Agent Orange
Vietnamese plaintiffs, alleging that Agent Orange caused birth defects among millions of individuals after the Vietnam conflict, are suing the manufacturers of the chemical.
[T]he chemical companies say no such link has been proved.These companies have already paid out millions to settle lawsuits with veterans whose health was allegedly affected by the substance. A victory for the plaintiffs would show 1) that the harm to civilians in a conflict is given equal weight as that to combatants; and 2) that the actions of private companies during wartime carries consequences.
The defendants - which include Dow Chemical and the Monsanto Corporation - also argue that the US government is responsible for how the chemical was used, not the manufacturers.
They maintain that US courts cannot punish corporations for carrying out the orders of a president exercising his powers as commander in chief.
We've already seen banks dole out millions for laundering a dictator's money and storing Nazi gold. Corporations have been attacked for using slave labor in pre-Civil War America and during WWII. Could reparations for the creation of weapons harmful to civilian populations be far behind?
There are certainly difficulties with this argument (and I'm sure I'll get many posts disagreeing with my premise). The consequences of holding weapons manufacturers responsible for the ramifications of the use of their products could lead to an end to the industry altogether. If companies were liable every time they created a bomb, certain segments of our economy would collapse. Additionally, holding a company liable for following a command of a President seems devoid of the mens rea normally associated with these cases (the naked profiteering of the Nazi cases, for example, in which the bank's directors knew that the gold was coming from Jews in concentration camps). And, in some ways, these cases substitute the cub for the lion -- the President can't be sued for the decision to go to war and use these weapons, so plaintiffs settle for the next best thing.
But would holding companies liable for the effects their weapons have on civilian populations be such a bad thing? A few million dollars here or there really does little to a large company's bottom line. I doubt a large chemical manufacturer will go out of business solely because of a lawsuit. Essentially, it could be viewed as the cost of doing business. Companies reap monetary benefits from creating these chemicals, knowing that later, they may have to redistribute some of those profits. They could pay for the privilege to cause the harm.
Also, if companies knew the liability they may face from the use of the weapons on civilian populations, they may be hesitant to create such chemicals (or bombs. or biological agents) in the first place.
I have very little sympathy for the "we were just following orders" argument. Any company that profits by the creation of weapons does not do so because it was ordered to by its President. Corporations follow a set of rules that are driven by simple economics. It was profitable to make Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, so these companies made it. Forcing the company to pay for the harm that resulted while they made money from their government contracts does not seem a terribly high price to pay.
I'd be interested to know what other people think about this incredibly complex issue. Thoughts?
posted by Sammy @ 7:33 PM
4 Comments:
US soldiers were also victims of agent orange, and for many years the US refused them benefits on the ground that they could not prove that their cancers, etc., were caused by agent orange, even when overwhelming epidemiological evidence existed. And have you asked what that stuff is they are pouring on a lawn near you to kill the violets and dandelions? And is this related to peace? Prof. M
C.G.,
I find your argument quite persuasive, and I absolutely do agree that a military only functions efficiently when orders are followed.
However, your discussion assumes that the decision to use Agent Orange only moves in one direction -- the President decides he needs this substance for the war effort and he charges the manufacturers with producing it. I see the use of these weapons as more of a two-way street -- the companies produce the weapons, they need a buyer, and so they pressure the government to use them in wartime. I have absolutely no evidence of this, but I would be very surprised if Dow Chemical simply got a letter from the President one day, telling them they needed to make more Agent Orange to be put to use in the war. More likely, the company was the one who called the government's attention to the benefits of using the chemical to strip the jungle of its foliage, because they stood to profit from this new use.
Essentially, weapons are not created solely at the behest of the military. Corporations can create new designs, new technologies, in an effort to make new kinds of weapons. Once companies realize the uses these products have, they could bring them to the military and ask for a government contract to produce more.
One of the major benefits to this lawsuit is that it may force companies to think twice before they manufacture these weapons, particularly weapons with the capability of harming civilian populations. And that interests me, as a one committed to peace, because fewer weapons may mean fewer reasons to use weapons, which means fewer conflicts. The economics of war (companies create weapons, military uses weapons, companies create more weapons, the economy booms) rests on the manufacture of these products. Take that out of the equation, and it's one less barrier on the road to peace.
C.G. and S.B.,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but both of your posts seem to be saying that the problem may not be weapons -- the problem may be the "tribal" American wartime mentality that allows the use of those weapons, the objectification of populations to the point that considerations of humanity no longer apply. I absolutely agree that this is the larger issue. Avoiding the characterization of enemy populations as something less than human, and, as a result, achieving what C.G. describes as the creation of alternate, less destructive ways of resolving conflict is a much larger step on the way to peace.
But I don't see these two issues as necessarily different. Holding companies responsible for the effects their weapons cause could create an environment where populations will be less objectified. By realizing that harm to civilian populations will be accompanied by lawsuits, by settlements, by negative publicity, Americans in general, and American corporations in particular, may begin to attach greater value to those populations. This lawsuit could be a step in that direction.
As for the problem of drawing lines -- which weapons are OK and which are not, which "following orders" is OK and which is not -- I'm definitely struggling with this one. I know my answer is subject to significant critiques, but I think the question of the creation of Napalm during the Vietnam War should also be subject to lawsuits, while FDR's takeover of the industrial sector is not. The distinction comes with the culpability of the corporations. Even though Dow thought it was their patriotic duty to produce Napalm at a loss, they still likely realized that they would benefit from their actions by future business deals with the government. Industrial corporations that were comandeered by a President have less choice in the matter.
By the same line-drawing token, weapons that indiscriminately harm civilian populations (such as Agent Orange, Napalm or nuclear bombs) are not OK, while M-16s, which can be more controlled, should not be subject to these lawsuits. Just like the culpability of corporations should be the factor in the first instance, the ability to avoid massive civilian death and injury should be the dividing line in the second.
Hi Sue McMahon I’ve been looking for gifts related blogs and I came across yours on Agent Orange during my trawl, so I thought it would be polite to let you know about my visit. You are most welcome to come and visit me at gifts. I would also be happy to trade links with you if you are interested. Bye for now and have a nice day! Roy.
Post a Comment
<< Home