The deployment of Agent Orange in the war in Vietnam remains a highly debatable issue, with people disagreeing on the ethical rationalization of its use. This defoliant has been the major weapon used by the US Army in order to get rid of the jungle and reveal the enemy location, which resulted in ecological destruction and health problems. Some people believe that it was required for the sake of strategic objectives, while others criticize using it as a great breach of ethical principles. The Americans launched this herbicidal weapon in Vietnam from 1961-71, which supposedly eradicated the thick vegetation cover, which then became the shelter of the enemies and their supply routes. On the other hand, the unclear nature of Agent Orange’s application has wide-ranging consequences that couldn’t be limited to military strategy; they include the grave and deep scars it left on the environment and health. Although many of the people affirm that the use of Agent Orange was a beneficial military strategy. I strongly believe that the use of the chemical was neither justifiable nor ethical. Based on my stand, this essay will investigate the devastating challenges of Agent Orange, the violation of the global conventions and human rights, the long-term environmental destruction cost and the presence of other alternative approaches. By exploring these aspects, we will get nuanced arguments that the use of Agent Orange was a grave injustice that needs to be condemned.
Background Information.
Agent Orange, an herbicide that contains toxic dioxin, was widely used over millions of acres from 1961 to 1971 in Vietnam. One of the central goals was to destroy the undergrowth that served as a hiding place where Viet Cong and North Vietnamese soldiers could take cover and, therefore, gain an advantage over the allies in the war. However, the indiscriminate occurrence of the use of Agent Orange resulted in widespread degradation of the environment and severe health difficulties for many people such as American soldiers, Vietnamese citizens and the generations to come. This was due to the vast spraying of herbicides across a significant area, which affected plant life and polluted soil, riverways, and food sources, creating health problems for many millions of people who were exposed to dioxins.
Humanitarian consequences.
By looking at the humanitarian consequences due to the use of Agent Orange. It was unethical and unjustifiable due to the fact that the use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War wrought disastrous humanitarian consequences, thus making it an unjust, inhumane and unethical tactic in warfare. The chemicals used were dioxins, a highly toxic, carcinogenic substance that affected the communities, soldiers and subsequent generations (Black, 1). By looking at the health conditions, Dioxin exposure brought about a number of severe health complications such as cancers, congenital disabilities, central nervous system complications, and also respiratory diseases (Black, 12). The ill effects were not only directed toward the Vietnamese population alone, but the military personnel from the US, as well as their descendants, also came out with similar health problems. The weapon raised more concerns about the number of civilian casualties affected, thus being unjustifiable and unethical. Agent Orange did not distinguish between battlefield targets and civilian populations. Extensive blanketing of the area was not distinguished, and hence, it caused much more harm to innocent people, such as women, children, and old persons who ought to stay out of such active assaults (Black, 3).
On the other hand, the weapon had generational impacts. Concerning this, the individuals who were in contact with Agent Orange during the war, or even their kids, still suffer its negative impacts. Studies conducted among those living close to sites contaminated with dioxin have shown that births to those exposed to dioxin had higher than average rates of congenital disabilities and infant developmental disorders, thereby spreading and compounding the suffering that resulted from the use of this chemical weapon (Black, 5). From the above incidents, it is undeniable that Agent Orange’s use was unethical and full of injustice. A large number of research studies and epidemiological evidence have provided a clear-cut connection between exposure to the defoliant Agent Orange and specific negative health outcomes. For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that cancers like soft-tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin lymphomas, chloracne, Hodgkin’s disease, multiple myeloma, and respiratory cancers increased among Vietnam War veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange.
Furthermore, the residents who live in the area where the spraying was done are still affected by it (Vietnam para. 12). The experts who have done research recently have found that the children of these residents are suffering from congenital disabilities, which they believe is caused by exposure to dioxin. Then again, the moral dimension of this reasoning cannot be restricted to a single generation since it also includes fair play between generations. The intergenerational health problems resulting from dioxin exposure imply that Agent Orange was and will be a long-term condition even when there is peace. It curses the descendants of those who did not participate in the war, and that is the injustice.
Violation of international conventions and human rights
Still, supporting the argument that Agent Orange was unethical and unjustifiable, we may delve into the violation of international conventions and human rights. It is always known that the deployment of herbicides, such as Agent Orange, during the Vietnam War was an infringement on established international rules and general humanitarian norms, Suggesting, once again, that this practice had no moral justification at all. The following points support this argument: By following the submissions of the Geneva Protocol, the application of Agent Orange deliberately discarded the principle of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 that proclaimed the banning of chemical weapons (Häntzschel, 26). Although the herbicide has generally not been labeled a chemical weapon, its toxic essence and its random usage all violate the regular rule of the protocol. In addition, proponents question the indiscriminate nature of this type of weapon.
Regarding this, Agent Orange was sometimes sprayed over enormous spaces without taking into account who would be spared the poison, and therefore, it was in contravention of the principle of distinction in the rules of international humanitarian law (Häntzschel, 27). Ideally, the use of toxic chemical weapons for any purpose, including wars, causes immense suffering for the innocent, which contradicts their basic human rights. Nevertheless, the usage of Agent Orange failed to provide adequate care. Based on this, reacting to the victims of Agent Orange after the war was insufficient. Both the Vietnamese government as well as the American government were accused of failing to be helpful and giving no support to those people who paid the highest price (Black, 4). However, this unwillingness to hold them to account and the damage they have done gives further reason to point to the issue as unethical.
Environmental damage:
Based on environmental damage, scholars affirm that Agent Orange was not only a tragedy that inflicted human misery and suffering but also continues to have an adverse effect on the environment and has therefore cast doubts on attempts to argue that the use of Agent Orange was justifiable and ethical. In supporting this argument, the use of Agent Orange chemical led to deforestation, which resulted in environmental degradation (Olson et al., para 5). Studies show that the principal role of Agent Orange was the elimination of the forest and destructing the enemy’s transport and supply lines. In this case, cutting down trees was responsible for the mass destruction of ancient and undamaged woodlands, which led to a decrease in biodiversity and inseparable destruction of the ecosystem. The use of Agent Orange also resulted in soil contamination.
Regarding this, it was noticed that the Dioxin of Agent Orange polluted the soil, making the field unfeasible and non-productive to plants (Olson et al., para 6). This contamination not only affected the immediate surroundings but also destroyed the means of life, which were based on the land that people depended on for sustenance. The use of this weapon also led to water pollution. The runoff from the sprayed areas polluted rivers, lakes, and groundwater and became the cause of the death of aquatic animals, which was thus harmful to human beings’ lives (Olson et al., para 13). Run-on water pollution has long-term effects, and this has caused additional deterioration of the environment for decades. Scientific studies have shown that Agent Orange causes long-term environmental damage. Studies have identified that when the soil is persistently contaminated, and the ecosystem is degraded, this impairs the resilience of the sprayed areas (Olson et al., para 16). The extinction of biodiversity and disturbance of habitat create effects that are far-reaching at the ecosystem services level. These comprise soil fertility, water purification, and climate regulation (Olson et al., para 6). They end up making things worse in regard to the natural environment, thus undermining the sustainable development in these places.
In addition, the principle of stewardship forces nations to conduct eco-protection for the present and future of humanity. In essence, such the deliberate attempt to defoliate huge areas of forests and year-by-year deprivation of healthy vegetation invading more lands and rivers represents a travesty against the reverence for it that this principle encourages. It would come down as a gross act of betrayal of nature regarding its inherent worthiness and the rights of future generations to inherit an earth that is still green and biodiverse.
In conclusion, the use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War was complex and both unethical and unjustifiable. The humanitarian consequences, violation of international law and human rights, longer-term environmental damage, and the existence of some alternative strategies all contribute as the key aspects of why this chemical weapon is under condemnation and debated against. The categorically disastrous health consequences on citizens, soldiers, and their future generations, as well as the violation of international laws and basic human rights, are, in a way, the implications that make its use unfair. In addition, the environmental damage that resulted from Agent Orange undermines such action and should not be considered ethical and justifiable for deployment. As reliable substitutes are promoted, it becomes evident that not only was the use of Agent Orange ethically untouchable but also unnecessary. The understanding of the worst effects of Agent Orange is the keystone that provides us with no excuse for the repetition of such mistakes ever again.
Works Cited
Black, George. “The Victims of Agent Orange the US Has Never Acknowledged.” New York Times, March 16 (2021): 2021. https://viet-studies.net/kinhte/AgentOrange_NYT.pdf
Vietnam, in. “Cancer.” Nih.gov, National Academies Press (US), 2024, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236361/. Accessed 18 Mar. 2024.
Häntzschel, Maximilian. Toxic Remnants of War-exploring the limits of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions. MS thesis. Itä-Suomen yliopisto, 2023. https://erepo.uef.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/30449/urn_nbn_fi_uef-20231092.pdf?sequence=1
Olson, Kenneth Ray, and Lois Wright Morton. “Long-term fate of Agent Orange and dioxin TCDD contaminated soils and sediments in Vietnam hotspots.” Open Journal of Soil Science 9.01 (2019): 1. https://www.scirp.org/html/1-1660557_90675.htm
write