USA/VIETNAM: MANUFACTURERS OF AGENT ORANGE SEEK TO DISMISS NEW YORK-LAWSUIT FILED ON BEHALF OF VIETNAMESE PEOPLE WHO CLAIM IT CAUSED DEFORMITIES

Record ID: 677423

  • Title: USA/VIETNAM: MANUFACTURERS OF AGENT ORANGE SEEK TO DISMISS NEW YORK-LAWSUIT FILED ON BEHALF OF VIETNAMESE PEOPLE WHO CLAIM IT CAUSED DEFORMITIES
  • Date: 28th February 2005
  • Summary: NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK, USA (FEBRUARY 28, 2005) (REUTERS ) SV ATTORNEY FOR VIETNAMESE LAWSUIT, CONSTANTINE KOKKORIS, WITH ONE OF PLAINTIFFS, DR. PHAN THI PHI PHI, STANDING OUTSIDE COURTHOUSE MCU (Vietnamese) DR. PHAN SAYING: "This of course happened a long time ago, but the effect on me is devastating, I have had many many miscarriages, four times."
  • Embargoed: 15th March 2005 12:00
  • Keywords:
  • Location: NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK + UNIDENTIFIED LOCATION, USA / UNIDENTIFIED LOCATION, VIETNAM
  • City:
  • Country: USA
  • Topics: Conflict,General
  • Reuters ID: LVA7FF0II27SENDOPHJCU723J8NG
  • Story Text: Manufacturers of Agent Orange seek to dismiss New
    York-lawsuit filed on behalf of Vietnamese people who claim
    it caused deformities.




    Manufacturers of the chemical Agent Orange, used by
    US troops during the Vietnam war, tried to get a lawsuit
    seeking compensation for Vietnamese victims dismissed on
    Monday (February 28).

    Lawyers for the chemical companies argued during the
    first oral hearings before a federal judge in New York
    City, that they had not committed war crimes by supplying
    the US military with Agent Orange.

    But on his way into the hearing in Brooklyn, one of the
    lawyers for the Vietnamese victims, John Moore, said the
    chemical companies should be held accountable for producing
    the substance.

    "We are only suing the chemical companies, we can't sue
    the government they are immune, unfortunately, they should
    be called to task as well as these chemical companies,"
    said Moore.

    He added that the chemical companies knew that Agent
    Orange was highly poisonous, but they continued to make it
    for profits, "They did it and they knew they were doing it
    and they continued to do it and they did it because they
    wanted to make money," he said.

    The lawsuit names dozens of chemical companies, the
    biggest among them being Dow Chemical and Monsanto.

    Agent Orange, a powerful herbicide, was dumped from US
    warplanes on Vietnamese forests between 1962 and 1971, in
    an attempt to destroy the Vietcong's source of food and
    cover.

    It is now claimed that a by-product of Agent Orange,
    dioxin, caused birth defects, cancer and other diseases.

    Lawyers for the Vietnamese people claim that babies are
    still being born with horrific abnormalities, due to
    dioxin-contaminated soil.

    One of the plaintiffs, Dr Phan Thi Phi Phi came from
    Vietnam to New York for the hearing. She said she worked in
    the Quang Ngai area of Vietnam that was heavily sprayed
    with Agent Orange during the war.

    She believes that her four miscarriages after the war
    were a direct result of the dioxin poisoning. She said the
    effect on her had been "devastating" and that she knew of
    many other cases like her own.

    Dr Phan said, "This of course happened a long time ago,
    but the effect on me is devastating, I have had many many
    miscarriages, four times." Prior to the war she had a
    incident-free pregnancy.

    Phan's lawyer, Constantine Kokkoris, claimed people in
    Vietnam continued to be contaminated by eating the food and
    drinking the water. If the case goes forward, Kokkoris is
    asking the judge to consider it as a class action, meaning
    the plaintiffs case would be accepted as the case for
    millions of other Vietnamese who say they too have suffered
    as a result of Agent Orange.

    Kokkoris said, "At some point if we get passed these initial
    hurdles
    we are going to ask to certify our
    plaintiffs, who are named in our complaint to represent all
    similarly situated victims of Agent Orange in Vietnam so
    that we can get compensation for all."
    "We are going to ask the court for money to clean up
    this problem so that it doesn't continue to be a problem
    for future generations," said Kokkoris.

    After years of legal battles, in 1984 Dow and Monsanto,
    finally agreed to settle out of court and pay $180 million
    to US veterans. A handful of Vietnam war veterans turned up
    at the hearing to lend their support to the Vietnamese
    people.

    David Klein, President of the Veterans for Peace
    organisation, said, "Vietnamese victims are taking action
    similar to what American veterans did in the late
    seventies, and we believe that it is just. If American
    veterans got sick from it, then so did the Vietnamese and
    everyone should be given a fair treatment."
    The suit is regarded as a pivotal test of the reach of
    American courts and considers the powers of the U.S.

    president to authorize the use of hazardous materials
    during war. If the suit is successful, billions of dollars
    could be awarded towards an environmental cleanup and in
    compensation to the Vietnamese people.

    The chemical companies argue that they only produced
    Agent Orange following US government specifications and
    that there has never been a proven connection between Agent
    Orange and the health problems it is accused of causing.

    Outside the courtroom, Andrew Frey, a lawyer
    representing the Dow Chemical Company, said the issue
    should be decided by "diplomatic negotiations" and not by
    the lawsuits.

    "This is by the way the kind of claim that it normally
    settled by state to state, diplomatic negotiations and not
    by lawsuits, so we think it is up to United States
    government to decide whether what it did was wrongful and
    whether it should pay restitution, and the first step which
    has not been established, is to show that in fact Agent
    Orange actually injured people."
    Asked whether Dow believes that Agent Orange is in fact
    safe, Frey said, "Definitely. That's definitely our
    position that there is no scientific evidence that it is
    harmful."
    In court he argued that international laws in the 1960's
    did not recognise corporate liability and the courts should
    be careful about ruling on suits affecting the President's
    power.

    Advances in Dioxin research and previous settlements in
    New York courts involving corporate involvement in Nazi
    Germany during World War II might weigh in the plaintiffs'
    favor, defence lawyers conceded.
  • Copyright Holder: REUTERS
  • Copyright Notice: (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015. Open For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
  • Usage Terms/Restrictions: None
Register