[Marxism] America Spits on Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange

M. Junaid Alam mjunaidalam at msalam.net
Thu Mar 10 19:57:55 MST 2005


Notice how the US veterans received a cool $180 million, whereas the 
Vietnamese got fucked. How outrageous. It's "just a herbicide" when the 
Vietnamese get destroyed, but somehow reparations are handed out when 
the soldiers sent in to kill those Vietnamese are affected by it? You 
can't deny it no matter how hard you try: nationalism still trumps 
class. Imperialism as a system of advanced nations underdeveloping 
poorer nations is so far off from Marx's diagnosis - "The country that 
is more developed industrially only shows to the less developed the 
image of its own future,"  -  that it should be revised to read, "The 
country that is more developed industrially only shows to the less 
developed how barbaric it will behave to maintain its privileged future."

 The criminality of imperialism, which by necessity entails "a certain 
complicity", as Che put it, of the advanced workers, is an immovable 
fact. The biggest barrier to socialism for over 100 years now has been 
the simple fact of massive disparity between rich and poor countries, a 
disparity that was never bridged or transcended by capitalist 
penetration, as conceived by either neoliberals or Marxists. How do you 
come to grips with this enormous question of such massive moral and 
intellectual importance?



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/10/nyregion/10cnd-oran.html

Agent Orange Case for Millions of Vietnamese Is Dismissed * By WILLIAM 
GLABERSON 
<http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=WILLIAM%20GLABERSON&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=WILLIAM%20GLABERSON&inline=nyt-per> 
*

Published: March 10, 2005

In a decision that could close a controversial Vietnam-era chapter of 
American history, a federal judge in Brooklyn today dismissed a damage 
suit filed on behalf of millions of Vietnamese that claimed American 
chemical companies committed war crimes by supplying the military with 
the defoliant Agent Orange.

The civil suit, filed last year, had sought what could have been 
billions of dollars in damages and the environmental cleanup of Vietnam. 
The suit drew international attention for its claims about Agent Orange, 
which was widely used by the American military to clear the jungle until 
1971.

The suit claimed that the defoliant, which contained the highly toxic 
substance dioxin, left a legacy of poison in Vietnam that caused birth 
defects, cancer and other health problems and amounted to a violation of 
international law.

But Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the United States District Court sided 
with the chemical companies and the Justice Department, which argued 
that supplying the defoliant did not amount to a war crime.

"No treaty or agreement, express or implied, of the United States," 
Judge Weinstein wrote, "operated to make use of herbicides in Vietnam a 
violation of the laws of war or any other form of international law 
until at the earliest April of 1975."

Because of sovereign immunity, the United States government was not sued.

In 1975, President Gerald R. Ford adopted a national policy renouncing 
the first use of herbicides in warfare. Also in 1975, the Senate 
ratified an international Geneva accord dating from 1925, which outlawed 
the use of poisonous gases during war.

The suit claimed that because of the dioxin in Agent Orange, spraying it 
amounted to the use of poison during war.

But Judge Weinstein concluded in a 233-page decision that even if the 
United States had been a Geneva signatory during the Vietnam War, the 
accord would not have barred the use of Agent Orange.

"The prohibition extended only to gases deployed for their asphyxiating 
or toxic effects on man," said the decision, issued in response to a 
motion for dismissal by the defendants, "not to herbicides designed to 
affect plants that may have unintended harmful side-effects on people."

William H. Goodman, a lawyer for an association of Vietnamese that filed 
the suit as a class action, said the decision would be appealed. He said 
the United States Supreme Court could eventually decide the issue.

"The judge missed the point," Mr. Goodman said. "He ruled as a matter of 
law that what these defendants manufactured was not a poison, whereas 
even these manufacturers recognized that it was at the time."

The companies have long said that dioxin was an unwanted byproduct of 
the manufacture of Agent Orange, but claimed that there was no 
conclusive link to the many serious health problems blamed on Agent Orange.

Over many decades, American veterans of the Vietnam War filed suits 
making health claims similar to those now being pressed by the 
Vietnamese. Judge Weinstein also handled those cases.

Seven American chemical companies settled the veterans' cases for $180 
million in 1984.

The same chemical companies, including Dow, Monsanto and Hercules, were 
sued in the Vietnamese case.

Spokesmen for some of the companies applauded the decision today.

"We believe the defoliant saved lives by protecting allied forces from 
enemy ambush and did not create adverse health affects," said Scot 
Wheeler, a spokesman for the Dow Chemical Company.

Glynn Young, a spokesman for Monsanto, said Judge Weinstein's decision 
was correct.

"The judge said they didn't make the case," Mr. Young said. "That's a 
very difficult message for a lot of people to understand because there's 
so much emotion wrapped up in cases like this one."

Though he ruled against the Vietnamese plaintiffs, Judge Weinstein 
agreed with many arguments put forth by their lawyers. He rejected 
arguments of the Justice Department that the court had no place in 
reviewing military strategies adopted by President John F. Kennedy and 
his successors.

Saying "presidential powers are limited even in wartime," Judge 
Weinstein said American courts had the power to decide whether 
presidential decisions about the conduct of a war violated international 
law.

"In the Third Reich," the decision said, "all power of the state was 
centered in Hitler; yet his orders did not serve as a defense at 
Nuremberg," where war crimes trials were conducted after World War II.

Similarly, he rejected an argument from the chemical companies that they 
were shielded by rules that typically protect military contractors from 
suits for providing war materiel.

Clearly writing to influence courts in the future, Judge Weinstein used 
sweeping language and employed extensive citations to historical, 
military, scientific and legal writings.

If supplying contaminated herbicide had been a war crime, Judge 
Weinstein wrote, the chemical companies could have refused to supply it. 
"We are a nation of free men and women," he wrote, "habituated to 
standing up to government when it exceeds its authority."





More information about the Marxism mailing list