Fifty Years Later: Vietnam’s Environment Remains Affected by War

The term “ecocide” was coined in the late 1960s to refer to the US military’s use of herbicides like Agent Orange and incendiary devices such as napalm against guerrilla fighters hiding in jungles and marshes.

Decades later, the devastated ecosystems of Vietnam, combined with dioxin-contaminated soils and waters, still reflect the long-lasting ecological consequences of the war. Progress in rehabilitating these affected areas and evaluating the long-term effects has been minimal.

As an environmental scientist and anthropologist working in Vietnam since the 1990s, I am increasingly worried about the insufficient focus on and slow pace of recovery efforts. While the war prompted new international treaties on environmental protection during conflicts, these initiatives have not effectively facilitated post-war restoration in Vietnam. Ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East further showcase the ineffectiveness of these regulations.

Agent Orange and Daisy Cutters

The US deployed ground troops to Vietnam in March 1965 to assist South Vietnam against revolutionary forces and North Vietnamese soldiers; however, the conflict had been ongoing for several years previously. In an attempt to combat an elusive enemy that operated primarily at night from hidden locations in jungles and swamps, the US military turned to environmental modification technology.

One of the most infamous operations, Operation Ranch Hand, involved spraying over 19 million gallons (75 million liters) of herbicides across approximately 6.4 million acres (2.6 million hectares) of South Vietnam. These chemicals affected not only forests but also rivers, rice paddies, and villages, putting both civilians and military personnel at risk. More than half of the spraying involved the dioxin-laden defoliant Agent Orange.

The herbicides were used to clear foliage from forests, enhance visibility along transport routes, and destroy crops presumed to be aiding guerrilla fighters.

As news about the harmful effects of these methods reached the US, scientists expressed concerns to President Lyndon Johnson regarding the environmental consequences, calling for a reevaluation of whether the US was intentionally using chemical weapons. Military leaders insisted that herbicides did not count as chemical weapons under the Geneva Protocol, which the US had yet to ratify.

During the conflict, scientific organizations began studying environmental damage in Vietnam, revealing widespread destruction of mangroves, significant economic losses in rubber and timber plantations, and impacts on lakes and waterways.

In 1969, a component of Agent Orange, 2,4,5-T, was linked to birth defects and stillbirths in mice due to its TCDD content, a highly toxic dioxin. This resulted in a ban on domestic use and a halt to the military’s application of Agent Orange in April 1970, with the last operation completed in early 1971.

Incendiary weapons and deforestation further ravaged Vietnam’s rich ecosystems.

The US Forest Service studied the widespread incineration of jungles through barrels of fuel oil ignited from aircraft. Civilians were particularly terrified of napalm bombs, with over 400,000 tons of the thickened petroleum utilized throughout the war. After such fires, invasive grasses often took over the desolate, infertile soils.

“Rome Ploughs,” heavy bulldozers with reinforced blades, could clear 1,000 acres within a day. Massive explosive devices, known as “daisy cutters,” leveled entire forests and unleashed shockwaves that killed everything within a 3,000-foot (900-meter) radius, even earthworms in the soil.

The US also engaged in weather manipulation under Project Popeye, a covert initiative from 1967 to 1972 that involved cloud seeding with silver iodide to extend the monsoon season, aiming to obstruct the movement of fighters and supplies along the Ho Chi Minh Trail from North Vietnam. Ultimately, Congress passed a bipartisan resolution in 1973 calling for an international treaty banning the use of weather modification as a weapon of war, which took effect in 1978.

The military contended that these strategies achieved operational success, trading trees for American lives.

Despite concerns raised in Congress, the environmental consequences of US military actions and technologies received minimal attention. Accessing research locations was often challenging, and systematic environmental monitoring was virtually lacking.

Slow Recovery Efforts

In the aftermath of North Vietnamese forces capturing Saigon on April 30, 1975, the US implemented a trade and economic embargo against Vietnam, leaving the country both severely damaged and financially strained.

Vietnamese scientists have informed me that they conducted piecemeal studies. One study revealed a substantial decline in bird and mammal diversity within forests. In the A Lưới valley of central Vietnam, 80% of herbicide-exposed forests had not recovered by the early 1980s. Only 24 bird and five mammal species were documented in those areas, significantly lower than the biodiversity found in unsprayed forests.

Very few ecosystem restoration projects were initiated, hampered by insufficient funding. The most significant began in 1978 when foresters started hand-replanting mangroves at the mouth of the Saigon River in the Cần Giờ forest, an area that had been entirely deforested.

Inland, substantial tree-planting efforts in the late 1980s and 1990s eventually gained traction, although these initiatives focused on non-native species like acacia, failing to restore the original diversity of the native forests.

Chemical Cleanup Continues

For years, the US denied responsibility for cleaning up Agent Orange contamination, despite acknowledging dioxin-related illnesses among US veterans and tests indicating potential ongoing dioxin exposure in many Vietnamese.

The first remediation agreement between the two nations was established only in 2006, following persistent advocacy from veterans, scientists, and NGOs that persuaded Congress to allocate $3 million for decontaminating Da Nang airport.

This project, completed in 2018, treated 150,000 cubic meters of dioxin-contaminated soil, costing over $115 million, largely funded by the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The cleanup involved draining lakes and extracting contaminated soil that extended more than 9 feet (3 meters) deeper than initially estimated, requiring heating the soil to decompose the dioxin molecules.

Another heavily polluted site is Biên Hoà airbase, where local residents continue to consume elevated dioxin levels through fish, chickens, and ducks.

Drums of Agent Orange were stored at this base, leaking significant quantities of the toxin into the soil and water, where it continues to bioaccumulate in animal tissues as it moves up the food chain. Remediation efforts started in 2019, yet ongoing work faces uncertainty due to the Trump administration’s nearly complete withdrawal of USAID, putting American experts’ oversight of this complex project in jeopardy.

Complicated Laws to Prevent Future ‘Ecocide’

Although the health issues caused by Agent Orange have received significant attention, its long-term ecological effects have not been thoroughly investigated.

Contemporary scientists have access to far more resources compared to 50 years ago, including satellite imagery, which is currently used in Ukraine to monitor fires, flooding, and pollution. However, these tools cannot replace field monitoring, which is often restricted or hazardous in conflict zones.

The legal framework is similarly intricate.

In 1977, amendments to the Geneva Conventions prohibited “widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment.” An additional protocol introduced in 1980 restricted the use of incendiary weapons. Nonetheless, the oil fires ignited by Iraq during the Gulf War in 1991, along with recent environmental devastation in Gaza, Ukraine, and Syria, illustrate the shortcomings of treaties that lack effective compliance mechanisms.

An international movement is currently advocating for an amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, aiming to classify ecocide as a fifth prosecutable crime alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression.

Some countries have enacted their own ecocide laws. Vietnam was the first to explicitly state in its penal code that “Ecocide, the destruction of the natural environment, whether committed in times of peace or war, constitutes a crime against humanity.” However, this law has yet to result in any prosecutions, despite several high-profile pollution cases.

Both Russia and Ukraine have also established ecocide legislation, although these measures have not succeeded in preventing damage or holding anyone accountable for ongoing environmental harm from the current conflict.

Lessons for the Future

The Vietnam War serves as a stark reminder that overlooking ecological effects, both during and after conflicts, can lead to lasting consequences. The real scarcity lies in the political will to ensure these impacts are neither ignored nor repeated.

Pamela McElwee, Professor of Human Ecology, Rutgers University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.