Nation: The Great Gas Flap

For months, U.S. newsmen in Saigon had been trying to pin down rumors that South Vietnamese troops “were using gas”—none of the rumors said what kind—against the Viet Cong guerrillas. Last week, quite by accident, German-born Associated Press Photographer Horst Faas succeeded, and thereby touched off the noisiest and most hysterical protests since the Communists accused the U.S. of waging germ warfare in Korea.

Macabre Memories. Hitching a ride back to Saigon from a remote staging area, Faas found himself in the midst of a major operation by South Vietnamese troops against a Viet Cong stronghold in Binh Duong province. He noticed that the troops were unusually edgy and soon learned why. Helicopters were scheduled to lay down a cloud of “nausea gas” just before the attack and, while the gas was nonlethal, the South Vietnamese were leery of it.

As it happened, the attack was called off. But Faas hurried back to Saigon and told Australian-born A.P. Reporter Peter Arnett what he had seen. Within hours, Arnett sent clattering out over A.P.’s wires a dispatch that began: “U.S. and Vietnamese military forces are experimenting with nonlethal gas warfare in South Viet Nam.”

Hardly anybody noticed the word “nonlethal.” Compared with napalm bombs that incinerate whole villages, or white phosphorous shells that burn a man to the bone, the temporarily disabling gases used in Viet Nam seem more humane than horrible. But the words “gas warfare” and “experimenting” stirred macabre memories. There was the afternoon of April 22, 1915, when German infantrymen gave the world its first whiff of poison-gas warfare by sending a huge, grey-green cloud of noxious chlorine rolling over two French divisions in the trenches at Ypres, killing 5,000, incapacitating 10,000, and cutting a 31-mile swath in Allied lines. There were the later bar rages of phosgene, chloropicrin, and particularly, of mustard gas.

A Decent Respect. The reaction came swiftly, particularly in Britain. The left-wing New Statesman accused the U.S. of raining “secret gases” on civilians, declared: “The Americans, like Hitler and Mussolini in Spain, are treating the hapless inhabitants of Viet Nam as a living laboratory in which to test their new weapons.” A group of Labor M.P.s voiced “horror and indignation,” demanded that Britain “disassociate” itself from U.S. policy in Viet Nam. In Washington, visiting British Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart censured his hosts, acidly suggested that they “display what your Declaration of Independence called ‘a decent respect for the opinions of mankind.’ “

Significantly, the Communist capitals were silent until they noticed the fuss that was being raised elsewhere. Only then did Peking weigh in with a blast against America’s “fascist cannibals.” Hanoi, which must have been aware for months that gas was being used, belatedly picked up the cue from Britain and deplored the “barbarity” of it all.

“Damned Unpleasant.” The furor was created not by “secret gases” but by three common riot-control gases that the U.S. has been supplying to South Vietnamese forces since 1962: CN (chloroacetophenone), a fragrant-smelling tear gas that also irritates the skin, loses effectiveness in about three minutes; CS (o-chlorobenzalmalononi-trile), a pungent agent developed by the British, of all people, that stings the eyes, causes chest pains, choking and vomiting for up to 15 minutes; and DM (Adamsite), a peppery-smelling gas that causes diarrhea, chest and head pains, and lasts up to two hours.

In one form or another, the three gases have been in use for nearly 40 years. The British used CS in Cyprus and British Guiana, a fact that must have surprised Foreign Minister Stewart no end, and the French used it in Algeria. Guards on both sides of the Berlin Wall have lobbed gas grenades at one another from time to time. The British have sold CS gas to a score of nations from Australia to Venezuela; the U.S. has sold it to such nations as Bolivia and France. It was used by New York state troopers during last year’s civil rights riots in Rochester, by National Guardsmen during the 1963 and 1964 racial riots in Cambridge, Md., by U.S. troops and Panamanian police in the Canal Zone crisis. Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara personally tested CS in a training chamber at the Edgewood, Md.. Arsenal 18 months ago, found it “damned unpleasant.”

Human Shield. In South Viet Nam, the gases have been used on the battlefield at least half a dozen times, but never with much success. The first time was last December in an attempt to free four U.S. prisoners of the Viet Cong. U.S. officers hoped to incapacitate everyone, prisoners and captors alike, then send in a masked Special Forces Unit to rescue the Americans. The operation failed because the gas, squirted through air hoses from a helicopter overhead, could not penetrate the dense foliage.

On another occasion, the Viet Cong seized a group of villagers and tried to use them as a human shield. Rather than kill women and children, as they had done in a similar situation last year, South Vietnamese troops tried to knock out everybody with gas. They failed because of adverse winds, and had to retreat. The last use of gas was on Jan. 27, when Viet Nam government troops tried to flush a guerrilla force from a heavily fortified network of trenches, tunnels and caves, but again were foiled by tricky winds.

Off the Hook. When the story first broke, the U.S. was inept in its efforts to soften criticism. The White House, for example, seemed more concerned about getting President Johnson off an uncomfortable hook than about producing an explanation. Press Secretary George Reedy took great pains to let it be known that the gas was first sent to South Viet Nam before Johnson became President, which is irrelevant, and that it was used without his knowledge, which is inexcusable.

Finally, Johnson called upon his two most articulate Cabinet members to explain the situation. Summoning newsmen to the Pentagon, McNamara emphasized that the gases are nonlethal, pointed out that they are available to any government through commercial sources. He even produced a catalogue from Federal Laboratories in Saltsburg, Pa., to prove his point.

Secretary of State Dean Rusk held a news conference on just 15 minutes’ notice, told reporters: “We are not embarking upon gas warfare in Viet Nam.” Despite the impression that “something new and esoteric and weird might be involved here,” he added, “this is not the case.” He described the gas used in Viet Nam as “a minimum instrument” that is not prohibited under the vaguely worded 1925 Geneva Protocol that banned the wartime use “of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases.” Though the U.S. Senate never ratified that Protocol, Washington later pledged that it would only resort to gas warfare in retaliation. That never proved necessary; Italy used gas against Ethiopia, and Japan, in isolated cases, against China, but otherwise no gas was used on World War II’s battlefields.

Rusk took note of the Viet Cong’s use of civilians for human shields, explained that gas was used on that occasion “to avoid death or injury to innocent people.” Besides, he added, “this isn’t a comfortable and easy war. It isn’t a war that is going to be decided by troops on parade with blank cartridges. It is a mean, dirty struggle carried out without regard to ordinary means of conduct by the Viet Cong.”