Agent Orange- Biological Weapons and the Vietnamese Experience

AUTHOR'S PROFILE: Angela Arora, a first-year student of USLLS, GGSIPU.

INTRODUCTION

Biological weapons are "the poor man's atom bomb”- Dr. Steven M Bloc, American Biophysicist, and Professor, Stanford University.

Eloquently put by Dr. Bloc in the above-mentioned quote, biological weapons of warfare come under the category of unconventional methods of warfare, the list which also includes nuclear, chemical, and radiological warfare. Referring to Dr. Bloc’s quote, the major striking difference between other weapons on this list and the biological weapons are- they are cheaper to develop, quicker and easier to disperse, highly potent, can virtually have a lethal effect on the entire world, both directly and indirectly, and they leave the enemy population seething for decades. Another deadly quality that they possess is ‘low visibility- it is hard to detect their presence and act before it is too late. In retrospect, if one is to see the extent of damage caused to any population in the world due to the usage of such biological means, it’s easily observable that the suffering of the people is passed on to several generations to come- there is no instant death; it is painfully slow and may last for decades, causing mental and physical harm to both the victim and the caregivers.

Contrary to popular belief, biological weapons are not a relatively new phenomenon. They are as old as the inherent human need to conquest and conquer. [1] Before the world developed genetic engineering and produced mutations, animal cadavers were used by Romans, Greeks, and Persians to contaminate the enemy’s water sources. Advanced studies and investments in microbiology further led to the development of modern and sophisticated weapons, which have the potential to kill the present and debilitate the later population. [2] In modern times, biological weapons were first used and developed by the Germans during the First World War. Almost all developed nations of the world followed suit. The Japanese carried out experiments on Manchurian prisoners during the Second World War, exposing over three thousand people to anthrax, plague, and syphilis. In the same time frame, the United States developed and stockpiled anthrax and botulinum toxin to be prepared for unlimited retaliation against the Germans. The British created anthrax-laced cattle cakes and the Soviets also stockpiled anthrax. Sixteen countries are presently suspected to have these weapons even after signing international treaties which banned their usage completely. [3] Anthrax remains on the top of the list because it easily mixes with the soil and has deadly effects.[4]

OPERATION RANCH HAND

Operation Ranch Hand was the codename given to the US military’s biological warfare operation in Vietnam. Agent Orange, a potentially hazardous herbicide containing the deadly, chemical dioxin, was sprayed over the lush jungles and crops of Vietnam to harm the enemy North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops. From 1961 to 1971, over twenty million gallons of this toxic substance were sprayed over Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Agents Orange, Pink, White, Purple, and Blue, all manufactured by Monsanto, Dow Chemicals, and other companies were put to use- they are universally accepted as cancerous and are proven to cause diabetes, neurological and psychological disorders, muscular dysfunction, heart diseases, miscarriages, etc. The legacy of this still lingers on in the lives of the Vietnamese people and also in the US military veterans.

It is very interesting to note here that just right after Operation Ranch Hand, the United States of America became the signatory of the [5] Biological Weapons Convention, formally, Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. Acknowledging the adverse effect and growing threat of such weapons, this treaty was the first of its kind, signed in London, Moscow, and Washington DC in 1972- it was left open for others to sign and came into force in 1975. [6]

The main features of this convention are as follows-

• It is a legally binding treaty that bans the destruction, stockpiling, acquisition, retention, and production of biological agents and toxins; weapons, equipment, and delivery vehicles.
• The convention further requires states-parties to destroy or divert to peaceful purposes the "agents, toxins, weapons, equipment, and means of delivery" described above within nine months of the convention's entry into force.
• The treaty regime mandates that states-parties consult with one another and cooperate, bilaterally or multilaterally, to solve compliance concerns. It also allows states-parties to complain to the UN Security Council if they believe other member states are violating the convention. The Security Council can investigate complaints, but this power has never been invoked.

Undoubtedly, the Biological Weapons Convention Treaty is a laudable effort of the international community. It is the only treaty that bans an entire category of weapons of mass destruction. However, it is laced with its shortcomings. Flagrant violations have been made, even by depositary states. [6] The Soviets maintained an enormous offensive biological weapons program after ratifying the BWC. Russia says that this program has been terminated, but questions remain about what happened to elements of the Soviet program. Iraq violated its commitments as a signatory state with its biological weapons program, which was uncovered by the UN Special Commission on Iraq after the Persian Gulf War. Iraq became a state party after the war. In November 2001, the United States publicly accused Iraq, as well as member state North Korea, of breaching the convention's terms. Washington also expressed concern about compliance by Iran and Libya, which are also states-parties, and by Syria. The United States itself raised concerns in 2001 about whether some of its activities, ostensibly being conducted as part of its biodefense program, are permitted under the BWC. In 2002, Washington added Cuba, also a state party, to its list of countries conducting activities that violate the convention.

This treaty, coupled with the Protocol for The Prohibition of The Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gasses, And of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (Geneva Protocol, 1925), is the only major international treaty governing biological warfare. As the modern world has progressed, understood, and experienced the devastating effects of biological warfare, imminent ambiguities in these treaties have come to light, which has raised new legal and ethical questions. Historically, as sovereign states have developed and used such weapons against other states, the responsibility for the same has also been given to state actors. The manufacturers of such deadly agents have been saved from being vicariously liable, until recently. This point can be thoroughly explained with the example of Operation Ranch Hand- the US Military offensive in Vietnam.

It has been scientifically proven, and accepted, by the international community that Vietnam suffered unimaginably and is still suffering. [7] The Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin (VAVA) says more than 4.8 million people were exposed to the herbicide and 3 million of them suffered deadly diseases. Washington finally began to help Vietnam with clean-up efforts in 2012, five decades after the war, starting with Danang International Airport, which used to be a US airbase that stored Agent Orange. Almost thirty years ago, then-US senator Tom Daschle sponsored the Agent Orange Act of 1991 to study the linkage between diseases and exposure to dioxin and other chemical compounds in herbicides. In 2015, the Department of Veterans Affairs paid US$24 billion in disability compensation to 1.3 million Vietnam War veterans. Vietnam has virtually received no such aid for the five million people and their subsequent generations. The figure paid to war veterans should ideally be compared to the ten million USD that the States government gives to Vietnam annually to support the disabled population of provinces heavily sprayed with Agent Orange. The fund is not directly given to the affected persons, and comes down to only seventy-five USD a month, per family. From a humanitarian and economic point of view, this amount is not sufficient to cover the needs of patients suffering from debilitating diseases and their aged caregivers.

The United States has pledged to commit three hundred million USD in the next ten years to clean up Bin Hao, a province worse affected by the effects of Agent Orange. It may be beneficial from an ecological point of view, but the current human victims have been left behind. Important legality that arises herein, is that, are individual manufacturers of such disastrous weapons responsible for the personal losses of each victim?

In 2008, several Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange filed a class-action civil lawsuit against Dow Chemicals & Co, Monsanto Co, and nearly thirty other companies which had manufactured the deadly, dioxin-laced Agent Orange. This action had both political and economic colors- Politically, suing a corporate rather than the state would keep the diplomatic relations between Hanoi and Washington intact, as the matter would not be entertained in a world court. Economically, it was expected that the precedents set by US courts in granting compensation to Americans affected by poisonous herbicides/ pesticides would also apply in the case of the Vietnamese victims, hereby enabling them to get hefty monetary compensation. The burden of blame would shift from “who used the herbicide for clearing forests” to “who made such a herbicide that would not only clear forests but also clear healthy human existence from wherever it is sprayed”.The ruling, in this case, was handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The judgment was against the plaintiffs, as the Court believed that there was not enough evidence to prove that Agent Orange, a chemical herbicide that got its name from the container it was stored in, was responsible for the health issues of those who came into contact with it. [8] “Although the herbicide campaign may have been controversial, the record before us supports the conclusion that agent orange was used as a defoliant and not as a poison designed for or targeting human populations,” Judge Roger Miner wrote for the three-judge appeals court panel.

The legal fight to get fair compensation for the victims of Agent Orange was reignited in 2019, when Major General Tran Ngoc Tho, deputy chairman of the Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange and Dioxin and president of its Ho Chi Minh City branch, sent a letter asking a U.S. court to reverse its earlier ruling in an Agent Orange case. They cited the previous judgment of the jury in Hardeman v Monsanto (2019), in which the Court decided that Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup caused cancer, and the plaintiff, seventy-one-year-old Edward Hardeman was awarded eighty-one million USD in compensation, for he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using the above-mentioned product. They also cited Dewayne Johnson v Monsanto (2018), another case with similar facts in which the Court had established that a Monsanto product was responsible for the plaintiff’s medical condition and awarded the plaintiff a compensation of two hundred eighty-nine million USD. It was argued that the people of Vietnam and the environment that they have been living in are the greatest possible evidence one could present. Citing precedents, they demanded similar compensation for the millions affected by the dioxin used in the manufacture of Agent Orange, in Vietnam. They also mentioned the emotional blow to the self-esteem of the victims, which is a result of the aloofness of Americans and the fact that manufacturers such as Monsanto and Dow Chemicals have not taken responsibility for their products. They requested the Court to revisit the judgment, with the hope that the scale of justice will now be balanced. Currently, there is no further news on whether the Court would take up the matter again.

2021 has brought back a renewed hope and a new spirit to fight the Vietnamese population reeling from the effects of Agent Orange. [9]The first civilian case against companies that manufactured Agent Orange has begun in a French Court. The plaintiff is eighty-year-old Tran To Nga, a naturalized French citizen who was born and brought up in Vietnam, and as a journalist for the Liberation News Agency, she had covered the war and also enlisted as a soldier in the troops fighting the Americans. In 1993, she moved to France, and for her charitable work in France and Vietnam, Nga was recognized with the Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur, or The Legion of Honor, the highest French order of merit, in 2004. Nga has suffered from typical Agent Orange inflicted effects. She has type 2 diabetes, an extremely rare insulin allergy; she contracted tuberculosis twice, cancer once; lost a child to malformation in her heart. She also suffers from Alpha Thalassemia, a condition that her daughter and grandchild also have. Nga is using twenty-six multinational companies for subjecting her and her family to lifelong health issues, which have been positively linked to Dioxin, the primary component of Agent Orange. But her fight, she says, is not only for her, but her countrymen, who have been suffering and dying all these years, caring for malformed children and living in a toxic environment. A lot of concrete work has been done by her to reach where she is today, and she hopes her case will be the positive precedent that is needed to hold all such firms accountable for the deadly poison they created. A fact to be known here is that only war veterans from America, Korea, and Australia have been compensated by the companies for the damages they suffered due to Agent Orange. The defendants are seeking jurisdictional immunity by arguing that they cannot be held responsible for how their product has been used by the U.S. military. Nevertheless, this case has again triggered ethical and political debates about the users and manufacturers of biological weapons of war, their adverse effects, and most importantly, who is responsible for mass butchering a population in the farce of clearing crops and jungles?

CONCLUSION

Biological weapons of war are symbolic of two things- first, the greatness of the human mind and its ability to imagine and create anything, which is powerful and serves its purpose perfectly, secondly, the inherent need for vengeance and the height of destruction and suffering one can inflict on another. The example of Vietnam is a unique one. Its people are living testimony to the brutalities of ideological wars, which may make one question- how far is one willing to go to impose one’s will on others? The blaring question to which the Vietnamese are looking for an answer is, who is to be held accountable for all the damages that they have suffered. The Companies argue that they supplied the military with a herbicide; the military argues that the product was used as a ‘herbicide’; the annihilated population is living with both- an environment devoid of healthy growth, and a body devoid of health, normality, and power. The plaintiffs in the judgments cited in the 2019 appeal had conditions similar to the Vietnamese- they too were not supplied with cancer-causing agents, but simple weed killers, or ‘herbicides. Yet the treatment meted out to both the parties is strangely different, and one wonders, why? It is hoped that Ms. Nga’s case would finally bring peace and justice to the millions of victims of Operation Ranch Hand and set a strict precedent for billionaire, multi-national companies to manufacture products that are safe for people and the environment, and only serve the purpose they are meant to- in any circumstances, they cannot be again used to wipe off an entire population.

Disclaimer: This article is an original submission of the Author. Niti Manthan does not hold any liability arising out of this article. Kindly refer to our Terms of use or write to us in case of any concerns.

REFERENCES

[1] 'Biological Warfare - An Overview | Sciencedirect Topics' (Sciencedirect.com, 2021) <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/biological-warfare>

[2] 'Biological Warfare Facts & History Of Biological Agents Use' (eMedicineHealth, 2021) <https://www.emedicinehealth.com/biological_warfare/article_em.htm>

[3] 'A Few Anthrax Spores Can Kill, Doctors Say' (Ph.ucla.edu, 2021) <https://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/fewanthraxsporeskill.html> accessed 14 February 2021.

[4] 'Agent Orange' (HISTORY, 2021) <https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/agent-orange-1>

[5] 'Biological Weapons Convention | International Agreement' (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2021) <https://www.britannica.com/event/Biological-Weapons-Convention>

[6] 'The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) At A Glance | Arms Control Association' (Armscontrol.org, 2021) <https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/bwc>

[7] 'Vietnam Seeks US Reparations For The Chemical Agent Orange' (Asia Times, 2021) <https://asiatimes.com/2018/08/vietnam-seeks-us-reparations-for-the-chemical-agent-orange/>

[8] 'Vietnam Cries Foul As Monsanto Victims Get Huge Compensation In US - Vnexpress International' (VnExpress International – Latest news, business, travel and analysis from Vietnam, 2021) <https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/vietnam-cries-foul-as-monsanto-victims-get-huge-compensation-in-us-3911419.html>

[9] 'Vietnam War Vet Uses French Niche To Claim Agent Orange Justice - Vnexpress International' (VnExpress International – Latest news, business, travel and analysis from Vietnam, 2021) <https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/vietnam-war-vet-uses-french-niche-to-claim-agent-orange-justice-4234135.html>