1
NATION 6 SEP. 28 - OCT. 4, 2012 Many expatriates have written to Vietweek concurring that despite the problems they face in Vietnam, it is simply not acceptable that people direct their anger and slurs at all Vietnamese. This forum opens the floor for you, the expats, to hold forth on the changes you see in Vietnam: what disappoints, what pleases and what you would like to see happen. Email your thoughts to [email protected]. We reserve the right to edit your submissions for reasons of space and clarity. YOUR TWO CENTS A de-facto admission of Agent Orange guilt PHOTO: AFP Vietnamese General Nguyen Chi Vinh (R), Deputy Defense Minister, speaks to the US Ambassador to Vietnam David Shear as they attend the ground-breaking ceremony of the joint US-Vietnam Dioxin Cleaning Project held at the a former US airbase in the central city of Da Nang on August 9 By DR. WAYNE DWERNYCHUK (*) O n September 24 the US Embassy in Hanoi issued a press release titled “Vietnam-US Joint Advisory Commiee [JAC] Highlights Bilateral Cooperation on Agent Orange.” This group has met annually since 2006 to provide scientific advice to the governments of Vietnam and the US on dioxin cleanup strategies for former US military bases in Vietnam, and research involving human health issues related to Agent Orange/Dioxin (AO/dioxin) exposure. Two statements aributed in the press release to US Ambassador to Vietnam, David B. Shear, provide hints of a possible policy shiſt in the US’s view on the relationship between AO/dioxin and resulting health consequences for Vietnamese people exposed to this toxicant. During the two-day meeting, Ambassador Shear “highlighted progress made in bilateral cooperation to help Vietnam respond to environmental and health challenges related to Agent Orange …” He also stated: “This project is a significant milestone in our joint efforts to address the legacy of Agent Orange in Vietnam.” Since the termination of hostilities between the US and Vietnam, that is, over the past 37 years, successive US administrations have consistently chanted the mantra that no scientifically-proven link exists between the exposure of Vietnamese people to AO/dioxin and any human-health related consequences… that is, no cause and effect relationship exists. This position was certainly one of the reasons no assistance to Vietnam was forthcoming from the US all these years addressing, specifically, human health and the dioxin equation. I am somewhat perplexed by the fact that no journalist has posed very obvious questions to the US, and in particular Ambassador Shear, regarding, what is to me, glaring inconsistencies in US policy. If I was in a position to pose questions to Ambassador Shear, I would ask him: “Sir, you have said the JAC meeting has highlighted progress related to environmental and health challenges associated with Agent Orange. The environmental challenge is self-evident throughout southern Vietnam, in the devastation of once lush tropical forests and wildlife. However, the ‘health challenges’ you refer to are another maer. “If you profess there is no evidence that AO/dioxin exposure in Vietnam has compromised the health and wellbeing of local populations, as has been consistently maintained by US administrations, why is there a ‘health challenge’ that must be addressed? What is the challenge you are referring to if your administration does not accept a cause/effect relationship of exposure and health issues? “You also mention that the JAC has made significant efforts to address the legacy of Agent Orange in Vietnam. I presume the ‘health consequences’ you mentioned earlier are part of this legacy. “So how do you reconcile this legacy with your government’s long-held stance of no proven cause/effect relationship, which has been advanced historically to justify not assisting Vietnam? “Has the US finally accepted there is a full and legitimate cause/effect relationship? If not, why are you investing significant US dollars in the cleanup of former US military bases contaminated with dioxin? Do you still deny that dioxin has been a significant factor in compromising the health of exposed Vietnamese people? “What has moved the US away from decades of denial, obfuscation, and inaction? I am certain the US administration did not wake up one morning and say ‘it is time to do the right thing.’ Basically, why is the US offering to assist Vietnam with their AO/dioxin problem now, when it has been ignoring emphatic calls for responsible action from Vietnam and the international community at large for decades. What has changed? “How would you respond to reports that suggest China’s growing influence in the region is a factor, possibly the primary factor, in guiding the US administration to invest in dioxin cleanup activities in Vietnam; that the real aim is to gain a valuable ally in the geo-political structure within the region?” If the Ambassador denies the geo-political rationale, the issue of cause and effect of dioxin exposure takes the spotlight. Acceptance of a definitive cause/effect relationship places the US in a precarious situation regarding liability. Why is the US offering financial aid to address a problem that it has for long maintained does not exist? It is possible that Vietnam is welcoming US involvement without dwelling on specific reasons for it. Having the US as an ally in the face of China’s aggressive territorial claims is, basically, not a negative circumstance, from their perspective. (*) The writer is an environmental scientist in British Columbia, Canada. The opinions expressed are his own

A DE-FACTO ADMISSION OF AGENT ORANGE GUILT

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Another timely article by Dr. Wayne Dwernychuk, entitled by Thanh Nien News in Vietnam, "A De-facto Admission of Agent Orange Guilt".

Citation preview

NATION6SEP. 28 - OCT. 4, 2012

Many expatriates have written to Vietweek concurring that despite the problems they face in Vietnam, it is simply not acceptable that people direct their anger and slurs at allVietnamese. This forum opens the floor for you, the expats, to hold forth on the changes you see in Vietnam: what disappoints, what pleases and what you would like to see happen.Email your thoughts to [email protected]. We reserve the right to edit your submissions for reasons of space and clarity.

YOURTWO CENTS

A de-facto admission of Agent Orange guilt

PHOTO: AFPVietnamese General Nguyen Chi Vinh (R), Deputy Defense Minister, speaks to the US Ambassador to Vietnam David Shear as they attend the ground-breaking ceremony of thejoint US-Vietnam Dioxin Cleaning Project held at the a former US airbase in the central city of Da Nang on August 9

By DR. WAYNE DWERNYCHUK (*)

On September 24 the USEmbassy in Hanoi issued apress release titled

“Vietnam­US Joint AdvisoryCommittee [JAC] HighlightsBilateral Cooperation on AgentOrange.”

This group has met annuallysince 2006 to provide scientificadvice to the governments ofVietnam and the US on dioxincleanup strategies for former USmilitary bases in Vietnam, andresearch involving human healthissues related to AgentOrange/Dioxin (AO/dioxin)exposure.

Two statements attributed in thepress release to US Ambassador to

Vietnam, David B. Shear, providehints of a possible policy shift inthe US’s view on the relationshipbetween AO/dioxin and resultinghealth consequences forVietnamese people exposed to thistoxicant.

During the two­day meeting,Ambassador Shear “highlightedprogress made in bilateralcooperation to help Vietnamrespond to environmental andhealth challenges related to AgentOrange …” He also stated: “Thisproject is a significant milestone inour joint efforts to address thelegacy of Agent Orange inVietnam.”

Since the termination ofhostilities between the US andVietnam, that is, over the past 37

years, successive USadministrations have consistentlychanted the mantra that noscientifically­proven link existsbetween the exposure ofVietnamese people to AO/dioxinand any human­health relatedconsequences… that is, no causeand effect relationship exists.

This position was certainly oneof the reasons no assistance toVietnam was forthcoming fromthe US all these years addressing,specifically, human health and thedioxin equation.

I am somewhat perplexed bythe fact that no journalist hasposed very obvious questions tothe US, and in particularAmbassador Shear, regarding,what is to me, glaring

inconsistencies in US policy. If I was in a position to pose

questions to Ambassador Shear, Iwould ask him:

“Sir, you have said the JACmeeting has highlighted progressrelated to environmental andhealth challenges associated withAgent Orange. The environmentalchallenge is self­evidentthroughout southern Vietnam, inthe devastation of once lushtropical forests and wildlife.However, the ‘health challenges’you refer to are another matter.

“If you profess there is noevidence that AO/dioxin exposurein Vietnam has compromised thehealth and wellbeing of localpopulations, as has beenconsistently maintained by US

administrations, why is there a‘health challenge’ that must beaddressed? What is the challengeyou are referring to if youradministration does not accept acause/effect relationship ofexposure and health issues?

“You also mention that the JAChas made significant efforts toaddress the legacy of AgentOrange in Vietnam. I presume the‘health consequences’ youmentioned earlier are part of thislegacy.

“So how do you reconcile thislegacy with your government’slong­held stance of no provencause/effect relationship, whichhas been advanced historically tojustify not assisting Vietnam?

“Has the US finally acceptedthere is a full and legitimatecause/effect relationship? If not,why are you investing significantUS dollars in the cleanup offormer US military basescontaminated with dioxin? Doyou still deny that dioxin has beena significant factor incompromising the health ofexposed Vietnamese people?

“What has moved the US awayfrom decades of denial,obfuscation, and inaction? I amcertain the US administration didnot wake up one morning and say‘it is time to do the right thing.’Basically, why is the US offering toassist Vietnam with theirAO/dioxin problem now, when ithas been ignoring emphatic callsfor responsible action fromVietnam and the internationalcommunity at large for decades.What has changed?

“How would you respond toreports that suggest China’sgrowing influence in the region isa factor, possibly the primaryfactor, in guiding the USadministration to invest in dioxincleanup activities in Vietnam; thatthe real aim is to gain a valuableally in the geo­political structurewithin the region?”

If the Ambassador denies thegeo­political rationale, the issue ofcause and effect of dioxinexposure takes the spotlight.Acceptance of a definitivecause/effect relationship places theUS in a precarious situationregarding liability. Why is the USoffering financial aid to address aproblem that it has for longmaintained does not exist?

It is possible that Vietnam iswelcoming US involvementwithout dwelling on specificreasons for it. Having the US as anally in the face of China’saggressive territorial claims is,basically, not a negativecircumstance, from theirperspective.

(*) The writer is an environmentalscientist in British Columbia,Canada. The opinions expressed arehis own