Huế chemical attacks

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Huế chemical attacks
Perfume River, Huế, South Vietnam
Date3 June 1963
TargetBuddhist protesters
Attack type
Liquid components of dismantled World War I tear gas grenades
Injured67
Part of a series on the
History of Huế
Nguyễn lords and Nguyễn dynasty
Phú Xuân
Treaty of Huế (14 April 1863)
Battle of Thuận An (20 August 1883)
Treaty of Huế (25 August 1883)
Treaty of Huế (6 June 1884)
Abdication of Bảo Đại (25 August 1945)
After 1945
Huế Phật Đản shootings (8 May 1963)
Huế chemical attacks (3 June 1963)
Battle of Huế (31 January – 2 March 1968)
Massacre at Huế (28 February 1968)
Hue–Da Nang Campaign (5 March – 2 April 1975)
flag Vietnam portal

The Huế chemical attacks occurred on 3 June 1963, when soldiers of the

Ngô Đình Diệm
. The attacks caused 67 people to be hospitalised for blistering of the skin and respiratory ailments.

The protests were part of the

military coup
.

Background

Main articles: Huế Phật Đản shootings and Buddhist crisis

In a country where demographic surveys estimated the Buddhist majority to be between 70 and 90 percent,

Roman Catholic minority in Vietnam, he pursued pro-Catholic policies that antagonized many Buddhists. Specifically, historians regard the government as being biased towards Catholics in public service and military promotions, as well as in the allocation of land, business favors, and tax concessions.[6]

Diệm's family also seized businesses belonging to Buddhists in order to enrich themselves. Many officers in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam converted to Catholicism in the belief that their military prospects depended on it.[7] Forgetting that he was talking to a Buddhist, Diệm once told a high-ranking officer, "Put your Catholic officers in sensitive places. They can be trusted."[7] The distribution of firearms to village self-defense militias intended to repel Vietcong guerrillas resulted in weapons only being given to Catholics.[8] Some Catholic priests ran their own private armies,[9] and in some areas, forced conversions, looting, shelling and demolition of Buddhist pagodas occurred.[10] Some Buddhist villages converted en masse to receive aid or avoid being forcibly resettled by Diệm's regime.[11]

The Catholic Church was the largest landowner in the country, and the "private" status that was imposed on Buddhism by the French colonial authorities, which required official permission to conduct public Buddhist activities and restricted the construction of Buddhist temples, was not repealed by Diệm.

Vatican flag was regularly flown at major public events in South Vietnam.[15]

The flag consists of six vertical stripes, colored from left to right as blue, yellow, red, white and saffron. The sixth stripe consists of five squares from top to bottom in the same colors. The flag is rectangular.
The Buddhist flag

On 7 May 1963, government officials invoked a rarely enforced 1958 law known as Decree Number 10 to prohibit the display of religious flags, forbidding Buddhists from flying their

Gautama Buddha. The application of the law caused indignation among Buddhists in the lead-up to the most important religious festival of the year, as Catholics had been allowed to display Vatican flags a week earlier at a celebration for Diệm's elder brother, Archbishop Ngô Đình Thục.[16][17] On 8 May, in Huế, a crowd of Buddhists protested against the ban on the Buddhist flag. The police and army broke up the protest by opening fire and throwing grenades at the demonstrators, leaving nine dead.[18][19]

Diệm's denial of governmental responsibility for the incident, and instead blaming members of the Viet Cong insurgency, led to growing discontent among the Buddhist majority. The incident spurred a protest movement by Buddhists against the religious discrimination of Diệm's Roman Catholic-dominated regime. The dispute came to be known as the Buddhist crisis, and it provoked widespread and large-scale civil disobedience throughout South Vietnam, persisting throughout May. The objective of the protests was to have Decree Number 10 repealed, and to force the implementation of religious equality.[20][21] At the time, the United States, the main backer of South Vietnam in the Cold War, had 16,000 military advisers in the country to assist the Army of the Republic of Vietnam in the war against the Vietcong insurgency, which sought to reunify Vietnam under communist rule. Washington wanted the dispute with the Buddhists to be resolved quickly so that it would not dampen public morale and detract from the fight against the Vietcong.[22][23]

Incident

On 3 June, Buddhists held another series of protests across the country. In the morning, attention focused on the capital

Saigon, where approximately 500 Buddhist laypeople, mostly youths, protested in front of the Government Delegate's office while 300 troops stood by. The crowd and a government official equipped 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.[24]

When the crowd responded by taunting the soldiers as "stupid killers", the troops fixed

Perfume River. A confrontation ensued when the protestors attempted to cross the bridge. Six waves of ARVN tear gas and attack dogs failed to disperse the crowd.[25][26][27]

Government officials stood on trucks, using loudspeakers to call out above the noise, urging the Buddhists—primarily high school and university students who had arrived on bicycles—to disperse. The announcements were met by jeers when the government spokesperson blamed the unrest on the Vietcong. At 18:30, the military personnel at the scene dispersed the crowd by emptying vials of brownish-red liquid on the heads of praying protestors, resulting in 67 Buddhists being hospitalized for chemical injuries.

Quang Tri and Nha Trang, also on the central coast area.[28]

Reaction and investigation

By midnight, tensions were high as a curfew and martial law were enacted. Rumors circulated that three people had died, and

blister gas into the crowd. Reports citing reliable sources claimed that Diệm was planning a military showdown against the Buddhists.[24][25] The day after the attacks, Diệm installed a new mayor in Da Nang, the largest city in central Vietnam, in a move that was seen as a response to the ongoing protests.[28] Meanwhile, those involved in the protests who had not been taken to hospital retreated into the pagoda and continued to fast. Government authorities responded by placing barbed wire around the compound and cutting off water and electricity. The police prevented anybody from leaving or entering the temple.[29]

US consul John Helble suspected that the ARVN troops had used tear gas,

US State Department that poison gas was used because the symptoms were not consistent with standard tear gas.[24]

If this were the case, Helble concluded that the United States should tell Diệm that his regime must condemn the actions of the troops and punish the culprits. If Diệm refused, the United States should threaten to publicly condemn and distance itself from Saigon.

Airborne Division to Huế,[28] but this was denied two days later by a State Department spokesperson who said that no US aircraft or personnel had been involved in the transport of any Vietnamese servicemen or policemen.[29]

Thuan started an inquiry into the usage of chemical weapons on the protestors. The investigation exonerated the Diệm regime of the most serious allegations of using poison or mustard gas. Before the president was deposed in November, the inquiry's report declared that only tear gas was used, and that the liquid components of the grenades were poured onto the protestors after they had failed to vaporize as they were designed to. A further commission chaired by General

Trần Văn Đôn prior to February 1964 concluded that the tear gas was left behind by French colonial forces in the 1950s. The tear gas used came in glass containers in the form of a liquid that was transformed into gaseous vapor upon activation by acid. The injuries were attributed to the acid failing to activate the liquid into gaseous form. United States Army chemists in Maryland confirmed that the tear gas had come from canisters dating back to French World War I stocks.[25] During World War I, France had used tear gas containing a mixture of chloroacetone and ethyl bromoacetate against German troops at Ypres on the Western Front,[30] which was known to strongly irritate mucous membranes.[31]

Chloroacetone turns brown-orange when exposed to light,[32][33] while ethyl bromoacetate is a yellow liquid at tropical outdoor temperatures.[34] Both have similar colors to the liquid used on the demonstrators.[35] Some varieties of French tear gas contained phosgene oxime[36] or hydrogen cyanide.[37] These two chemicals can be fatal, but none of the protestors in this incident died.[27]

Repercussions

Diệm responded to the controversy of the chemicals by agreeing to formal talks with the Buddhist leaders. He appointed a three-member Interministerial Committee, which comprised Vice President

Joint Communique resulting from the discussions was signed in mid-June, which promised to end the Buddhist crisis.[39]

The Joint Communique was not implemented and the situation continued to deteriorate, particularly after the Ngô family ordered

Vietcong made substantial gains against the ARVN, prompting the US to deploy hundreds of thousands of combat troops in 1965, escalating the Vietnam War.[39]

Notes

  1. ^ Moyar, pp. 215–216.
  2. ^ "The Religious Crisis". Time. June 14, 1963. Archived from the original on December 4, 2012. Retrieved August 21, 2007.
  3. ^ Tucker, pp. 49, 291, 293.
  4. ^ Maclear, p. 63.
  5. The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 2. July 10, 1963. pp. 729–733. Archived from the original
    on November 9, 2017. Retrieved August 21, 2007.
  6. ^ Tucker, p. 291.
  7. ^ a b Gettleman, pp. 280–282.
  8. ^ "South Vietnam: Whose funeral pyre?". The New Republic. June 29, 1963. p. 9.
  9. ^ Warner, p. 210.
  10. ^ Fall, p. 199.
  11. ^ Buttinger, p. 993.
  12. ^ Karnow, p. 294.
  13. ^ Buttinger p. 933.
  14. ^ Jacobs, p. 91.
  15. ^ "Diệm's other crusade". The New Republic. June 22, 1963. pp. 5–6.
  16. ^ Hammer, pp. 103–105.
  17. ^ Jacobs, p. 142.
  18. ^ Jacobs, p. 143.
  19. ^ Hammer, pp. 113–114.
  20. ^ Jacobs, pp. 144–147.
  21. ^ Jones, pp. 252–260.
  22. ^ Jacobs, pp. 100–102.
  23. ^ Karnow, pp. 305–312, 423.
  24. ^ a b c d e f g Jones, pp. 261–262.
  25. ^ a b c d e f g Jones, pp. 263–264.
  26. ^ a b c d e Hammer, p. 136.
  27. ^ a b c Jacobs, p. 145.
  28. ^ a b c d Halberstam, David (June 4, 1963). "67 Buddhists Hurt in Vietnam Clash". The New York Times. p. 1.
  29. ^ a b c Halberstam, David (June 7, 1963). "Buddhist Accord Sought in Saigon". The New York Times. p. 6.
  30. ^ Verwey, pp. 33–34.
  31. ^ Verwey, p. 165.
  32. ^ "Chloroacetone". International Programme on Chemical Safety. Retrieved June 6, 2008.
  33. ^ "Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Chloroacetone". U.S. Department of Labor – Occupational Safety & Health Administration. Archived from the original on May 3, 2013. Retrieved June 6, 2008.
  34. ^ "Ethyl 2-bromoacetate". Chemical Land. Retrieved March 29, 2009.
  35. ^ Natelson, S.; Gottfried, S. (1955). "Ethyl Bromoacetate". Organic Syntheses; Collected Volumes, vol. 3.
  36. ^ Verwey, p. 35. In chemical warfare terminology, phosgene is often used when phosgene oxime (a choking agent) is meant.
  37. ^ Price, pp. 54–56.
  38. ^ Halberstam, David (June 8, 1963). "Diem Concession Won by Buddhists". The New York Times. p. 8.
  39. ^ a b Jacobs, pp. 150–170.

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huế_chemical_attacks&oldid=1208830612"