Herrmann is correct in saying that the U.S. scientists involved were frustrated, but he is totally wrong to assert that the sole cause of that was the behavior of U.S. officials. We were frustrated by the lack of progress and worried by the shadow of cancellation hanging over the program. The lack of progress was a function of all people involved making sure the ultimate study would be good science and would not be unfair to the perceived interests of their respective governments and constituencies.
    
6. Herrmann is correct that Dr Sassaman did object to the presence of Dr. Phi Phi on the Advisory Committee for the study, but he misstates everything else about the issue
       Dr. Phi Phi's advocacy role in the Agent Orange lawsuit may have been strong and principled, but it nevertheless made her less than ideal as a member of a body that, first, had to think and act in an impartial way to guide the research effort and, second, had to be perceived as such.
       This is not a novel concern-- avoiding conflict of interest (or the appearance, or even the suspicion, of it) is of great importance in assuring impartiality, and impartiality is a key to research that is valid and will be universally accepted as such. The Vietnamese scientists involved apparently appreciated this, and they did not raise strong objections to her replacement on the panel with another scientist.
    
7. Mr. Herrmann states that "arrangements for it [the research] became mired in establishing protocols."
       To my mind, this statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of the process. Protocols are a key pillar of research, not a distraction or an annoyance. Protocols are what define clear guidelines and detailed procedures for all elements of a study (for example, choosing controls, preventing bias, processing samples, and doing laboratory analyses.) They are vital to eliminating biases and, therefore, indispensable to conducting research of high quality. The length of time it takes to do this work (and certainly the time it took in this particular instance) can surely be frustrating, but doing this work well is essential and unavoidable.
    
8. Mr. Herrmann states that, "Potential research became little more than taking blood samples from the mothers of disabled children."
       The determination of the dioxin levels in the blood samples of women giving birth in the geographic areas to be studied was, and had to be, a part of the first phase of the study. The essence of the study was to determine if there was a difference between the levels of dioxin in the blood of mothers who gave birth to children with certain birth defects and the levels in mothers in the carefully chosen control group who had similar risk factors and backgrounds but had, in the same time period, given birth to a child without birth defects.
     If the difference in levels of dioxin in the blood between the two groups of mothers were large enough, that would establish an association or linkage between high maternal dioxin levels and an increased risk of having a child with certain disabilities or defects. However, if the range of levels of dioxin in women in the geographic areas to be tested were not high enough to show (in a statistically significant way) the linkage of the dioxin and birth defects, even if one were present in the study as designed, it would have made no sense to proceed further with the study. Without this key determination being made and the levels determined to be high enough to yield valid results, the study would have been unable to show that a linkage existed, no matter how strong that linkage was. That is the way statistical analysis works.
    
9. Mr. Herrmann uses a long list of inflammatory terms to try to win an argument by bluster that he could not carry with evidence. For instance, his words included: "lies... deceit... blackmail... condescending...demanding.... abrasive... sabotaged."
       This is polemic at best, and some might consider it slander. It merits no further comment.
    
10. Herrmann states. "The research began because of the outrage from many nations..."
       This statement is not supported by the facts. The work on the study began in the year 2000, when two senior Vietnamese scientists attending a scientific meeting in Manila approached Dr. David Carpenter with the idea for the research. Dr. Carpenter was the organizer of that conference, as well as Dean Emeritus of the School of Public Health for New York State, and a world-renowned expert on PCBs, dioxin, and related matters.
       The three experts, with the help of others, spent the next five years developing a detailed proposal, getting it funded, and trying to get the final approvals and commitments to commence the research. They deserve credit for getting the project started and funded, although they (and I, and many, many others in both countries) must also share in the responsibility for failing to overcome all the hurdles that stood in the way of the study becoming a reality.

    
Many people are very disappointed that the study did not ultimately happen. The research question remains unanswered. It would, I think, be quite useful to analyze the five-year experience related to this grant proposal to learn lessons that might increase the chances of success of any future effort at launching this much-needed research.
    
Conversely, when statements such as that of Mr. Herrmann use the grant's cancellation as an occasion for speculating, insulting and demonizing, it can have just the opposite effect, i.e. to raise new barriers to progress and cooperation on an issue that has (as we just learned) all too many barriers already. It is for this reason that I have felt obliged to set the record straight.
    
Sincerely,
Mark Rapoport, M.D., M.P.H.
    
26 April 2005
    
Return to top of page

* * * * *
    

    
Cancelled AO research debate: Part 1

    
"A series of lies, deceit, and blackmail"
    

The United States government has withdrawn from a commitment to joint research with Vietnam on the health consequences of Agent Orange, claiming that it had not received "the necessary cooperation from the Vietnamese government". (See "US cancels Agent Orange study in Vietnam" in The New Scientist, 19 March 2005.) The following is a commentary on that development by Prof. Kenneth J. Herrmann which was published in the Vietnamese journal, Tuoi Tre, on 22 March 2005.
    
The cancellation of the US-funded project to research the connection between the use of Agent Orange during the war and the physical and emotional disabilities suffered by so many in Vietnam was decided by Dr. Anne Sassaman of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. It was her decision to cancel the research funding as of 1 January 2005, but this was delayed until 24 February in order to give notice to those involved in America planning the project.
    
Dr. Sassaman did not support the research in the beginning and seemed focused on finding reasons to end this cooperation. She and Dr. Marie Sweeney at the US Embassy made repeated demands of the involved Vietnamese government officials that the project be performed only as the US officials required, a less than cooperative approach. The original five-year project was cut to three years. The protocol was neither cooperative nor rationally geared toward achieving results with mutual cooperation. In fact, the behavior of both Sassaman and Sweeney seemed geared toward sabotaging the project from the very beginning.
    
The US scientists involved were frustrated by the US officials’ behavior, as, I am sure, were the Vietnamese officials who clearly wanted the research to proceed. Dr. Sassaman also was very upset with the Dr. Phan Thi Phi Phi’s involvement in the recent Agent Orange class-action lawsuit. Dr. Phi Phi is a well-respected scientist who had the courage to visit America, share the pain of the Vietnamese victims with Americans, and stand up publicly for justice in the lawsuit. The NIEHS, however, seemed to find this offensive.
    
Amid great publicity in 2001, the US government announced the beginning of an era of cooperation in researching the connection between Agent Orange and the millions of disabled in Vietnam. This was quickly followed by a memorandum by the US Ambassador which ridiculed Vietnamese scientists, called the alleged Agent Orange disabilities mere propaganda by Vietnam with the purpose of getting US money, rejected all other research done by Vietnamese scientists or scientists from around the world useless, and implied that US scientists involved in the research should find no connection between Agent Orange and disabilities in Vietnam.
    
Then, the research itself was delayed, as arrangements for it to begin became mired in establishing protocols. In fact, eventually the potential research became little more than taking blood samples from the mothers of disabled children.The time for the study was decreased from five to three years.Then, Dr. Sassaman decided to end the funding all-together for the research, leaving involved scientists both in the US and in Vietnam shocked and disappointed.
    
In fact, Dr. Sassaman has privately told professionals in America that she will never again approve a project for US scientists to perform research in Vietnam. She even has gone to the point of threatening US universities that their future research funding on other projects will be harmed if they do not cooperate in stating they agree with her decision, even if they do not.
    
This history is not merely bad science; it is a series of lies, deceit, and blackmail. This was a bad political decision, not a scientific one. It is obvious that the pain of the disabled in Vietnam has been ignored and belittled even by those in the US government who are charged both with producing objective research and supporting cooperation between Vietnam and America. This condescending, demanding, and abrasive attitude has sabotaged any potential help from the US government for the horrors resulting from its use of Agent Orange during the war.
    
The research began only because of the outrage from many nations around the world. It was begun with denials and roadblocks from US officials and has ended with US officials foolishly blaming the Vietnamese government for its termination. It is ironic that once again America is blaming the victims for their own pain.This is an insulting and ethically offensive decision by Washington. The burglar is blaming the home owner for the intruder’s burglary.It makes no rational sense at all and should produce outrage around the world.
    
America continues to fund disability compensation for American war veterans who were briefly exposed to Agent Orange during the war. It denies any connection between Agent Orange and the millions in Vietnam who were repeatedly drenched in the 20,000,000 gallons of this toxic chemical and have lived in its aftermath for over thirty years, suffering the same and similar disabilities.The court in America says there is no connection. The American government now ends research into the problem before it even begins.This is an intolerable violation of responsibility and human rights and deserves to be strongly condemned.
    
Those of us around the world who attempt to help Agent Orange victims in Vietnam and also advocate for their cause will find these two repugnant decisions incentives to escalate our services. They are not reasons to end our efforts but rather reasons to devote more time, energy, and resources to help a people and a nation to overcome the results of both the war crime and the insult of the criminal.
    
The incentive to work cooperatively is symbolized in the eyes of one small boy in Que Lam, Quang Nam Province whom I visited two months ago with Nguyen Thi My Hoa, our Program Administrator in Danang, and our SUNY Brockport students. Little Tung’s sister died from her disabilities caused by Agent Orange. He might not be able to travel to America to talk with the US government.He might not be able to testify in court. He might not be able to perform scientific research, but he can tell the world through his pain, paralysis, seizures, and other disabilities that America must do everything possible to help him and the millions of others like him. His silence is a strong message to the world which demands attention and help.His life is an example of courage. My hope is that many others will understand his courage and will continue to do everything possible to improve the condition of those whose silence can become a shout heard around the world.
    
Kenneth J. Herrmann, Jr.
Associate Professor
Director, SUNY Brockport Vietnam Program
Director, The Danang/Quang Nam Fund, Inc.
E-mail: kherrman@rochester.rr.com

    
22 March 2005
    
Return to top of page

* * * * *
    

Petition of sympathy and regret
    
The following is the text of a petition
which has been posted on the Internet
for those who wish to endorse it.

    
To: U.S. Citizens and Veterans of Vietnam War
    
OPEN LETTER TO THE PEOPLE OF VIET NAM
    
As citizens of the United States of America-- many of us American veterans of the war in Viet Nam-- we wish to convey our highest regards and our congratulations to the people of Viet Nam on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the end of the war, on April 30, 1975.
    
In respect for the memory of the more than 58,000 American military personnel and civilians and our allies who died in Viet Nam, and the three million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians who perished during the war, we wish to express our deep sympathies and our heartfelt condolences to all families on all sides who lost loved ones during the conflict-- and to all those who survived the war but with debilitating injuries and lifetime disabilities. We also wish to acknowledge that there are many on all sides who still suffer the consequences of the war, including the hundreds of American families and the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese families whose loved ones never have been found, the millions who attribute their medical problems and disabilities to America's use of Agent Orange in Viet Nam, and the children and adults in Viet Nam who still are exposed to the dangers, every day, of death or injury from unexploded ordnance, landmines, and residual effects of Agent Orange dioxin in remaining contamination sites.
    
We cannot change the past and erase the tragedy of the war, but together we can work for a better life for our children and for future generations. The Vietnamese often say, with forgiveness and sincerity, ''Close the past and open the future.'' We thank the Vietnamese people for this gracious and generous attitude.
    
While Viet Nam has never demanded an apology from the U.S. for our massive armed intervention in Viet Nam's internal affairs, we nonetheless wish to take this opportunity to express our recognition of America's role in causing tremendous devastation of natural resources, economic dislocation, loss of life, and pain and suffering for millions of people. As American citizens, we offer our sincere regrets and deep sympathies for the war's destruction and its continuing consequences for innocent people on all sides.
    
On the occasion of this commemoration, three decades after the war came to a close, we pledge to the people of Viet Nam our commitment to continued reconciliation and friendship between our two peoples, our mutual respect, and our cooperation and good will toward a better life for our children and future generations.
    
And we pledge our individual and collective efforts to assure continued peace, stability, and opportunity for the people of Viet Nam today, and in the years to come.
    
U.S. citizens, including veterans of the war in Viet Nam
    
Petition web address:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/EOWVN/petition.html
    
22 March 2005
    
Return to top of page

* * * * *
    

Vietnam Dioxin Collective
    
We would like to introduce our association, the Vietnam Dioxin Collective, which is a group of non-profit organizations that seek to spread information about the problem of Agent Orange as widely as possible. Some of the associated NGOs are conducting small-scale programs in support of Agent Orange victims in various parts of Vietnam.
    
To view our web site, click here.
    
The web site includes, among other things, a FAQ section with questions and answers about Agent Orange, and some galleries with photos and accompanying texts.
    
Also included is an open letter, "What are you going to do for the victims of Agent Orange?", to be sent to the candidates in the forthcoming presidential election in the United States. We would like the letter to be endorsed by as many people as possible.
    
All information on the web site, including the open letter, is currently available in three languages-- French, English and Vietnamese.
    
Comments and enquiries are most welcome.
    
Vietnam Dioxin Group
http://www.vietnam-dioxine.org
E-mail:  contact@vietnam-dioxine.org
    
28 August 2004
    
Return to top of page

* * * * *
    

Hanoi, 6 August 2004
    
An Open Letter to the American People
    

From the Vietnam Association for
Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin
    
Dear American friends,
    
With sincere and friendly sentiments, from a far-away land of the West Pacific Ocean, we would like to send this letter to all of you. It is written on the pending day of August 10th, when the U.S aircrafts, in 1961, began the spraying of herbicides in Vietnam with the northern areas of Kontum as their first target. The most recent investigative study conducted by American scientists reported in Nature, April 2003, has discovered that U.S forces, from 1961 to 1971 deployed about 80 million liters of toxic chemicals, more than half of which was Agent Orange containing nearly 400 kilograms of dioxin, an extremely dangerous substance, to destroy our environment and human health.
    
This horrible outcome was right from that time in 1960s, confirmed, warned and opposed by many prestigious American and world researchers such as Professor Arthur Galston, a biologist at together with the U.S Physiobotanist Association and about five thousands (5,000) other U.S scientists, including seventeen (17) Nobel laureates and one-hundred-and-twenty-nine (129) members of the U.S National Academy of Sciences.
    
We were deeply moved by pictures appearing on screens depicting hundreds of thousands of American people pouring into the streets against the war of aggression in Vietnam, especially pictures that showed American veterans throwing away their medals and awards after realizing the deception that had brought them to Vietnam to fight against a people who have aspired so much for independence and freedom.
    
Dear friends,
    
From the Bertrand Russell Tribunal of Conscience held during the time of the Vietnam War, to the Stockholm Conference convened in July 2002, and to now, the support offered by the progressive people all over the world has greatly inspired the Vietnamese people to overcome uncountable difficulties and sufferings in the course of their fight for their national reunification and reconstruction.
    
The war is over. The country has made her marvelous rebirth. Millions of people have nevertheless been subject to deadly incurable diseases due to dioxin exposure. Thousands of them have consequently died in agony with deep indignation towards the perpetrators of crimes. Many women have suffered reproductive complications and even the total loss of the right to be a mother. Among other things, the most painful fact may be that their descendants who have nothing to do with the war were, are and will be, as victims of dioxin, born with inherited diseases, and, of course, without smallest hope of enjoying even a minute of happiness of living like an ordinary being. The victims of Agent Orange/dioxin are the most miserable and tragic people. Many of them, with lots of deformed off-spring, have barely survived in poverty.
    
We, the Vietnamese people, ceaselessly thirsty for peace and friendship, have exerted great patience in demonstrating our preparedness for cooperation with the U.S in solving the cruel war consequences, especially those severe evils resulting from horrible chemical warfare. However, this has met no positive response.
    
In face of this situation, the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange feel it necessary to file a lawsuit against the U.S chemical corporations, the suppliers of this toxic substance used in the Vietnam War and who gained enormous profits from the sufferings of millions of people.
    
The legal action taken by the Vietnamese victims is also designed in the lawful interests of all other victims, including those in the United States, Australia, the Republic of South Korea, Thailand, New Zealand and the Republic of Philippines.
    
Inevitably, this legal action is structured for the sake of many forthcoming generations. It is nevertheless undertaken for the solemn right-to-life of every human being.
    
Dear friends,
    
We hereby would like again to affirm before you that the Vietnamese have never harbored any sense of hatred for the American people who have written several important pages of history of hard struggle for independence and freedom. We are earnestly hoping to enjoy your further understanding and more profound sympathy for the extreme sufferings imposed on the Vietnamese victims. However, we ask you to know that the use of toxic chemicals is in brazen violation of international laws and thus being a war crime and an act of betrayal against the spirit of the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson.
    
For the sake of justice and noble conscience, please raise your voice and demand the U.S Court of Law to conduct serious litigation proceedings, and that the U.S chemical corporations to fulfill their compensation liability for the victims of Vietnam, of the United States and of other countries.
    
The present struggle is directly aimed at the peaceful and happy life of our future generations on this planet.
    
Nguyen Trong Nhan, Vice-President
Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin
41/11 Linhlang Street, Congvi, Badinh
Hanoi, Vietnam,
Tel. 84-04-7628577, 84-04-7629452
Fax: 84-04-7629452
Email: hnncddcvn@vnn.vn

    
Posted 10 August 2004
    
Return to top of page

* * * * *
    

Petition in support of AO law suit
    

An Internet petition in support of the law suit filed earlier this year in New York on behalf of Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange has attracted widespread international support. Thus far, over 58,000 people have endorsed the petition since it was posted in mid-March.*
    
The petition is an initiative of Len Aldis. Secretary of the Britain-Vietnam Friendship Society. It will be presented in due course to the U.S. president, congressional leaders, and the chemicals named as defendants in the law suit.
    
The petition has evoked a powerful response from all over the world. Among the endorsers are tens of thousands of Vietnamese, many of whom have written to Len Aldis to express their appreciation for his initiative. The following example is fairly typical:
    
"I am 13 years old and I'm Vietnamese. I'm very be moved and fired by everything you did for many person in my country . I'll call upon every body sign in your website. Thanks for every thing you did for my country."
    
Adds Len Aldis, "We urge everyone who seeks justice in this matter to join us in signing the petition, and to encourage others to do so as well.
    
For background information and the full text of the class action, see next item.
    
Editor
9 August 2004
    
*Note from Len Aldis, 5 May 2008: "The petition was created in order to gather international support for the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange who were to begin a lawsuit against 36 US chemical companies seeking the right to take the companies to court.
     "We were pleased that the petition was endorsed by 712,000 people from around the world. But we decided to withdraw it from the Internet, as some persons began to abuse it by writing crude remarks instead of endorsements. We felt it would be wrong to give such people a platform for their views.
     "Despite the closure of the petition, the work of seeking justice for the victims continues, and we ask all who agree to raise the issue with their elected representatives and urge them to assist the victims."
   

Return to top of page

* * * * *
    

U.S. Law Suit for Vietnamese AO Victims
    
For the first time ever, legal action has been taken in the United States on behalf of Vietnamese victims of the Vietnam War. On 30 January 2004, a class action suit was filed in a New York district court by the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin.
    
Three Vietnamese citizens were named as plaintiffs, but the suit applies as well to all Vietnamese citizens who have been victimized by the wartime spraying of Agent Orange.
    
As the government cannot be sued without its consent-- which it never grants, even when its own citizens are involved-- the complaint has been filed against several dozen U.S. companies, including Dow Chemical and Monsanto, which were involved in the manufacture of the Agent Orange used by U.S. forces during the war. A jury trial has been requested.
    
Everyone who is familiar with the terrible effects of Agent Orange will be pleased that the first step has finally been taken to obtain a measure of justice for the millions of Vietnamese victims.
    
I fear that the case will take time, and that some of the victims may not live to see the outcome. It is not unlikely that the companies named in the lawsuit will use all means that the law permits to delay the outcome.
    
It will be interesting to see who will be called as witnesses by Monsanto, Dow Chemical and the other defendants, and to hear the evidence they will give before the jury to justify the use of such weapons in apparent violation of international law.
    
The formal complaint filed with the court is a valuable source of information on the subject (see below). Among the expertise it draws upon are the Institute of Medicine of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and research teams led by Dr. Wayne Dwernychuk of Hatfield Consultants in Canada, who also serves on the steering committee of the Environmental Conference on Cambodia, Laos & Vietnam.
    
I strongly urge everyone who is interested in this important issue to read the complete document, which should be very helpful in gathering support for the victims of Agent Orange.
    
Permit me to suggest some actions that can be taken to support the plaintiffs.
  • Letters to the chief executive officers of all the companies named as defendants in the law suit, expressing the writer’s deep concern and urging justice for the victims of Agent Orange. It might also be stressed that one’s opinion toward the company and its products will be strongly affected by its response to the law suit.
       
  • Letters to members of national legislatures, the parliament and other principal bodies of the European Union, and heads of state, urging their support for the plaintiffs and reminding them that, whatever the outcome of the law suit, the victims of Agent Orange are in urgent need of assistance from the world community at large.

A petition in support of the law suit has been posted on the Internet, and everyone who is concerned about this issue is urged to sign it. [See editor's note in preceding item.]
    
Also, an "Early Day Motion" has been submitted to the British Parliament and has already been endorsed by a number of MPs.
    
Questions and suggestions regarding any aspect of the issue are most welcome and may be submitted via e-mail to this address: lenaldis@yahoo.co.uk
        
Len Aldis, Secretary
Britain-Vietnam Friendship Society
6 March 2004

    
Return to top of page

* * * * *
    

Significance of new dioxin figures
    

The new estimates of dioxin contamination in Vietnam, published recently in Nature (see below), are very significant from several standpoints, including sheer volume. For decades, the standard estimate has been that about 170 kilograms of pure TCDD dioxin were deposited on southern Vietnam. But the figures arrived at by the Stellman group indicate that the total volume could have been as high as 600 kilograms, or even higher.
    
With regard to potential health effects, the implications for the people of Vietnam are much more ominous than for any U.S. veterans who may have been affected. This is not to belittle the risk to the latter; but U.S. personnel were subject to exposure only during their relatively brief tours of duty. The native population, on the other hand, was exposed to constant risk during all the years of the U.S. spraying program, and they have continued to be at risk during the 30-plus years since the spraying stopped.
    
The new findings indicate that the extent of that risk can be up to four times greater than previously estimated. It also confirms the results of our field research in the Aluoi Valley, which found that residual dioxin is concentrated in certain ”hot spots”. The worst of these are likely to have occurred where Agent Orange and other contaminants were stored, dispensed and spilled at former U.S. military installations throughout the southern part of the country.
    
All of this underlines the extreme urgency of locating dioxin hot spots in Vietnam and taking appropriate clean-up measures, so that they can be eliminated as continued sources of heavy exposure for what could easily amount to hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting Vietnamese citizens.
    
Needless to say, the new research findings also underline the urgency of studying dioxin exposure and potential health effects in general, and in particular among Vietnamese who have lived near or have otherwise been exposed to hot spots.
    
L. Wayne Dwernychuk
Hatfield Consultants Ltd.
Vancouver, Canada
22 April 2003
    
Editor's note: L. Wayne Dwernychuk is co-author of the conference report on ecoystems.
    
Return to top of page

* * * * *
    

New research indicates dioxin exposure
much greater than previously estimated

    
New research indicates that the amount of dioxin deposited on Vietnam by the United States during the war was between 2-4 times greater than previously estimated. The results of the study were published on 17 April 2003 in Nature magazine.
    
The study also found that over 3000 of southern Vietnam’s 20,000 hamlets were directly exposed to Agent Orange, and that as many as 4.8 million people may have been affected-- also a much higher figure than previously estimated. "I was actually pretty much surprised about this myself, and I recalculated many, many times," says Dr. Jeanne Mager Stellman, chief author of the report. "The number of people in hamlets that flights were directly over, it numbers in the millions. I was quite astounded by this." (New York Times, 17 April 2003)
    
The research resulted in a series of maps which, among other things, make it possible to pinpoint ”hot spots” that were subjected to especially heavy concentrations of Agent Orange and dioxin. This information is expected to facilitate the setting of priorities for clean-up operations and epidemiological studies.
    
While this research has yielded valuable new information about the amount and distribution of Agent Orange spraying and potential dioxin exposure, it does not address the question of possible links between such exposure and the subsequent development of birth defects and other health problems. Answers to that question require detailed epidemiological studies, which have thus far been impossible to conduct due to a lack of resources. (For details on these and related issues, see the conference report on public health.)
    
The revised figures are the result of research into U.S. military records on spraying programmes in Vietnam that have been available since the war, but never before reviewed or correlated. Dr. Stellman has expressed a belief that this was not the result of a cover-up, but others are not so sure.
    
Brian McKenzie, national president of the Vietnam Veterans' Association of Australia, told the Sydney Morning Herald that, "The whole thing [Agent Orange] has been a series of cover-ups during the war and ever since."
    
Editor
22 April 2003
    
Return to top of page

* * * * *
    

Threat of perpetual war and vigilante revenge
    
Pilger was quite correct* when he diagnosed Richard Perle as "being mad." But Hitler was mad and still managed to lead a major nation into a war which ended up killing over 50-60 million people. Perle right now can be credited with putting the U.S. and the world in the present dilemma with a forthcoming war against Islam's billion plus adherents. No nation can win such a war; and worse, still, it will be perpetual.
      As a veteran of World War II, I am amazed that one small group of people have now attained so much power over this country and have set us on this road that leads to nowhere but disaster. There will come a time when our progeny will start asking questions as to how we got them into the mess they will still have; and then, maybe we may see even more horror when vigilante revenge becomes standard policy.
    
Stephen Block, Jr.
U.S. veteran of World War II
27 January 2003
    
*Editor's note: This refers to an article by John Pilger, previously recommended to readers of this web site, which includes the following excerpts:
    
”The threat posed by U.S. terrorism to the security of nations and individuals was outlined in prophetic detail in a document written more than two years ago and disclosed only recently. What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was ’some catastrophic and catalysing event-- like a new Pearl Harbor’. The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the ’new Pearl Harbor’, described as ’the opportunity of ages’. The extremists who have since exploited 11 September come from the era of Ronald Reagan, when far-right groups and ’think-tanks’ were established to avenge the American ’defeat’ in Vietnam. In the 1990s, there was an added agenda: to justify the denial of a ’peace dividend’ following the cold war. The Project for the New American Century was formed, along with the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute and others that have since merged the ambitions of the Reagan administration with those of the current Bush regime.
      ”One of George W. Bush's ’thinkers’ is Richard Perle. I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about ’total war’, I mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term again in describing America's ’war on terror’. ’No stages,’ he said. ’This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq. . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war. . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now.’”
        
Return to top of page

* * * * *
    

An appeal for united action
    
As a U.S. veteran of the Vietnam War, I have returned to Vietnam three times during the past two years. What I learned from those visits has caused me to work for the development of a medical and research center to be built in Hanoi, a project that has received support from members of the U.S. Congress, among others.
     I congratulate Len Aldis for his support to victims of the war, and for urging the British Parliament to endorse the Stockholm Declaration. I think that someone should also approach the Australian parliament with a similar proposal.
      The legacy of Agent Orange will be with us for a very long time, and there is an ongoing debate within the scientific community concerning the need for more data. But the people of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam cannot wait for more research. They need humanitarian assistance NOW. It is up to the international community to assist with public education and with the clean-up of hot spots in the three affected countries.
      While the U.S. is engaged in threatening or (perhaps soon) conducting a war against Iraq, not much may be expected from that source with regard to Agent Orange. We, the people must take charge and help out, with whatever means we have at our disposal. All those committed to world peace and reverence for human life, including veterans’ groups and other concerned organizations, must unite in solidarity with those in need.
    
Thomas R. Joyce
U,S. veteran of Vietnam War and Agent Orange activist
27 January 2003
    
Return to top of page

* * * * *
    

The question of Vietnamese war dead
    
I find it rather strange that there has been not only absolutely no response in several months to Mr. Willingham's comments [see below], but also absolutely no new comments in the "Open Forum"? What gives with this situation?
      As a Vietnam War veteran ('67-'68) and a current friend of Mr. Willingham, I am well aware of the vast numbers of Vietnamese people who were killed by U.S. military firepower (including, of course, herbicides and other chemical weapons utilized during the war in Vietnam). I was stationed at Bien Hoa AFB at the time of the 1968 Tet offensive, and personally witnessed the burial of over 800 bodies after the offensive was quelled in the area. The bodies of the dead--men, women, and children, combatants and non-combatants alike-- were collected for burial in two large holes in the earth that we dug with our heavy engineering equipment. As a result of this experience, I have long wondered what the body count was for the entire war-- not of American GIs, but of Vietnamese citizens in both north and south Vietnam.
      I have heard General Giap state that some 5-7 million Vietnamese were killed during the war with the U.S. A friend in Finland recently stated he thought it was much less, somewhere around 2-3 million.
      Does anyone have a firm figure on how many were killed during the U.S. War? It has often gotten me in trouble with other vets in therapy groups when I try to refocus the conversation from the 58,000 dead GIs to a reflection on the millions of dead Vietnamese "we" killed. I have spent the last 35 years feeling like a "good German" who participated in the slaughter of millions of people simply because I followed the orders of my country to go and participate in this madness, in order to avoid going to jail as a draft resister. I would like to know the truth of the matter, now that age is starting to catch up with me, so that I can talk openly, honestly and accurately about my experiences with my two young sons.
    
Thanks.
    
James N. ("Jim") Welch
MA 34th Engineer Battallion (Construction)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
19 January 2003
    
Return to top of page

* * * * *
    

Query re: bombed areas
    
I would like to know the current status of certain areas (a) before the war, (b) at the end of the war before regeneration began, and (c) now, at present. This includes all geographic parameters like population distribution, land use, vegetation cover, wildlife and so on.
     I am interested in those areas that I saw, personally, as a cargo pilot in 1970-'71. This includes the areas around metro Saigon to the north- and southwest all the way to the Cambodian border, minus a ribbon of green northwest to Tay Ninh and another green area from Song Be west to Ton Le Shan(?) along the Cambodian border. Also, the areas from Ban Me Thuot to Pleiku from the foothills of the coastal range to the Cambodian border-- plus, of course, the carpet-bombed area of eastern Cambodia.
     The areas in southern Vietnam were cleared of population by artillery, air strikes, bombing, defoliation of forest and cropland, plus plowed clearing and infantry sweeps.
     I would like to know if it is known where Agent Blue was sprayed, e.g. if it was in the northwest delta. Were these defoliation agents classified based on their physical appearance, or the coloration of the defoliation afterward.?
    
Jim Willingham
USAF cargo pilot in Vietnam, 1970-71; resigned commission 1972
22 September 2002   
 
    
P.S. I applaud the opening remarks to the conference, but believe that the peacemaking and healing will not come from the U.S. government: It is ensconced in deep hypocrisy. The healers so far have been the veterans' and other peace groups.
    
Return to top of page

* * * * *