On Monday, March 4, 2002, at 03:59 , sixties@lists.village.virginia.edu
wrote:
[..]
> "U.S.-Vietnam relations were normalized in 1995 after Vietnam dropped
> claims
> of war reparations/compensation," it said. "At the time of normalization,
> neither compensation nor reparations were granted or contemplated for the
> future."
>
> Asked if this could change depending on research, an embassy spokesman
> said:
> "I think the statement speaks for itself."
[..]
which leads of course to the question why this
posting is coming out under the heading of 'war crimes'.
or is it the intention of the authors to dilute the
term to the point of meaningless psycho-babble at which
point we can all collectively disregard concerns about
actual war crimes?
I can appreciate that it is hard for some people to get their
heads around the fact that it took a lot of work to get the normalization
of relationships between the USA and DRV - and that as part and parcel
of that agreement is the clause as stated above - which while detaching
the question of compensation and culpability from the war - also seems
to close the question on the matter of the use of Agent Orange in
particular.
As a nation we have real live and actual war crimes questions on the table!
We have the real live and actual question with regards to the american
compliance with section 5 of the Geneva Accords and the questions of the
detaining of personnel from the ongoing war in afghanistan. These are
REAL ISSUES! not the emotional compensation issues which those, who at
the time opted to avoid the possible threat that Operation Ranch Hand
imposed upon those americans who elected to serve in operations in Vietnam.
Allow me to re-iterate the point. The War In Afghanistan did not end when
the Media Moguls brought out their 'prima donna' "star reporters" - any
more that the War with Iraq ended simply because it was no longer a hot
buzz media event. As such the question of Section 5 Gurantee's under
the geneva convention remain a real and actual issue.
I can appreciate that there are clear and compelling needs to extend the
coverage of the current geneva protocols to take into account the costs
and consequences of 'eco-tastrophe'. But until such a time, the problem
remains that the need at present IS unfulfilled.
Who knows, we may, if the term is not fully diluted, find that 'war
crimes' would be the appropriate title to cover such matters. But there is
a vast wealth of problems to resolve in the process. Should the liability
be with the 'owner' of the plant that is destroyed ??? or with the
attacking
force that destroys the chemical plant that causes the ecotastrophy?
In the interrum we may wish to try to at least remain focus'd on the
actual goal of amelorating the effects of warfare - and as such seek to
limit the use of hostages and civilians as 'targets' - as opposed to
the clear problems of 'collateral damage'.
ciao
drieux
---
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 19:08:35 EST