My friend, Murray Brown, died in November 2007. When I heard the news I wrote his wife a letter. I am posting a copy of some of what I wrote here, as a tribute to a good man.
I have very warm memories of Murray. He is someone that I admired greatly and someone whose friendship was very important to me at some key moments in my life. Despite our difference in years I felt very close to Murray - he did not hide behind his seniority in years or his priestly status. He was very warm and big hearted and that is what enabled me to be his friend.
After I heard the news this morning I went and phoned Matt, to console and be consoled. I then spent some time pouring out some memories to Katie, my partner - memories of Murray. She did not have the privilege of meeting him - something that I now very much regret. But it was good to be able to share with her memories of someone whom I consider to be simply a good man.
In trying to describe Murray to Katie, I found myself using the word `naive'. I mean that in a completely positive way. He was naive because he eschewed the faux worldliness of the cynic; he lived with a genuine, heart-felt, unapologetic commitment to his ideals and he delighted in it! I remember SCM discussions when his hearty laughter filled the room, with his delight at new ideas and lively discussion, as well as his pleasure in the company of those around him. And, in turn, it was a pleasure for me to be in his company.
Murray also shared himself and his pain very willingly. I remember very vividly his descriptions of his struggles with mental health problems; in particular he described to me how one day he had reached such a low that he could do little else but crawl around the back lawn picking out weeds. That image showed a unique vulnerability which touched my heart; Murray's willingness to share that image also showed a deep and abiding strength of character.
In the weeks before I went out bush, after leaving SCM, I met with Murray as a kind of preparation. During our meeting, he introduced me to the writings of Thich Nhat Hanh. He gave me a copy of "The Miracle of Mindfulness", a book that changed my life perhaps more than any other. In turn, it has changed the life of Katie, when I bought her a copy some years later. Katie's father has subsequently received much comfort from Thich Nhat Hanh. I've no doubt that Murray's loving actions will ripple out for many years to come, changing people's lives for the better.
I don't want to turn this letter into a hagiography of Murray - I'm sure he would detest that more than any one else, but my memories and loving feelings are strong and very real. I remember an SCM discussion about men, in which Murrary participated, when we concluded that the best we could ever hope to be was a "wise old fool". This was the path of largest heart, of greatest love. Murray walked that path, I think, and I hope that I too will follow in his footsteps as I grow older.
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
Pool reflections
I spent the afternoon today by the side of a pool in a resort in Kerala, India. I was there by invitation of some family members and they were my companions. Various other tourists from the UK and Italy and elsewhere also spent the afternoon by the pool. It cost 200 Rupees for the privilege unless you were staying at the resort in which case it was free.
It was a very nice pool - cool and blue. There were murals on the high wall which enclosed the pool and sun beds and green lawn. The sky was a brilliant egg shell blue. Coconut palms leaned over the wall and shaded the sunbathers; the hot season is just under way in India and that cool shade was delicious.
THERE WERE NO INDIANS.
The entire experience was an exercise in keeping India at bay. The heat of the day, the chaos of the town, the dirt and grime of, well, everywhere; but above all the annoying presence of Indians. 90% of Indians don't have 200 Rupees spare for pool side lazing. The other 10% weren't around today. Perhaps they turn up now and then, but at least you can be sure that they won't be the annoying type who are forever asking for money.
Let us call a spade a spade. This is racist tourism. This place has been set up and deliberately priced to exclude poor people. Which means, since we are in India, excluding Indians. It could not be more obvious if they had a sign at the front saying LOCALS AREN'T WELCOME.
Such places are an attempt to distill all the tropical exoticness of the location - the sun, the sky, the palms - and remove the humans and all the inconvenience that comes with them.
Because, dammit, India - and Indians - can be pretty inconvenient. The roads are bad, the rubbish isn't collected so reliably, the food is spicy, the water's dodgy, the towns are noisy, and it's always so crowded. So many people!
Of course money has always been used in every country to avoid inconvenience. Rich people back in England can avoid many of the travails that bedevil your average Joe. The difference is that in this place the line dividing rich and poor follows pretty close to the line dividing foreigner from lcoal. So, to all intents and purposes, we have an apartheid set-up with white-only zones (except for the Indians who mix the drinks).
This kind of tourism stinks and this kind of resort stinks. Harsh words but I hold them to be true. The people around that pool were decent, ordinary people many of them were the same poor folk who, back in England, can't afford to avoid the everyday inconveniences that don't register with the rich. They were enjoying the novelty of feeling rich.
Unfortunately `feeling rich' is a novelty we have no right to enjoy - for it necessitates that others must feel poor.
This pool provided a reflection. A reflection of the state of the world - where millions are born, live and die in poverty. When we sun ourselves by the pool's blue waters we are openly enjoying the fruits of a world wracked by inequality, injustice and oppression. No wonder the glare of the sun this afternoon was so bright that most people had to shut their eyes.
P.S. Arundhati Roy's An Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire provides an alternative view of India to that experienced at the pool side:
It was a very nice pool - cool and blue. There were murals on the high wall which enclosed the pool and sun beds and green lawn. The sky was a brilliant egg shell blue. Coconut palms leaned over the wall and shaded the sunbathers; the hot season is just under way in India and that cool shade was delicious.
THERE WERE NO INDIANS.
The entire experience was an exercise in keeping India at bay. The heat of the day, the chaos of the town, the dirt and grime of, well, everywhere; but above all the annoying presence of Indians. 90% of Indians don't have 200 Rupees spare for pool side lazing. The other 10% weren't around today. Perhaps they turn up now and then, but at least you can be sure that they won't be the annoying type who are forever asking for money.
Let us call a spade a spade. This is racist tourism. This place has been set up and deliberately priced to exclude poor people. Which means, since we are in India, excluding Indians. It could not be more obvious if they had a sign at the front saying LOCALS AREN'T WELCOME.
Such places are an attempt to distill all the tropical exoticness of the location - the sun, the sky, the palms - and remove the humans and all the inconvenience that comes with them.
Because, dammit, India - and Indians - can be pretty inconvenient. The roads are bad, the rubbish isn't collected so reliably, the food is spicy, the water's dodgy, the towns are noisy, and it's always so crowded. So many people!
Of course money has always been used in every country to avoid inconvenience. Rich people back in England can avoid many of the travails that bedevil your average Joe. The difference is that in this place the line dividing rich and poor follows pretty close to the line dividing foreigner from lcoal. So, to all intents and purposes, we have an apartheid set-up with white-only zones (except for the Indians who mix the drinks).
This kind of tourism stinks and this kind of resort stinks. Harsh words but I hold them to be true. The people around that pool were decent, ordinary people many of them were the same poor folk who, back in England, can't afford to avoid the everyday inconveniences that don't register with the rich. They were enjoying the novelty of feeling rich.
Unfortunately `feeling rich' is a novelty we have no right to enjoy - for it necessitates that others must feel poor.
This pool provided a reflection. A reflection of the state of the world - where millions are born, live and die in poverty. When we sun ourselves by the pool's blue waters we are openly enjoying the fruits of a world wracked by inequality, injustice and oppression. No wonder the glare of the sun this afternoon was so bright that most people had to shut their eyes.
* * * * * *
P.S. Arundhati Roy's An Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire provides an alternative view of India to that experienced at the pool side:
47% of India's children below three suffer from malnutrition, 46% are stunted. Utsa Patsaik's study reveals that about 40% of the rural population in India has the same food grain absorption level as sub-Saharan Africa. Today, an average rural family eats about 100kg less food in a year than it did in the early 1990's. The last 5 years have seen the most violent increase in rural-urban income inequalities since independence. (p222, written in 2004)
Saturday, 9 February 2008
What a load of rubbish
Last week-end I took my beloved on a romantic trip to Chennai's main landfill site. As we approached the site the sweet smell of shit filled the air and a haze of smoke blocked out the sun. We coughed our way inside, through fumes erupting from piles of rotting refuse, waving away buzzing flies and mosquitoes. A mangy, pussy-eyed old dog sat at the side of a jet-black stream scratching its behind, while various people meandered around the site doing I don't know what. Sorting the rubbish? Scavenging? Contracting some kind of hideous skin rash? All of the above and more.
Outside the dump a group of local residents had gathered to express their protest at the state of affairs. The dump is huge (400 acres) and illegal and its right on the doorstep of a large number of poor families. These poor buggers have been housed courtesy of the Slum Clearance Board. This institution is supposed to move destitute people from squalid homes in slums and put them in decent housing elsewhere. But times change, and now the process seems to have reversed. The residents here used to live elsewhere in the city but had to move due to highways being built, or other developments. So now they live in squalid accommodation next to a massive pile of shit.
Actually shit is the least of their worries. It's the carcinogens in the air that really bother them (air samples from the yard taken on January 22, 2007 and analysed by Colombia Laboratory Services in California revealed the presence of 33 noxious gases, five of which are carcinogenic). And the prospect of contracting malaria from the monster clouds of mosqitoes that roam these parts.This wasn't what the World Bank had in mind, I'm sure, when they funded these apartment blocks. No, Kodungaiyur dump yard won't appear on the front cover of their annual report. Just another unfortunate by-product of the long march to a globalised tomorrow.
More coverage:
www.hindu.com/2008/01/28/stories/2008012858830500.htm
www.hindu.com/2008/02/04/stories/2008020460040300.htm
www.hindu.com/2008/02/04/stories/2008020460150400.htm
The dump
Protesting Indian-style. Nice masks.
Thanks World Bank! Shame about the view!
It'll take more than a massive pile of human waste to keep this lot down. I hope.
Sunday, 6 January 2008
Agent Orange
Last night I attended a screening of the film "The Last Ghost of War", followed by a discussion with Dr Simone Nhu-Mai of the Vietnam Agent Orange Victims Association (VAVA). The film and discussion highlighted the horrific legacy that continues to be felt in Vietnam (in addition to Laos and Cambodia, as well as among war veterans from the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Korea) due to the spraying of herbicides, including the defoliant Agent Orange.
Nineteen million gallons of herbicide were sprayed on Vietnam between 1962 and 1971 in an operation code-named Ranch Hand, with the first spraying being personally authorised by President Kennedy. Agent Orange was the most commonly used of these herbicides which were sprayed by American forces in an attempt to destroy the jungle cover of their enemy, the Viet Cong.
And very effective it was too. Unfortunately the production process of one of the key ingredients of Agent Orange - 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid or 245T - was such that it was routinely contaminated with one of the most poisonous substances known to humanity - 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or dioxin.
Effects of Exposure
Estimates suggest that between 2.1 and 4.8 million Vietnamese people were directly exposed to herbicides in the course of the war. But that's only the start of it: Many areas in Vietnam remain heavily contaminated by dioxin; people are daily exposed to this dioxin residue through breast milk, cow milk, and the consumption of contaminated meat and fish.
It is this dioxin residue that gave the film its name: "The Last Ghost of War". And it is a ghost with a horrible appetite: The effects of dioxin are numerous. The National Toxicology Program in the US has classified TCDD to be a human carcinogen. Dioxin has been scientifically associated with an array of human diseases including soft-tissue sarcoma, Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. There has also been a suggested association with a number of diseases in the children of those exposed to it, particularly spina bifida. A good summary of the current state of received medical wisdom in this area can be found at the Institute of Medicine's website.
The nature of medical literature is, though, inherently conservative – it might be hard to scientifically prove that dioxin causes certain illnesses, but that doesn’t mean to say doctors would recommend you hang about while spraying is going on. Indeed the film presented an array of images which suggested that the effect of herbicide spraying has been wide-spread and devastating. Studies of those exposed to herbicides in Vietnam - veterans and civilians - encountered, in addition to the cancers listed above, numerous examples of children born with severe birth defects. Severe mental and physical disability is a (relatively) common occurence in the descendants of those exposed to the spraying. Inevitably the suffering of these children, and of their families, is immense and little or no financial support is available to them.
Prior knowledge
A tragic consequence of war, then. But in fact it's more than that. There is significant evidence to suggest that the chemical companies who produced 245T were aware of the awful consequences of exposure to dioxin.
In 1949 there was an accident at a chemicals plant in Nitro, West Virginia. This plant was owned by Monsanto who produced 245T there. The accident resulted in a number of workers coming into contact with 245T (and, consequently, with dioxin); these workers suffered immediate severe health effects in the form of chloracne – a severe skin condition – as well as longer term conditions including multiple tumours and nervous conditions.
Several studies were conducted of workers involved in the accident. Two of these were conducted for Monsanto and discovered no evidence of long term health problems, aside from chloracne. However one study was conducted independently of Monsanto and, instead, found a number of serious ongoing symptoms. Monsanto has subsequently been the subject of criminal investigation for falsifying its studies of dioxin exposure.
This was not the only incident of exposure to dioxin however – a number of such incidents occurred (see pp27-34 of this VAVA briefing) – at the plants of a number of chemical companies. These companies shared their findings with each other. For instance a Monsanto memo refers to information gathered from Dow:
“According to them [Dow] it is the most toxic compound they have ever experienced. It is presumably toxic by skin contact, as well as by inhalation. According to Dow is it 100 times as toxic as parathion. It is, likewise, capable of causing incapacitating chloracne.”
Another Monsanto memo from 1965 suggests that “very conceivably, [dioxin] can be a potent carcinogen.” A1968.
The government was also aware of the potential risks (although they may not have had the specific knowledge of the chemical companies). Dr. James R. Clary, a former government scientist wrote the following in a letter to Senator Tom Daschle:
“When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the 1960's, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicide. We were even aware that the ‘military’ formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the ‘civilian’ version due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. However, because the material was to be used on the ‘enemy’, none of us were overly concerned.”
Clary’s reference to a military formulation is important: The production process of 245T was known to result in contamination with dioxin; however the level of contamination varied considerably. During the period in which they were supplying the US military with 245T the chemical companies took the specific decision to produce 245T for the lowest possible cost – and hence, tragically, with a large level of dioxin contamination. (see pp35-37 of the VAVA briefing)
The Law
In 1979 a class action was launched on behalf of 2.4 million American Vietnam veterans. Veterans are not legally able to pursue the US government for redress, hence the target of their law suit was the chemical companies who produced the herbicides for use by the US military. These companies were Dow, Monsanto, Diamond Shamrock Corporation, Hercules Inc., Uniroyal inc., T-H Agricultural & Nutrition Company, and Thompson Chemical Corporation.
In 1985 these companies finally settled out of court. They created a $180 million fund to compensate veterans whose medical problems fit specific rigid conditions. In particular, anyone suffering an illness following 1994, which was very likely considering the illnesses associated to Agent Orange could take 20-30 years to develop in some instances, did not qualify to receive payment under the settlement terms. In addition, a lump sum payment was provided for the Agent Orange families of veterans that died from diseases that may or may not have been related to Agent Orange, and quickly the $180 million fund was depleted by 1994. Just 50,000 Agent Orange members received a small compensation. (source)
In 1991 the US government passed the Agent Orange Act which officially recognised that Agent Orange caused certain specific diseases including various types of cancers; veterans are therefore eligible for support from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. In 2006, US Congress passed legislation providing health care, monthly disability compensation, and vocational rehabilitation to the children of Vietnam veterans suffering from the serious birth defect spina bifida.
A number of different veterans groups have taken the manufacturers of Agent Orange to court. In 2006 South Korean veterans won compensation from Dow Chemical and Monsanto; their victory came on appeal, and the amount of compensation was a relatively small $62 million – they had initially sued for $5 billion in damages. US veterans who missed out on compensation from the 1985 settlement fund have also attempted to gain legal redress, but have largely unsuccessful - this door now seems permanently closed. A Canadian class action is currently underway.
Of course the largest group of affected people is the Vietnamese residents of the area sprayed in the war. In 2004 the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange (VAVA), along with a number of individual Vietnamese victims of the spraying filed a law suit under American law. The law suit is against 37 companies who produced herbicides for use by the American military in Vietnam (the US government could not be sued as it claimed sovereign immunity). The claim was dismissed in 2005 by Judge Weinstein, although an appeal of this decision is pending (the briefing document for the appeal is here).
So what now?
Clearly the people of Vietnam are in great need - the last ghost of war continues to lay a heavy burden on the shoulders of some very poor people. Help is needed to diagnose and treat medical disorders resulting from herbicide spraying. Families with disabled children need help to care for their children properly. Funds are needed to clean "hot spots" - areas which are known to be heavily contaminated with dioxin. Finally more studies are required of the medical effects of dioxin exposure on the Vietnamese population.
To make these things happen, funding and other support is required. So far the Vietnamese people have been unsuccessful (so far) in their attempts to gain compensation through US law – neither the US government, nor the chemical companies involved, have paid a single cent of compensation to the people of Vietnam.
At a government level, a Fawlty Towers-style diplomacy seems to be in operation: “Don’t mention the war!” To be fair the Vietnamese government is in a very difficult position – Vietnam was the target of a US-led trade embargo which was only lifted in 1994. This embargo caused severe hardship to the people of Vietnam. Since 1994, the Vietnamese government has pursued a policy of friendship with the United States – so, although it is seen to be supportive of the law suits brought by Vietnamese victims, it is not in a position to demand redress for crimes committed during the war.
Thus the onus for action is left with the people. Dr Nhu-Mai asked that people show solidarity with the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange, in whatever way they can. Grassroots groups in Vietnam have expressed their solidarity very practically, through a number of peace villages which care for children with disabilities thought to be caused by Agent Orange; one of these peace villages was started by a US Vietnam veteran.
In India, a natural avenue for solidarity is through the Bhopal Campaign, a group which helped to organise last night's event. This group is seeking redress for the death, injury and long-term illness caused by the 1984 explosion in Bhopal, India at a Union Carbide factory. Dow Chemicals, a former manufacturer of Agent Orange, took over Union Carbide in 1999. Dow is therefore held responsible for tragedy by victims in both India and Vietnam.
Further information can be found at a number of sites: The full briefing of VAVA's appeal to the US court contains a plethora of fact and argument. The Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange has an enormous number of primary documents relating to this issue. In addition there are a number of different groups seeking to provide solidarity in different ways, in particular Collectif Vietnam Dioxine, VAVA and the Vietnam Agent Orange Relief and Responsibility Campaign.
Nineteen million gallons of herbicide were sprayed on Vietnam between 1962 and 1971 in an operation code-named Ranch Hand, with the first spraying being personally authorised by President Kennedy. Agent Orange was the most commonly used of these herbicides which were sprayed by American forces in an attempt to destroy the jungle cover of their enemy, the Viet Cong.
And very effective it was too. Unfortunately the production process of one of the key ingredients of Agent Orange - 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid or 245T - was such that it was routinely contaminated with one of the most poisonous substances known to humanity - 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or dioxin.
Effects of Exposure
Estimates suggest that between 2.1 and 4.8 million Vietnamese people were directly exposed to herbicides in the course of the war. But that's only the start of it: Many areas in Vietnam remain heavily contaminated by dioxin; people are daily exposed to this dioxin residue through breast milk, cow milk, and the consumption of contaminated meat and fish.
It is this dioxin residue that gave the film its name: "The Last Ghost of War". And it is a ghost with a horrible appetite: The effects of dioxin are numerous. The National Toxicology Program in the US has classified TCDD to be a human carcinogen. Dioxin has been scientifically associated with an array of human diseases including soft-tissue sarcoma, Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. There has also been a suggested association with a number of diseases in the children of those exposed to it, particularly spina bifida. A good summary of the current state of received medical wisdom in this area can be found at the Institute of Medicine's website.
The nature of medical literature is, though, inherently conservative – it might be hard to scientifically prove that dioxin causes certain illnesses, but that doesn’t mean to say doctors would recommend you hang about while spraying is going on. Indeed the film presented an array of images which suggested that the effect of herbicide spraying has been wide-spread and devastating. Studies of those exposed to herbicides in Vietnam - veterans and civilians - encountered, in addition to the cancers listed above, numerous examples of children born with severe birth defects. Severe mental and physical disability is a (relatively) common occurence in the descendants of those exposed to the spraying. Inevitably the suffering of these children, and of their families, is immense and little or no financial support is available to them.
Prior knowledge
A tragic consequence of war, then. But in fact it's more than that. There is significant evidence to suggest that the chemical companies who produced 245T were aware of the awful consequences of exposure to dioxin.
In 1949 there was an accident at a chemicals plant in Nitro, West Virginia. This plant was owned by Monsanto who produced 245T there. The accident resulted in a number of workers coming into contact with 245T (and, consequently, with dioxin); these workers suffered immediate severe health effects in the form of chloracne – a severe skin condition – as well as longer term conditions including multiple tumours and nervous conditions.
Several studies were conducted of workers involved in the accident. Two of these were conducted for Monsanto and discovered no evidence of long term health problems, aside from chloracne. However one study was conducted independently of Monsanto and, instead, found a number of serious ongoing symptoms. Monsanto has subsequently been the subject of criminal investigation for falsifying its studies of dioxin exposure.
This was not the only incident of exposure to dioxin however – a number of such incidents occurred (see pp27-34 of this VAVA briefing) – at the plants of a number of chemical companies. These companies shared their findings with each other. For instance a Monsanto memo refers to information gathered from Dow:
“According to them [Dow] it is the most toxic compound they have ever experienced. It is presumably toxic by skin contact, as well as by inhalation. According to Dow is it 100 times as toxic as parathion. It is, likewise, capable of causing incapacitating chloracne.”
Another Monsanto memo from 1965 suggests that “very conceivably, [dioxin] can be a potent carcinogen.” A1968.
The government was also aware of the potential risks (although they may not have had the specific knowledge of the chemical companies). Dr. James R. Clary, a former government scientist wrote the following in a letter to Senator Tom Daschle:
“When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the 1960's, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicide. We were even aware that the ‘military’ formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the ‘civilian’ version due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. However, because the material was to be used on the ‘enemy’, none of us were overly concerned.”
Clary’s reference to a military formulation is important: The production process of 245T was known to result in contamination with dioxin; however the level of contamination varied considerably. During the period in which they were supplying the US military with 245T the chemical companies took the specific decision to produce 245T for the lowest possible cost – and hence, tragically, with a large level of dioxin contamination. (see pp35-37 of the VAVA briefing)
The Law
In 1979 a class action was launched on behalf of 2.4 million American Vietnam veterans. Veterans are not legally able to pursue the US government for redress, hence the target of their law suit was the chemical companies who produced the herbicides for use by the US military. These companies were Dow, Monsanto, Diamond Shamrock Corporation, Hercules Inc., Uniroyal inc., T-H Agricultural & Nutrition Company, and Thompson Chemical Corporation.
In 1985 these companies finally settled out of court. They created a $180 million fund to compensate veterans whose medical problems fit specific rigid conditions. In particular, anyone suffering an illness following 1994, which was very likely considering the illnesses associated to Agent Orange could take 20-30 years to develop in some instances, did not qualify to receive payment under the settlement terms. In addition, a lump sum payment was provided for the Agent Orange families of veterans that died from diseases that may or may not have been related to Agent Orange, and quickly the $180 million fund was depleted by 1994. Just 50,000 Agent Orange members received a small compensation. (source)
In 1991 the US government passed the Agent Orange Act which officially recognised that Agent Orange caused certain specific diseases including various types of cancers; veterans are therefore eligible for support from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. In 2006, US Congress passed legislation providing health care, monthly disability compensation, and vocational rehabilitation to the children of Vietnam veterans suffering from the serious birth defect spina bifida.
A number of different veterans groups have taken the manufacturers of Agent Orange to court. In 2006 South Korean veterans won compensation from Dow Chemical and Monsanto; their victory came on appeal, and the amount of compensation was a relatively small $62 million – they had initially sued for $5 billion in damages. US veterans who missed out on compensation from the 1985 settlement fund have also attempted to gain legal redress, but have largely unsuccessful - this door now seems permanently closed. A Canadian class action is currently underway.
Of course the largest group of affected people is the Vietnamese residents of the area sprayed in the war. In 2004 the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange (VAVA), along with a number of individual Vietnamese victims of the spraying filed a law suit under American law. The law suit is against 37 companies who produced herbicides for use by the American military in Vietnam (the US government could not be sued as it claimed sovereign immunity). The claim was dismissed in 2005 by Judge Weinstein, although an appeal of this decision is pending (the briefing document for the appeal is here).
So what now?
Clearly the people of Vietnam are in great need - the last ghost of war continues to lay a heavy burden on the shoulders of some very poor people. Help is needed to diagnose and treat medical disorders resulting from herbicide spraying. Families with disabled children need help to care for their children properly. Funds are needed to clean "hot spots" - areas which are known to be heavily contaminated with dioxin. Finally more studies are required of the medical effects of dioxin exposure on the Vietnamese population.
To make these things happen, funding and other support is required. So far the Vietnamese people have been unsuccessful (so far) in their attempts to gain compensation through US law – neither the US government, nor the chemical companies involved, have paid a single cent of compensation to the people of Vietnam.
At a government level, a Fawlty Towers-style diplomacy seems to be in operation: “Don’t mention the war!” To be fair the Vietnamese government is in a very difficult position – Vietnam was the target of a US-led trade embargo which was only lifted in 1994. This embargo caused severe hardship to the people of Vietnam. Since 1994, the Vietnamese government has pursued a policy of friendship with the United States – so, although it is seen to be supportive of the law suits brought by Vietnamese victims, it is not in a position to demand redress for crimes committed during the war.
Thus the onus for action is left with the people. Dr Nhu-Mai asked that people show solidarity with the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange, in whatever way they can. Grassroots groups in Vietnam have expressed their solidarity very practically, through a number of peace villages which care for children with disabilities thought to be caused by Agent Orange; one of these peace villages was started by a US Vietnam veteran.
In India, a natural avenue for solidarity is through the Bhopal Campaign, a group which helped to organise last night's event. This group is seeking redress for the death, injury and long-term illness caused by the 1984 explosion in Bhopal, India at a Union Carbide factory. Dow Chemicals, a former manufacturer of Agent Orange, took over Union Carbide in 1999. Dow is therefore held responsible for tragedy by victims in both India and Vietnam.
Further information can be found at a number of sites: The full briefing of VAVA's appeal to the US court contains a plethora of fact and argument. The Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange has an enormous number of primary documents relating to this issue. In addition there are a number of different groups seeking to provide solidarity in different ways, in particular Collectif Vietnam Dioxine, VAVA and the Vietnam Agent Orange Relief and Responsibility Campaign.
Thursday, 27 December 2007
Christmas cheer
Every Wednesday I participate in a meditation group. We always start with a guided meditation from Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk. We read pairs of sentences at intervals of five minutes or so, and reflect on them using our breathing to access the deeper meaning of the words.
Last Wednesday was Boxing Day and it so happened that some of the sentences very much resonated with me. In particular, these:
The idea of these reflections (it seems to me) is to look deeply and truly at our selves and our experience, and to come to terms with every aspect of our current state. This process is a truthful process, for we see ourselves as we are. It is also a liberating process because, by smiling, we are freeing ourselves from the domination that our pain and other feelings can have over us. As Thich Nhat Hanh writes in his explanation of this exercise: “We must learn to recognize, acknowledge, and welcome each [feeling], and after that to look into its emotion… Mindfulness allows us to be calm throughout the appearance and disappearance of feelings.”
This could not be more out of sync with the usual Western experience of the Christmas period. Throughout this period we are bombarded with images of Christmas cheer: of people eating and drinking and making merry together; of families gathering together in warm homes and opening presents; of herald angels singing, merry gentlemen (let nothing them dismay!) and joy to the world.
And yet we all know that these images correspond very poorly to the average experience. For many people Christmas is a time of loneliness, of family arguments, of drunken foolishness and regrets. In short, Christmas is like every other time of year – inducing a mixture of every human feeling. And yet so strong are the media images that, despite knowing better, we too often fall for the propaganda and feel obliged to put on a happy face.
The result is that we flee in terror from feelings of fear, insecurity, sadness and anger, while we grasp desperately at any hint of joy, almost fearing its departure before it has properly arrived. Our family times can seem a pastiche of jolly scenarios, between which we lurch in desperate fear that the whole shebang might soon be exposed as a sham.
Oh to be free of the obligation to be happy – how much happier we would be! But Christmas is just the worst of it. Media propaganda is routinely couched in terms of happiness: We need to be cool, to be young, to be in a big happy beautiful gang, to go to parties and stay up late, to have a beautiful (wo)man on our arm.
You might be thinking, “oh but tell me something I don’t know.” And too true, the vacuity of media images is apparent to anybody who takes the time to stop and think about them. But even if we do this (and many don’t), we are not necessarily free of their power. I had a salutory lesson in this some years ago when I left the city of Perth and went to live in an aboriginal community in the desert in Australia. My lesson was in the question of beauty - when I first arrived out bush, it did not even occur to me that there was physical beauty to be found in the people around me. So deeply was the notion of what is beautiful implanted into me that I could not see what was before me. After six months of living free of a media obsessed with skinny, hairless teenagers in bikinis, the scales had started to fall from my eyes – and life became a whole lot more spicy.
Our (often inadvertent) consumption of images of the mass media prevents us from seeing the world around us clearly. We don’t just run in fear from our own emotions, we also cling to notions which are destroying us – and, in the process, we miss out on true joy and true beauty. Thich Nhat Hanh suggests that we meditate in this way:
In a world saturated with misleading images, it is vital that we meditate regularly in this way. For, if we do not, we will inevitably find ourselves attached to a myriad of notions that stunt our growth and that severely limit the depth and meaning of our experience. We need to look deeply into ourselves to see where these notions are rooted and, as we smile at them, to watch them weaken.
Last Wednesday was Boxing Day and it so happened that some of the sentences very much resonated with me. In particular, these:
Experiencing the pain of fear in me, I breath in.
Smiling to the pain of fear in me, I breath out.
Experiencing the feeling of insecurity in me, I breath in.
Smiling to the feeling of insecurity in me, I breath out.
Experiencing the feeling of sadness in me, I breath in.
Smiling to the feeling of insecurity in me, I breath out.
Experiencing the feeling of joy in me, I breath in.
Smiling to the feeling of joy in me, I breath out.
The idea of these reflections (it seems to me) is to look deeply and truly at our selves and our experience, and to come to terms with every aspect of our current state. This process is a truthful process, for we see ourselves as we are. It is also a liberating process because, by smiling, we are freeing ourselves from the domination that our pain and other feelings can have over us. As Thich Nhat Hanh writes in his explanation of this exercise: “We must learn to recognize, acknowledge, and welcome each [feeling], and after that to look into its emotion… Mindfulness allows us to be calm throughout the appearance and disappearance of feelings.”
This could not be more out of sync with the usual Western experience of the Christmas period. Throughout this period we are bombarded with images of Christmas cheer: of people eating and drinking and making merry together; of families gathering together in warm homes and opening presents; of herald angels singing, merry gentlemen (let nothing them dismay!) and joy to the world.
And yet we all know that these images correspond very poorly to the average experience. For many people Christmas is a time of loneliness, of family arguments, of drunken foolishness and regrets. In short, Christmas is like every other time of year – inducing a mixture of every human feeling. And yet so strong are the media images that, despite knowing better, we too often fall for the propaganda and feel obliged to put on a happy face.
The result is that we flee in terror from feelings of fear, insecurity, sadness and anger, while we grasp desperately at any hint of joy, almost fearing its departure before it has properly arrived. Our family times can seem a pastiche of jolly scenarios, between which we lurch in desperate fear that the whole shebang might soon be exposed as a sham.
Oh to be free of the obligation to be happy – how much happier we would be! But Christmas is just the worst of it. Media propaganda is routinely couched in terms of happiness: We need to be cool, to be young, to be in a big happy beautiful gang, to go to parties and stay up late, to have a beautiful (wo)man on our arm.
You might be thinking, “oh but tell me something I don’t know.” And too true, the vacuity of media images is apparent to anybody who takes the time to stop and think about them. But even if we do this (and many don’t), we are not necessarily free of their power. I had a salutory lesson in this some years ago when I left the city of Perth and went to live in an aboriginal community in the desert in Australia. My lesson was in the question of beauty - when I first arrived out bush, it did not even occur to me that there was physical beauty to be found in the people around me. So deeply was the notion of what is beautiful implanted into me that I could not see what was before me. After six months of living free of a media obsessed with skinny, hairless teenagers in bikinis, the scales had started to fall from my eyes – and life became a whole lot more spicy.
Our (often inadvertent) consumption of images of the mass media prevents us from seeing the world around us clearly. We don’t just run in fear from our own emotions, we also cling to notions which are destroying us – and, in the process, we miss out on true joy and true beauty. Thich Nhat Hanh suggests that we meditate in this way:
Experiencing the feeling of attachment in me, I breathe in.
Smiling to the feeling of attachment in me, I breath out.
In a world saturated with misleading images, it is vital that we meditate regularly in this way. For, if we do not, we will inevitably find ourselves attached to a myriad of notions that stunt our growth and that severely limit the depth and meaning of our experience. We need to look deeply into ourselves to see where these notions are rooted and, as we smile at them, to watch them weaken.
Thursday, 15 November 2007
Multitude
The email below is included here as a recommendation for people to read Hardt and Negri's "Multitude"... One caveat: Note that a lot of the words used in the email - e.g. empire, imperialism, multitude, democracy - mirror the very specific usage of Hardt and Negri. This may be misleading if you haven't read the book...
Dear Professors Hardt and Negri,
I have just completed your book Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire which I found deeply insightful and very inspiring. You are no doubt far too busy to be reading every passing critique of your work but, for what it's worth, I thought I'd provide some constructive feedback. It will help me clarify my thoughts on the current state of global war if nothing else.
In your book you characterise the enemy of empire as a network, a swarm. You posit that in order to fight this network the military of the empire must also become a network. Your argument to back this up is contingent on two unstated hypotheses which are, I believe, very important in understanding the current situation - for they are true, but only partially.
[1] The enemy really exists.
[2] The empire wants to win the war.
I would contend that the global state of war has at least two fronts. One of these is mythical and it is in empire's interest for that war to continue ad infinitum; the other is substantial and here the empire is intent on victory. The two fronts are often deliberately conflated by the mouth pieces of empire, and I feel that your analysis would have benefited from a more clear distinction between the two.
The first, mythical front is (currently) that of terror and its associated notions of civilisations. When I describe this front as mythical I do not mean that it is entirely without substance but its substance is secondary; the role it plays in global geopolitics can be discerned by the way empire speaks of it. This front is continually emphasised in imperial propaganda; battles are said to be won and lost (the empire periodically manufactures a victory for mass consumption) but the empire warns against hoping for an early victory. This is a war that empire wants - I don't need to explain why, it has everything to do with Orwellian notions of subjection and manipulation; Adam Curtis' The Power of Nightmares explains it well I think.
The second, substantial front is that of poverty and the associated cahiers de doleances which you list. This front has content and this battle strikes at the heart of what empire is about - in contrast to the mythical terrorist enemy which, while it purports to strike at empire, is really an entirely complementary structure. The substantial front is continually under attack by empire as it is a serious hindrance in empire's efforts to extract maximum production from its subjects (as you describe beautifully).
Now you might argue that the above distinction is really a return to the previous notions of imperialism, which no longer apply. The key point seems to be that the empire wishes to absorb everything within it and thus the existence of a terrorist enemy is not in the interests of empire. My argument is that empire has, in fact, already absorbed the terrorist enemy into its fabric and this enemy plays a vital role. In fact it plays several:
First it distracts from the substantial enemy. It allows the other front to become forgotten, or overwhelmed. I don't just mean by the media and such like - the poor don't need the media to tell them that they are poor! Rather I mean that the poor are misguided into thinking that their real enemy is someone else. And what's more that that enemy is being engaged by empire and, one day, maybe, things might change. In other words it provides an appearance of movement in the political and social fabric. People know that the status quo is wrong but, if they can be convinced that things are being done to change it, then they will put up with it.
In fact, of course, empire is intent on moving things in a direction of ever increasing injustice. As you describe, geopolitics today is one of crisis - conflict between multitude and imperial power. There are only two ways for this situation to resolve itself - either the project of the multitude takes shape and diffuses this crisis; or, empire manages to prolong this crisis indefinitely. The only way that this can be done is by distraction and disingenuation. If that's a word. This is the first role of the mythical enemy.
It is very important to clarify that empire contains no potential for a resolution of geopolitical crisis. The fundamental activity of empire is to extract production from the multitude and this action will always be antagonistic. In general empire deals with this antagonism by forcibly crushing dissent, however it is also useful to have some method for diffusing this antagonism - enter, stage right, the terrorist.
The mythical enemy also provides distraction in another way. By conflating the two wars, empire is enabled to more easily undertake the militarisation of society (a process which I won't define now, but which has many elements). So not only is the illusion of movement created, but an actuality of movement also - except that, as I said, the movement is in an opposite direction to the project of the multitude.
Yours sincerely, etc
Dear Professors Hardt and Negri,
I have just completed your book Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire which I found deeply insightful and very inspiring. You are no doubt far too busy to be reading every passing critique of your work but, for what it's worth, I thought I'd provide some constructive feedback. It will help me clarify my thoughts on the current state of global war if nothing else.
In your book you characterise the enemy of empire as a network, a swarm. You posit that in order to fight this network the military of the empire must also become a network. Your argument to back this up is contingent on two unstated hypotheses which are, I believe, very important in understanding the current situation - for they are true, but only partially.
[1] The enemy really exists.
[2] The empire wants to win the war.
I would contend that the global state of war has at least two fronts. One of these is mythical and it is in empire's interest for that war to continue ad infinitum; the other is substantial and here the empire is intent on victory. The two fronts are often deliberately conflated by the mouth pieces of empire, and I feel that your analysis would have benefited from a more clear distinction between the two.
The first, mythical front is (currently) that of terror and its associated notions of civilisations. When I describe this front as mythical I do not mean that it is entirely without substance but its substance is secondary; the role it plays in global geopolitics can be discerned by the way empire speaks of it. This front is continually emphasised in imperial propaganda; battles are said to be won and lost (the empire periodically manufactures a victory for mass consumption) but the empire warns against hoping for an early victory. This is a war that empire wants - I don't need to explain why, it has everything to do with Orwellian notions of subjection and manipulation; Adam Curtis' The Power of Nightmares explains it well I think.
The second, substantial front is that of poverty and the associated cahiers de doleances which you list. This front has content and this battle strikes at the heart of what empire is about - in contrast to the mythical terrorist enemy which, while it purports to strike at empire, is really an entirely complementary structure. The substantial front is continually under attack by empire as it is a serious hindrance in empire's efforts to extract maximum production from its subjects (as you describe beautifully).
Now you might argue that the above distinction is really a return to the previous notions of imperialism, which no longer apply. The key point seems to be that the empire wishes to absorb everything within it and thus the existence of a terrorist enemy is not in the interests of empire. My argument is that empire has, in fact, already absorbed the terrorist enemy into its fabric and this enemy plays a vital role. In fact it plays several:
First it distracts from the substantial enemy. It allows the other front to become forgotten, or overwhelmed. I don't just mean by the media and such like - the poor don't need the media to tell them that they are poor! Rather I mean that the poor are misguided into thinking that their real enemy is someone else. And what's more that that enemy is being engaged by empire and, one day, maybe, things might change. In other words it provides an appearance of movement in the political and social fabric. People know that the status quo is wrong but, if they can be convinced that things are being done to change it, then they will put up with it.
In fact, of course, empire is intent on moving things in a direction of ever increasing injustice. As you describe, geopolitics today is one of crisis - conflict between multitude and imperial power. There are only two ways for this situation to resolve itself - either the project of the multitude takes shape and diffuses this crisis; or, empire manages to prolong this crisis indefinitely. The only way that this can be done is by distraction and disingenuation. If that's a word. This is the first role of the mythical enemy.
It is very important to clarify that empire contains no potential for a resolution of geopolitical crisis. The fundamental activity of empire is to extract production from the multitude and this action will always be antagonistic. In general empire deals with this antagonism by forcibly crushing dissent, however it is also useful to have some method for diffusing this antagonism - enter, stage right, the terrorist.
The mythical enemy also provides distraction in another way. By conflating the two wars, empire is enabled to more easily undertake the militarisation of society (a process which I won't define now, but which has many elements). So not only is the illusion of movement created, but an actuality of movement also - except that, as I said, the movement is in an opposite direction to the project of the multitude.
Yours sincerely, etc
Thursday, 8 November 2007
A picture paints a thousand words...
We passed this guy the other day, as we were headed to Chennai central train station for a week-end away.
If you're looking at this picture on the internet, chances are you don't earn your daily bread by sorting through other people's rubbish. Spare a thought for those who do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)