CHANGING VIETNAMESE ATTITUDES ON AGENT ORANGE/DIOXIN

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 HANOI 001862 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR EAP/MLS, EAP/EP, EAP/RSP, EAP/PD, OES/PCI STATE PASS TO USAID FOR ANE, G/ENV STATE PASS TO EPA/OIA (DENNIS CUNNINGHAM AND MARK KASMAN) STATE PASS TO EPA/ORD (KEVIN TEICHMAN) STATE PASS TO OGHA/HHS (STIEGER/VALDEZ/HICKEY) CDC FOR OGHA (BLOUT/MCCALL) AND NCEH (THOMAS SINKS) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (THOMAS SHUBERT AND WILLIAM VAN HOUTEN) HHS PASS TO FIC/NIH (GLASS) AND NIEHS/NIH BANGKOK PASS TO RDMA E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL SENV TBIO KPAO VM SUBJECT: CHANGING VIETNAMESE ATTITUDES ON AGENT ORANGE/DIOXIN REF: HANOI 1476 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: Changes in Vietnam and U.S.-Vietnam relations, combined with a maturing Vietnamese approach to public health, are leading to positive shifts in Vietnamese attitudes on the issue of Agent Orange (AO) and its contaminent dioxin. While long-standing Government of Vietnam (GVN) propaganda continues to allege U.S. responsibility for millions of disabled Vietnamese, AO/dioxin no longer plays the principal role in the bilateral relationship it once did. Interactions with GVN officials responsible for AO/dioxin continue to grow more collegial and high-level GVN officials now publicly acknowledge positive U.S. and multinational efforts to address the issue. While the Vietnamese press continues to publish articles focusing on "Agent Orange victims" - and Vietnamese officials still wield the issue when "pressured" on human rights, etc. - we now also see articles that focus on disseminating general, practical information about disabilities, as well as some reports noting U.S. skepticism of the scientific basis for many AO claims. Past and present U.S. engagement with a more forthright and independent public HEALTH sector are setting the stage for more fundamental shifts over the medium-term, which will help "normalize" the issue and encourage greater multilateral efforts to address environmental and humanitarian issues. End Summary. More Factual Reporting -------------- ¶2. (SBU) Changes are in the wind with regard to public discourse about AO in Vietnam. While remarks about "Agent Orange victims" can still be found in the press almost daily, they have become less pervasive and judgemental, with many fewer references to "crimes caused by U.S. chemical warfare." For the first time, the English and Vietnamese language local media are printing articles quoting American officials refuting the scientific basis for linking dioxin with specific disabilities, instead of letting the most expansive claims of responsibility remain unanswered. With increasing frequency, major Vietnamese newspapers, such as Tuoi Tre or Saigon Giai Phong, publish less politically-inspired general reporting on he plight of the disabled without mentioning AO/dioxin - a distinct break from past practice. Senior Vietnamese officials and scientific experts with responsibility for AO/dioxin issues are now often quoted on ways to assist the disabled or remediate the environment, moving beyond the prior focus on liability and responsibility. GVN Acknowledgement of Benefits of U.S. Engagement -------------- -------------- ¶3. (SBU) Media outlets are also publishing articles favorably noting U.S. engagement. The February 2007 joint press conference during which former Ambassador Marine and Dr. Le Ke Son, the Director General of the office in the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment that coordinates Vietnamese AO/dioxin policy, first announced joint cooperation on the AO/dioxin issue (including a $400,000 one-year State/EPA project) received widespread, positive domestic coverage. Then-Ambassador Marine's July visit to Danang airport, the site of areas with high concentrations of dioxin in the soil, also received favorable press attention. In newspaper reports on Ambassador Michalak's initial call on President Nguyen Minh Triet this August, Triet acknowledged the U.S. efforts to help "Agent Orange/Dioxin victims." A short October 14 article in Thanh Nien newspaper again noted U.S. assistance to "AO victims" and implicitly criticized the Vietnamese government for not doing enough. Media coverage of Ford Foundation and UNDP activities further highlight to the Vietnamese people U.S. and multilateral efforts to work with the GVN to resolve dioxin-related issues. ¶4. (SBU) In contrast to prior exchanges, U.S. and Vietnamese scientists at the second annual meeting of the U.S.-Vietnam Joint Advisory Committee on the HEALTH and environmental effects of AO/dioxin in Hanoi this August worked cooperatively and diligently to find mutually agreeable environmental, HEALTH and capacity building recommendations (reftel). Over the past year, a significant number of Vietnamese officials have sought out their American counterparts to praise this commitment. In an October HANOI 00001862 002 OF 003 visit to USAID-funded disabilities programs in Quang Nam province, Head of the Vietnam Association of Business for Employment of Persons with Disabilities (VABED) Tran Vinh Quang (a former Vice-Minister of Labor) responded to comments from the district head regarding the high number of "Agent Orange victims" in the locality by asking local officials to spend more time concentrating on preventable causes of diseases "instead of focusing on the past." These statements and actions reflect increased professionalism in the Vietnamese approach to public HEALTH issues generally, but also result from U.S. engagement with senior officials, public diplomacy, technical dialogues and joint activities focused on environmental assessments. Less of an Organized Press Campaign -------------- ¶5. (SBU) While maintaining a system of post-publication censorship, GVN propagandists are gradually moving away from instructing the press on what it must publish. Newspapers now run more articles explaining what can be done to prevent birth defects and other congenital HEALTH conditions, instead of repeating AO claims. Perhaps reflecting greater pragmatism among the Vietnamese political leadership, the mass media has not pursued an organized AO-related press campaign since late 2006, just after APEC. The leadership seems to have abandoned attempts to cajole the United States into confessing guilt, which it realizes is unlikely to happen and could jeopardize continued U.S.-Vietnamese foreign assistance, particularly in areas of HEALTH cooperation, economic growth, and trade. Instead, the Vietnamese media has begun to reflect the public understanding of the benefits of maintaining the status quo, under which Vietnam continues to accept assistance from the United States for environmental mitigation and for disabled people. However, from time to time and undoubtedly at the urging of some camps within the GVN, the press writes about "Agent Orange victims" to indicate to the general public and certain advocates that the issue has not disappeared. Attitudes Will Not Shift Overnight -------------- ¶6. (SBU) While we have witnessed an evolving approach towards AO/Dioxin reporting, the GVN has invested tremendous resources and credibility into a 30-year-old propaganda campaign. Despite increased focus on scientific and medical discussions of public health issues, AO/dioxin remains an important issue in bilateral relations. Progress will be incremental. Some GVN officials will continue to raise the issue at inappropriate times and in an improper manner, especially when "pressured" on issues like human rights. The media has featured the lawsuit by Vietnamese plaintiffs in U.S. courts against the U.S. companies that produced Agent Orange (and other tactical herbicides) and will do so as long as the GVN remains hopeful that the litigation could lead to payments to individuals. ¶7. (SBU) In addition, though Vietnamese censors have loosened press controls somewhat, officials cannot quickly reverse this campaign without raising serious questions among the Vietnamese citizens subjected to overtly biased reporting for so many years. Some international reporting, notably the Christopher Hitchens piece in the August 2006 issue of Vanity Fair, reinforce Vietnamese predispositions and make it more difficult to address local attitudes solely through bilateral interactions. Responses to Prior USG Actions Suggest Changes Will Continue -------------- -------------- ¶8. (SBU) Nevertheless, greater U.S.-Vietnamese cooperation on the issue gives GVN propagandists a face-saving way out. Due to our current efforts, they can highlight scientific cooperation and environmental remediation, gradually expand and rationalize the definitions and causes of disabilities, and begin to phase-out more incendiary and non-factual claims. Indeed, we see parallels to the AO/dioxin issue in the GVN's treatment of the U.S. experience in the Central Highlands. The GVN viewed USAID's initial programs in that sensitive region with great suspicion and, at times, hostility. HANOI 00001862 003 OF 003 After several years of success and ongoing collaboration with their Vietnamese counterparts, USAID's ongoing projects now enjoy broad GVN support and positive media coverage. Our Continuing Public Diplomacy Efforts -------------- ¶9. (SBU) To achieve our goals of "normalizing" this issue and removing it as an impediment to U.S-Vietnam relations, we will continue our public diplomacy efforts to educate contacts through interviews, press releases, and scientific engagement. We will work to ensure that AO/dioxin assistance is seen as part of broader humanitarian program, including the well-publicized U.S. Leahy War Victims disability assistance. To better measure our contributions to changing Vietnamese attitudes, we plan to more systematically examine press coverage of the dioxin issue and compare the frequency, content, and location of reporting on different aspects of the issue over different time points. Comment -------------- ¶10. (SBU) Engaging the GVN on AO/dioxin is transformational diplomacy, by its nature difficult and time-consuming. Changing attitudes, hardened by a generation of anti-U.S. publicity and allegations that AO/dioxin causes widespread disabilities, will take time. However, we now are seeing the fruits of our initial technical assistance and public diplomacy efforts. We do not suggest a shift in basic U.S. positions. U.S. officials should continue their focus on the need for sound science to guide joint efforts on AO/dioxin. While statements and actions by U.S. officials skeptical of broad Vietnamese claims often provoke pushback in the Vietnamese media, we can expect these reactions to further diminish as our technical and humanitarian engagement increases and Vietnamese public HEALTH reporting becomes more professional. Successfully implementing the USD 3 million in Economic Support Funds will better enable us to change Vietnamese attitudes on AO/dioxin and will encourage multilateral efforts to address environmental and HEALTH concerns. MICHALAK