Hue chemical attacks

On June 3, 1963, Vietnamese police and the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) poured chemicals on the heads of praying Buddhist protestors in the South Vietnamese city of Huế. 67 people were hospitalised and the United States threatened privately to withdraw aid from the Catholic regime of Ngo Dinh Diem.

In the morning, attention focused on Saigon, where around 500 youthful Buddhist laypeople protested in front of the Government Delegate's office while 300 troops stood by. The crowd and a government official with a loudspeaker exchanged taunts and accusations. When the official claimed that Vietcong were among the crowd and attempting to cause trouble, the troops aimed their firearms at the protestors. When the crowd taunted the soldiers as "stupid killers", they fixed bayonets and donned gas masks before charging the protestors and pelting them with tear gas grenades. Deaths and injuries were averted when a Buddhist leader urged the protestors to retreat to a pagoda and receive medical treatment from tear gas or go home. When the entrance to the pagoda was blocked with barbed wire, some protestors simply sat on the ground and continued praying. After three hours, troops wearing gas masks forcibly dispersed the crowd.Jones, pp. 261–262.]

The situation was worse in Huế, where Diem had banned demonstrations and ordered his forces to arrest those who engaged in civil disobedience. At 1 pm, some 1500 protestors attempted to march towards Tu Dam Pagoda in Huế. A confrontation ensued as the protestors attempted to cross the Ben Ngu bridge. Six waves of ARVN tear gas and attack dogs failed to disperse the crowds. Sound trucks boomed above the scene urging the Buddhists, primarily high school and university students who had arrived on bicycles, to go home. This was met by jeers when the government speaker blamed the trouble on the Vietcong. The worst incident occurred at 6:30 pm when the security forces dispersed the crowd by emptying vials of brownish-red liquid on the heads of praying protestors resulting in 67 being hospitalised for chemical injuries. These consisted of severe blistering and respiratory ailments. The crowd responded angrily to what they suspected was the use of poison gas. The incident was a public relations disaster for Diem. Rumours circulated that three people had died, and "Newsweek" reported that police had lobbed blister gas into the crowd. Rumours citing reliable sources claimed that Diem was planning a military showdown.Jones, pp. 263–264.]

William Trueheart, who was in charge of the US embassy in Saigon while Ambassador Frederick Nolting was on holiday, confronted Secretary of State Nguyen Dinh Thuan about the allegations of the usage of blister gas on June 4. Thuan appeared to be astounded and asked Trueheart what blister gas was. Trueheart explained that the symptoms of the victims were consistent with those of mustard gas and passed on the US threat to denounce the chemical attacks. Thuan started an inquiry into the usage of chemical weapons on the protestors. An investigation attempted to exonerate the Diem regime of the most serious allegations of poison or mustard gas. It concluded that only tear gas was used. A further commission chaired by General Tran Van Don concluded that the tear gas was left behind by French colonial forces in the 1950s. These came in glass containers in the form of a liquid which was transformed into gaseous vapour upon activation by acid. The injuries were attributed to the acid failing to activate the liquid into gaseous form. US Army chemists in Maryland confirmed that he tear gas had come in canisters dating back to French World War I stocks. With the US also complaining about the use of troops in quelling protestors, the government complained that the Huế police were not trained in riot control like their Saigon counterparts. Diem's authorities requested that the Americans airlift 350 military police from Vung Tau in the far south into Huế, but the Americans refused.

By midnight, tensions were high as a curfew and martial law were enacted. US consul John Helble believed that the ARVN troops had used tear gas and in a report to the embassy noted that "possibly another type of gas which caused skin blisters" was used. Helble reported that the substance, although unidentified, had raised concerns by the State Department that poison gas was used since the symptoms were not consistent with standard tear gas. If this were the case, the United States told Diem that his regime must disavow the actions of the troops and punish those responsible. If Diem did not, the United States threatened to publicly condemn and distance itself from his administration.Jacobs, p. 145.]

Notes

References

*cite book| first=Seth |last=Jacobs| year=2006| title=Cold War Mandarin: Ngo Dinh Diem and the Origins of America's War in Vietnam, 1950–1963| publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers| isbn=0-7425-4447-8
*cite book| first=Howard |last=Jones| year=2003| title= Death of a Generation| publisher=Oxford University Press| isbn=0-19-505286-2