 Welcome to the U.S. Institute of Pieces Seminar on Resolving the Legacies of Agent Orange. USIP is a national, nonpartisan, and independent institute founded by Congress in 1984 and dedicated to the proposition that a world without violent conflict is possible, practical, and essential for U.S. and global security. In 2021, USIP began the Vietnam War Legacies and Reconciliation Initiative. This program organizes public events like this one, policy dialogues and educational activities to further advance reconciliation and trust between governments and among citizens, and to build and sustain awareness of the importance of continuing to address legacies of the Vietnam-American War. Today, we will be discussing one of the longest lasting and deep legacies, the effects of Agent Orange and other chemicals sprayed by the U.S. in South Vietnam. 19.5 million gallons of herbicides were used stored in barrels like these, with the intention of destroying forest cover and food supplies in enemy-held territory. The defoliants affected over 10,000 square miles in Vietnam as well as in Laos and Cambodia, an area about the size of Massachusetts. It left landscapes looking like this. By now, most of the landscapes have recovered, but the dioxin contained in the chemicals accumulated in hotspots where chemicals were stored and in people and animals. Between 2.1 million to 4.8 million Vietnamese were directly exposed, as well as hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers. Over 500,000 U.S. veterans have received benefits for presumed Agent Orange-related health conditions, according to the 1991 Agent Orange Act. Vietnamese who were exposed included both soldiers and civilians. When North Vietnamese soldiers returned to their home provinces, they brought dioxin effects with them. This means that people exposed to Agent Orange can be found nationwide. The Vietnam Red Cross estimates that 3 million Vietnamese have been affected by dioxin, including at least 150,000 children born after the war with serious birth defects. The U.S. government has contributed more than $125 million in assistance to persons with disabilities in Vietnam. There are 10 Vietnamese and international organizations currently providing U.S. government-funded services for persons with severe disabilities in eight central and southern provinces that were heavily sprayed with Agent Orange. USAID has designed these projects to address medical and social needs, improve disability policies, and reduce physical and social barriers. The U.S. government has also spent $112 million on environmental remediation at the Danang Airport, jointly with Vietnam's Ministry of Defense. A second cleanup project began in 2020 at Vien Hoa, which is the largest remaining Agent Orange hotspot. This U.S. assistance to address health and environmental consequences of Agent Orange is part of an ongoing engagement with post-war Vietnam that includes cooperation in locating remains of soldiers missing in action, assistance to remove unexploded ordnance and landmines, and to help survivors. USIP is part of the Vietnam War Time Accounting Initiative launched last year to help Vietnam identify and return its own war debt. And these milestones bring us full circle on the legacies of the war. At USIP, we aim to contribute to a new dialogue on how the U.S. and Vietnam can move forward with closer cooperation and even closure on the Agent Orange legacy. Our speakers today will discuss how U.S.-Vietnam cooperation on Agent Orange has evolved to change the issue from an obstacle in our relations to a shared project. We will take stock of what's been accomplished and what remains to be done. We all believe the U.S. has a moral and historical responsibility to resolve the legacy of Agent Orange and improve the quality of life of people in both countries believed to be affected by dioxin. So it's my pleasure to introduce today's speakers. First, Charles Bailey was the Ford Foundation representative in Hanoi from 1997 to 2007. And after that, director of the Agent Orange and Vietnam program at the Aspen Institute. He's the co-author with Dr. Leke Sun of the book From Enemies to Partners, Vietnam, the U.S. and Agent Orange. Our second presenter is Susan Beresford, who's the former president of the Ford Foundation from 1996 to 2007. And the convener of the U.S.-Vietnam Dialogue Group on Agent Orange Dioxin from 2007 to 2014. And our third speaker is Phan Suan Zung, who is a research officer at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies of the use of Isaac Institute in Singapore. So thanks to all three of you for being here today. Our three experts will present for about 20 minutes. After that, we're open for questions and discussion. Please submit your questions in English or Vietnamese using the question box that's on the U.S. IP event page on the web. Thanks again for joining us today. Thank you, Andrew. In 1997, Susan Beresford, whom you will hear from in a moment, asked me to go to Vietnam to head the Ford Foundation's office in Hanoi. I quickly learned that Agent Orange was an issue. I was frankly surprised that nothing had been done about it. The two governments it seemed were stuck at an impasse. And as an American, I felt we really should do something about Agent Orange, and our government should respond, take the initiative, be proactive, but things were stuck. So we tried to help unstick things. I proposed and Susan approved grants to directly help Agent Orange victims to find and destroy the docs and lingering at former American bases and to tell other Americans about the impact Agent Orange docs and was having on the Vietnamese people. In addition, we had the idea that we'd be good to have a mutually comfortable fully two-way channel of communications between the two countries through which Americans and Vietnamese could share ideas and propose new work and a way forward. This became the U.S.-Vietnam Dialogue Group on Agent Orange Dioxin. In diplomatic terms, a Track 2 process for citizen-to-citizen initiative. The dialogue group was active for seven years from 2007 to 2014. I'm going to zero in on it because there may be some lessons going forward. Each member of the dialogue group brought a particular expertise. They served in their individual capacities, although they were well connected in their respective countries. As individuals, they were able to speak freely. They were free to learn, discuss, speculate, and be open to other points of view. Their shared conclusions could carry weight with decision makers on both sides. In February 2007, the members came together for the first time and spent five days in Da Nang, Hue, Tai Bing, and Hanoi. They visited Agent Orange victims and their families and met Vietnamese and Americans who were already working on practical solutions. The members also toured the Da Nang Airport Dioxin hotspot. Traveling together, they developed a friendly understanding of each other as they explored the complexities of the subject. At the end of the week in Hanoi, they sat down for a formal discussion, out of which came a joint statement on five priority needs. The statements released at the end of meetings frequently have a very short life and little impact. After further consideration, the dialogue group resolved to publish a roadmap to a solution, a roadmap on Agent Orange. The roadmap became the declaration and plan of action. Two topics, cleanup and disability assistance. Forty-eight prioritized actions in three phases, ten years, $300 million. It was ambitious, but an actionable document. The plan provided a benchmark and a starting point. After it was released, annual reports permitted stakeholders to judge progress, share new information, and update the plan. Then the members set about getting the word out and communication. Over the seven years of the dialogue group, they met 14 times. They repeatedly questioned senior officials in the Department of State and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They testified before Congress, updated the press, and appeared before civic groups across America. They kept a laser focus on a humanitarian response to the needs of Vietnam's victims of Agent Orange. Since 2007, Congress has appropriated over $400 million for Agent Orange, 30% of it for health and disability, and 70% for dioxin cleanup. The black line on the left shows the early money which came from a broad spectrum of sources. U.S. foundations like Ford, Chino-Cienega Foundation and Rockefeller, UNDP and UNICEF, Hyatt Hotels and HSBC Bank. This early money went overwhelmingly to help Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange and to start the cleanup of the dioxin at the Da Nang and Phukot airports. The dialogue group 10-year plan of action came out in 2010, just as the U.S. government money began to ramp up. And in 2019, a delegation of U.S. senators led by Patrick Leahy went to Bien Hoa where they witnessed the signing of two new agreements. One agreement signals the intention of the U.S. government to provide $65 million for health and disability services over five years. That is through 2024. The second agreement posits $300 million over 10 years for the Bien Hoa airport cleanup. But there was more. The U.S. and Vietnam do not yet have an agreement on what defines people affected by Agent Orange. That is a mutually agreed definition of who's included in the group and how to find them and help them. Congressional appropriators took a step in this direction in 2013 by focusing future American assistance, health and disability assistance on the provinces that were once sprayed heavily with Agent Orange. In 2015, they went further and specified that assistance should prioritize people with always severe and often multiple disabilities living in those areas. The health and disability allocation in 2022 is $14.5 million. The whole subject of who are the people affected by Agent Orange and who is to benefit from this funding requires further thought and discussion by both countries. How can American health and disability assistance both have the best impact and be the most meaningful for Vietnamese people? Thank you. Sorry. Okay, I'll start again. I became engaged with the issue of Agent Orange in Vietnam in 1993. When I was asked as vice president of the Ford Foundation to visit Vietnam and explore opening an office in Hanoi. And I met with many officials and colleague organizations. And on the way home, going to the airport, my host took me to a hospital. We don't fund hospitals, but took me to a hospital and steered me into a small room whose walls were shelves with glass jars holding deformed fetuses. I understood immediately the unspoken message that was then spoken outright as we traveled further to the airport. Please help with Agent Orange. When Charles arrived in Hanoi, I backed him as he looked for ways to pursue this very sensitive subject. And as he is reported forward under his leadership began making a series of grants and Charles became a very knowledgeable expert on this issue. Over the years I've met with many men and women affected by Agent Orange Dioxin. Many were very poor rural families with a severely disabled 30 year old offspring who could not walk, talk, feed themselves, etc. A loving parent was a 24-7 caregiver. And I visited wards in which severely deformed young babies were being housed and being given care that parents couldn't provide. So we did set about trying to help. And as Charles and I reached out to recruit others, we found that this was a very sensitive issue. And I came to believe that this is a perfect topic for philanthropy. Philanthropy is very good at working on sensitive matters before the affected parties are ready or willing to address them. We encountered disbelief that our two countries could or even should work together. And that was the atmosphere that led us to create the dialogue group. We invited distinguished people from both countries and I was asked to be the convener. And in that role, I organized our group's meetings, led our discussions, wrote or spoke to anyone we thought might help. As Charles has noted, we got a lot done as did many others who were working on this issue. In the last 14 years since I left the Ford Foundation in 2008, I continue to help as much as I can. And looking back over that experience, I'd like to offer three observations. And my thoughts fall under three words, all starting with the letter P when spelled out in English, plan, pressure and principles. One shortcoming of our effort was our inability to frame plans that both sides would agree would constitute an acceptable solution. U.S. government officials kept asking us what would be enough. And Vietnamese colleagues seemed uncomfortable in a dialogue about what might be acceptable. And we needed a very clear definition of who was an agent orange victim and a good plan could do all that. And we felt no pressure, the second P pressure for mobilization to find a solution. We were not pressed hard at all by U.S. military people's State Department diplomats, citizen groups or the Vietnamese American community. Sure, there were interested people, but they were not powerfully mobilized. And so piecemeal steps were taken and they were very good and useful. And I don't think there's anything wrong with step by step processes. The bigger solution was and is needed. Also because the issue was sensitive, we did not find it easy to recruit principles, the third P, meaning those who would or could actually commit money that would be needed in a very significant plan. We had very distinguished officials and public citizens, technical experts and media colleagues, but they didn't control the purse strings. We often consulted with and got very good advice from principles, but not the commitments of funds we really needed. So I hope that renewed effort could be organized around a plan with pressure behind it and principles in it to move funds once and for all. And I believe we must get this done and I hope I can continue to be helpful in some way. Thank you. Thank you, Andrew and the U.S. IP for inviting me to share my thoughts on this topic. And I would also like to thank Charles and Susan for your efforts to promote U.S.-Vietnam cooperation on Agent Orange through the dialogue group. And I'm speaking in English because I want to talk directly to the American audience. So let me pull up my slides. I was born long after the war ended, but I learned quite a bit about it through the stories that my father told me. He was a North Vietnamese soldier deployed to Quang Chi province in the late 1960s. One day he saw one of these planes spraying herbicides very close to where he was camping. And today he still remembers vividly that haunting image and the fear that he felt back then, the fear of being exposed to toxic chemicals. Fortunately, he does not experience any health effects associated with dioxin. But millions of Vietnamese and hundreds of thousands of American adults who came into contact with dioxin were not as fortunate that children and grandchildren suffer from disabilities as a result. We can see that the spraying has stopped for 50 years, but the horrors of Agent Orange linger echoing across generations. But we can do something about this, and we have. As we have heard from Charles and Susan, Vietnam and the United States have come a long way on the issue of Agent Orange. Thanks to the relentless efforts of several key actors, including Senator Patrick Leahy, who can be seen in this photo, American Agent Orange assistance to Vietnam became a reality. Addressing Agent Orange consequences has become an important aspect of the growing US-Vietnam bilateral relations, facilitating trust building and healing between the two nations. It is also a priority in US-Vietnam defense relations. Vietnamese leaders have stressed the importance of war-legacies cooperation. Senior Lieutenant General Vinh Thuy Vinh said that without this cooperation, there would be no foundation for present and future cooperation. However, I want to emphasize that there remain three challenges that hinder further reconciliation on this issue. The first challenge is that there are several shortcomings in the current US-funded health programs. These programs are limited in scope, only covering eight priority provinces. But the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange has emphasized that there are more provinces with victims that need assistance. Moreover, these programs have focused more on capacity building rather than direct assistance. But direct assistance is the best way to reach and transform the lives of Agent Orange victims with disabilities. A greater amount of funding is necessary if we want to provide more direct support. But it is unclear if the United States is willing to increase the annually appropriated funds for health activities in Vietnam. The second challenge is the US hedging language on the health effects of Agent Orange. Officially, American disability assistance in Vietnam is delivered to persons with significant disabilities, regardless of course, in areas heavily sprayed with Agent Orange. This carefully worded language allows the United States to work with Vietnam on the health effects of Agent Orange without admitting any formal responsibilities. But from the victim's perspective, this could be perceived as a double standard, considering that the United States recognizes American veterans' diseases associated with Agent Orange and provides compensation to American Vietnam War veterans who experience at least one of them. This language also excludes those directly exposed to dioxin, who are first generation victims. They do not suffer from disabilities, but health problems similar to American veterans' diseases associated with Agent Orange. And finally, there is an ongoing struggle for justice in Vietnam, driven by the unresolved question of accountability, who is responsible for the Agent Orange tragedy in Vietnam. Vietnamese victims have tried to hold former producers of Agent Orange responsible. First, there was a class action lawsuit in 2004. Most recently, Mrs. Tran Do Nga, a victim and an activist, has been engaging in a legal battle against chemical companies that produced Agent Orange. However, all claims made by Vietnamese victims have been dismissed in courts. It is important to keep in mind that these legal actions are supported not only by activists, but also by the Vietnamese government. The companies in question claim that they are not responsible because they were compelled by the US government to produce the herbicides for the war. But in 1984, they pay US$180 million as a pre-trial settlement to American veterans who sue them for dioxin-related health problems. Meanwhile, the US government has not admitted any official responsibility, although their work on Agent Orange in Vietnam suggests that in practice they have. The ongoing struggle for justice in Vietnam is a reminder that much more needed to be done to address the health effects of dioxin and to reconcile with those affected by this war legacy. So what should be the way forward? Well, two months ago, at a webinar hosted by the Vietnam Studies program at ICS, where I currently work, Ted Osius, the former US ambassador to Vietnam, shared his experience of advancing US-Vietnam reconciliation. And this is something that he details in his recently published memoir, Nothing is Impossible, America's Reconciliation with Vietnam. And in the webinar, he highlighted two key lessons that I think can be applied to the issue of Agent Orange in order to promote deeper reconciliation with the victims. The first lesson from Ted Osius is that reconciliation is really about people. It's about building trust and meaningful relationships between people. So what we need to do is building positive relationships and engaging in dialogues with the victims and those that represent them. We need to understand their perspective and experience in order to provide more effective and meaningful support. In some of my conversations with the victims, they told me that they wanted the United States to provide more tangible assistance to consider financial empowerment for those who lost the ability to work because of their disabilities and pay attention not just to the physical but also the mental issues related to dioxin exposure. The second lesson from Ted Osius is that sometimes promoting reconciliation requires risk-taking. And on the issue of Agent Orange, a politically difficult but absolutely necessary cause of action is recognizing without using hedging language that there are health effects of Agent Orange, not just in the United States but also in Vietnam and in other countries. Treating all victims equally is just a moral thing to do. Mrs. Chandonga said in a seminar that you must have equality to have friendship and that is true for all friendships including the one between Vietnam and the United States. There has been a suggestion to replace the phrase people with disabilities regardless of cause with the phrase people affected by Agent Orange because this is a more inclusive phrase that will cover all categories of victims. However, as Charles mentioned earlier, the two governments have not yet agreed on who would be considered people affected by Agent Orange. But if both countries can do this, it will be a big step toward mutual understanding of history which provides a springboard for more profound reconciliation. Thank you. Thanks very much to all three of our speakers for sharing about both the past experiences of developing dialogue and relationships, programs around Agent Orange, and the present situation, what are the achievements and some of the remaining tasks ahead of us. So please encourage everyone to submit questions in the box on the website. Again, we can have questions in English or Vietnamese. And I will be asking each question and then sending them first to one of the speakers to address and then if others want to comment, please, please go ahead. So first question building on Zoom's last points comes asking about this phrase regardless of cause. What would it take to change this in a way that would address all the people affected by Agent Orange as it suggests? And can I ask that to Susan first place? Yes, well I think Zoom has given us partially an answer and I think there's a consistent message you're hearing from all three speakers that is interesting. Because we lack a clear definition of who is an AOD victim, those people get blended in with all the kinds of disabilities that occur after a war. And so we're really not able to focus on those in most need who are Agent Orange victims. And I think the clear answer is that also the U.S. is very wary of taking responsibility for harm that was done. And you have to remember that our own military had to fight for years in a very complicated battle to get the acknowledgement and then the help that they've gotten. So I think the answer is we need a good definition to get us past that problem. And then we need some real pressure to address it and there has not been a sense of pressure. The lawsuits have been interesting. I think the lawsuits may keep the issue alive in some way, but they don't add pressure. And so that's really the question in my mind is where that comes from. We can talk about that later. But there may be others who have other ideas. Well, I mean, could you or any of our panelists propose a definition? Because as we understand, it's very difficult to prove any cause. And at the same time, there are people suffering from disabilities from other causes at the same time. Charles, do you have a view that you're closer right now to that thinking than I am? No, I think you put it very well, Susan. I think it's time to retire the phrase regardless of cause and replace it with something that is the captures the group and that both sides can agree on. This has really been the sticking point as you point out for decades. I think as American assistance goes forward that it would this focus on the severely disabled with multiple disabilities has proved useful. But can we fine tune that in a way that would actually be practical and most importantly meaningful to Vietnamese people? So do you want to go further with this? Yeah, I actually agree with Charles. The best thing that we can achieve is a practical definition. And I think both countries have been approaching the topic using a practical definition. So you have people who have been shown to be exposed to dioxin, right? And you need some proof of that. Maybe there's a document, maybe there's a history that shows that they were in this particular area where a large amount of Agent Orange was sprayed. And then you look at the conditions and the health problems that they experience, whether those health problems are in the list of diseases and conditions associated with Agent Orange. So I think that's the best thing that we can do is to look at proof of dioxin exposure and see if the health problems they experience is typically associated with Agent Orange. And that has to go back generations because you've got some families that really don't show a great deal of an effect. And then children are born one or two generations later. So there's a kind of historical tracing that's very complicated that it would need to be done. My next question submitted is, can you give some examples of how money's been used to help individuals in Vietnam? Does it usually go to community centers or to specific families? Who would like to address that question? I will just comment that in the early years, money came for disability assistance from a variety of sources, but the US government is overwhelmingly the largest donor in this area in Vietnam these days. And so therefore it's important to talk with USAID and other officials about where, how the money is actually being used. And the discussion is often phrased as sort of a trade-off or a balance anyway between humanitarian assistance and development aid. USAID is a development agency, so that's only natural. On the other hand, the Congress has clearly appropriated these funds over the last 15 years for humanitarian assistance. And so I think there should be at least a 50-50 balance between direct assistance that Zooten was talking about and the kind of capacity building up local institutions to provide the ongoing support. I'd make two further points, and that is I think that it would be highly useful to have comprehensive discussions between the two countries about the system that Vietnam has in place through social welfare, through the Ministry of Labor, Inflate and Social Affairs, and plus the contributions that the Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange raises every year and disperses to Agent Orange victims. How is that system working? How can American assistance dovetail with it more effectively would be in a second area? And third, I think that we're talking about direct assistance where a little money goes a long way. Typically a thousand dollars, a couple thousand dollars will enable Agent Orange victims and their families, because remember this is a family affair, and then they can take better advantage of the social welfare and other services that are available locally. I would just add that the kinds of services I've seen in the visits I've made very specifically were community respite centers where a family could bring their affected family member and then be able to have a day or so without the 24-7 obligation of care and they could get some rest and do whatever they need to do. Second, some disability training, and then third equipment that was given out. But this is meagering in relation to the need, but there are very specific things like that that can be done. Looking up on this, we have a question from USAID in Vietnam asking how can we ensure sustainability in providing services to persons with disabilities, including Agent Orange victims? Considering that the U.S. government has had 30 years of disability assistance in Vietnam, how can we ensure that Vietnam can continue to deliver this in the long term? So maybe I'll ask that one first. I think what we need, first of all, is a new generation of key actors who care about resolving these legacies and understand why we need to continue providing assistance to the victims. The truth is there's no timeline for when the health effects of Agent Orange stopped. It's passed it out from generation to generation and it's not just an issue of development assistance. It's about resolving a legacy between the two countries so that we can have an amicable and long-lasting friendship. It's essentially about investing in our future. So I think that on the second part of the question, capacity building assistance is important. But as Susan and Charles have mentioned, for now it is important that we focus more on direct assistance. We need to first achieve a balance between capacity building and direct assistance first before we can think about long-term plan. Very good. Several questions now about funding. So Susan Hammond from the War Legacies Project asks, in addition to the U.S. government, how can we encourage other funders to be involved in Agent Orange health and disability assistance? And another question asks, since the Ford Foundation left Vietnam, the Chino Cinega Foundation, which is a small family foundation in California, has been one of the only foundations addressing Agent Orange in Vietnam. And how can others get involved also in Laos? Susan, would you like to? Yeah, let me take on the philanthropy angle of it. Pressure affects philanthropy just as it does politics. It operates in different ways. But philanthropy can be pressured to take on things that are urgent and significant. And I think I have a fantasy of the kind of coalition that I think might be helpful to address this and to go to more foundations. I think we need a new coalition that is coalition of victims from both the U.S. side and the Vietnamese side. People who are directly affected by this problem. We need Vietnamese Americans to get behind it in a strong way. And that hasn't happened. And we need the U.S. veteran community broadly, not just people who have been affected by this, but the U.S. vets community. I think we need groups like that because foundations, many of them have a kind of moral purpose. They are, if you read their charters, they say to make the world a better place or to deal with harm or something like that. And not that many foundations work overseas, but I think if they really came to understand this and were confronted with this, with this kind of a coalition of U.S. people and outside the U.S. and Vietnam, victims and knowledgeable people about it, more would respond. I don't think a real effort to make that kind of coalition to go visit philanthropy has been created. Thanks very much. Next, we have a comment in Vietnamese saying we are people with visual impairments. And we hope that the United States helps victims in more provinces outside of the eight that are currently priorities because we were born and grew up in Ha Tinh province. So thanks for that comment. On the U.S. side, a question asks that birth defects in U.S. women Vietnam veterans at the moment are worded as, quote, caused by a woman's service in Vietnam. How can we overcome this hypocrisy? Yes, the hypocrisy is that there's different levels of acknowledgement of men's and women's impairments. Charles, are you aware of that? Could you comment on it? I'm aware that most of the U.S. Veterans Administration programs for disability compensation focus on this list of diseases and conditions that Zoom referred to that has grown over the years. Mostly there are conditions that affect men. There's a separate list for women, but relatively few women in those days served in the military. And these funds are just for military. So there are also categories of people, other Americans who were admitted. People who worked for USAID in those days, other travelers to Vietnam, people in business diplomats. And even later back in the U.S., people who were employed to clean out the spray planes all developed these kinds of problems. But I think it's important to focus on our veterans first. And I agree with the need to expand the coverage. Thanks very much. Next question comes from the Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange, Vava. Are there still people being exposed to dioxin in the environments around hotspots? And is U.S. assistance reaching these people? If anyone would be able to speak to that. I'm not an expert in that area, but my co-author, Dr. Le Kason, certainly is. And when we went over this whole question in writing the book, he came up with all the then known data on soil dioxin contamination. And it established that it was right to focus on the three main hotspots, that the others were much less significant. So the real issue really is while denying has been contained and the dioxin destroyed. And Bien Hoa is the cleanup there first beginning by destroying the dioxin, or at least containing and courting off the dioxin that is spread from the air base into the community. And I think that's a real question and USAID would be in a better position to answer this. There was a good article about this off base spread written by George Black, the journalist that appeared in the New York Times about 18 months ago. And it's that sort of overland flow that needs to be contained. And of course, that people who were in the area need to be home. So it's really just an issue around Bien Hoa potentially at the moment. So far as I know at this time, yes. Another public health question received is, are there public health partners involved in Agent Orange remediation and assistance now whether that's in the US government or in academia or Vietnamese ministries. In the past, there have been attempts by the US and Vietnam to conduct long term health studies. But in those days, cooperation was harder. Is there a possibility now initiating studies like that again? So are you able to discuss that? Yeah, regarding the first question. So in Vietnam, there's an ordinance for people with meritorious services to the revolution. And in that ordinance, a provision for people considered victims of toxic chemicals and they receive monthly allowance and other social welfare benefits from the government. And regarding other Agent Orange victims in Vietnam, they do receive social welfare benefits for persons with disabilities. There's support from several NGOs and especially the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange. But I think the important point to point out is that these assistance is quite small. And so far I think it's relatively ineffective in ensuring sustainability. Andrew, I can just add to this point. The Vietnamese have the government of Vietnam and specifically the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources has for a long time supported research. The general view being that if you want to learn about the adverse effects on the environment of pollutants, Vietnam is a good place to act and is a good subject. When Dr. Lege Son was in that ministry just before he retired, they came out with a whole list of research topics that they hoped that U.S. funding would join them in doing. Some of them were public health. Some of them were environmental impact. And I continue to believe that this would be a good investment just as the U.S. is investing in Vietnamese capability to technical capability to clean up dioxin hotspots. By the time they're finished with Bien Hoa, Vietnam will probably have the best expertise anywhere in the world for dealing with industrial pollution. It's going to be good to invest in doing some of this research both public health and environmental cleanup. It seems to me also that it is a strong argument for doing research of that kind in a collaborative, binational way. Because we know that trust building is really important in this process and to get more people engaged in collaborative research from both sides. And they would presumably become then advocates together working together. So it seems to me pursue it that way would be really important. Susan following up on your coalition building point. We also have a question about what are the most promising strategies for Vietnamese Americans to join in coalitions with Vietnam based agencies and people who are impacted. And actually, this is something I'm quite interested in as well for us IP. Do you have thoughts on that? Well, I wish I had a good answer that we made several forays your outreach to time engaged Vietnamese American communities. But I think now there's a generation of younger people who have learned as soon as learned from his father about what this history is. And I think that is a hopeful possibility that is a generation now knowledgeable and concerned about it and perhaps ready to be engaged in a way that I think the older generation who came here and we're here in the US just weren't. But we did not succeed in that area. We tried a few things and we met a lot of wonderful people, but it didn't turn into a mobilization of any kind. Charles, looking back on those efforts we made, what would you say? I would say that it's complicated for Vietnamese Americans, but on one hand, but on the other hand, over the last 25 years or more, their natural philanthropic instincts have created a whole host of Vietnamese American NGOs, contributing to Vietnam, particularly in health and education and technical training of various kinds. And I think that as you say, the younger people take on those roles of mobilizing money within the community in the United States and seeing it as used effectively in Vietnam can work with Vietnamese NGOs and their own NGOs in providing direct assistance and building these new bridges of trust between the two countries. On maintaining focus on this issue, there are all these humanitarian issues in the world demanding attention at the moment. I don't have to list them all. How can we keep an issue that's 45 years old or longer on the radar screen of funders and governments? And how far can we move with this now given improved ties between the US and Vietnam? So a question about timing and attention. Yeah, so first of all, I think it's important to have this kind of discussions to highlight that despite the progress there is still a lot of things that we have to do in order to address the health effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam. We can see that there is significant progress in terms of environmental cleanup. But, you know, again, the struggle for justice is still very much alive in Vietnam and a lot of victims feel like they are not being, they have not received the assistance that they need. And I think an important point that we have to stress is that when we talk about US Vietnam relations, we often talk about security or strategic or defense cooperation. But as I have mentioned in my presentation, Vietnamese leaders see war legacy cooperation as a foundation for further cooperation. So if the United States wants a strong security, strategic partnership with Vietnam, it is important that the United States shows strong commitments toward addressing war legacies in an earnest manner. I would come back to the question of a plan, because I think it's very difficult to get to get a coalition together and to get pressure behind it without a clear understanding between the two countries of what is acceptable. And that's not been done. What would make this right? Unless we have that, it's very hard to sell it to a group of people who feel a moral interest in this, but want to understand what they're doing and how far it will go and what it will accomplish and how comfortable people will feel at the end that this was fair. And without that, I think it's very hard. And the two countries really haven't agreed on that yet. I would agree with that. I think the history of the dialogue group shows that the key turning point was the 2010 plan and for all the reasons that I mentioned earlier. And I think that it's possible now to go beyond the sort of the bridging language that was used in that document on this question of who benefits or who should benefit. And I think that having, as Susan says, principles get together, perhaps with other people representing some of these other constituencies to really talk in some appropriate setting to answer this question. And then a plan would do the definitional question. And then it would be possible to move from there with a plan if I needn't be elaborate, it's more a question of trust and clarity on both sides. And then it would be possible to keep this moving. So we have one more question or actually two that are related. And that's about the role of the Vietnamese governments. How can, in this dialogue, how to create synergy between Vietnamese and U.S. efforts to support people affected. And on the definition of victims, a question about the Vietnamese law on persons with disabilities, can that be amended to be more inclusive of victims of Agent Orange? Yeah, well, I think more cooperation between Vietnamese local authorities and the U.S. AID is necessary. There has been some cooperation between the U.S. AID and local authorities to study the needs of persons with disabilities. So it's important that we expand on that. I think that also the Vietnamese government can help to convey the victim's perspective and provide detailed information on the situations and the needs of persons with disabilities across Vietnam. This will help inform decisions on current and future health projects. And another point is that I think the Vietnamese government can also highlight what they have been doing to help the victims in terms of providing benefits, social services, and assistance so that American policy makers have a better idea of what they need to do. You know, the fact is that most countries do not address disability issues fully. And this is a long struggle that the disability rights groups have in Vietnam and the U.S. and other countries fought and won some real ground, but it is still a challenge. And so I think the age and orange disability issue nests within this larger question. And so it's important to not only address the age and orange disability issue, but also help people, as you say, think about amending the disabilities law. What are these laws? How do they really work for people who delivers them? Because this is a huge struggle in almost every country of the world. I would just add that I think with all of this experience of the last 25 years, and particularly the last 15 years of U.S. funding, that now is the time to take these next steps forward towards reconciliation and for the principles to actually talk to each other specifically about this as friends. If you had a friend and they came to you and asked for help and it was really important to them, you listen and you try to help. And I think that's the case between Vietnam and the U.S. We've reached that stage and we now have to have these more focused conversations led by or participated in by the principles. Thanks very much for everyone who's contributed questions and to our panelists for a really lively discussion that I think contains many points that we collectively can take forward in dialogue between Americans and Vietnamese. This video will remain on the USIP website in English or Vietnamese so that we can go back to it and others can watch it. We will also have updates on USIP's Facebook page in Vietnamese and our English language website and Twitter and other services. Here's a picture of what that new Facebook page in Vietnamese looks like. So we've heard today about the progress that's been made in Vietnam and with US assistance to address both the environmental and the health and disability consequences of Agent Orange and that there's more to do. And we focused on the health and disability aspects as one that continues to be important as both a humanitarian and a development issue. We've discussed how to come to an agreement on who is affected by Agent Orange and is covered by this. How to have a more concrete plan for health and disability assistance that will also multiply the effectiveness of what the Vietnamese government's programs are already doing. And this will benefit people affected by dioxin as well as others living with cognitive and physical disabilities from XO accidents and other causes. At USIP, we hope to take this discussion forward through a series of dialogues that we will be organizing with American and Vietnamese principles and future public events as well as publications. So again, I would like to thank our speakers, Charles Bailey, Susan Beresford and Frans Van Quyit for your time. Also for our translator, Frans Van Quyit for keeping the Vietnamese version going and to everyone who's contributed to today's session. Thanks very much and I wish you a happy Tet and blessed year of the tiger.