Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jul 1960

Vol. 183 No. 14

Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1960—Second and Subsequent Stages.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

As Deputies are aware, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has requested the Government to contribute a Battalion of Irish troops to the United Nations Force which is at present being constituted for service in the Congo. The Government have decided to comply with this request and the purpose of this Bill is to enable them to do so. Although they are largely a matter of public knowledge, I think I should perhaps begin with a review of the circumstances in which the Secretary-General's request to the Government came to be made.

After consultation with the leaders of the various national movements in the Congo, the Belgian Government decided earlier this year to grant the Congo its independence. This decision was in line with the far-reaching political developments taking place in Africa under which territories formerly subjected to colonial rule are achieving their freedom and independence and becoming sovereign members of the world community. The new Republic of the Congo became independent on the 1st July of this year and the large number of countries, including Ireland, represented at the independence celebrations in Leopoldville indicated that the new State was being recognised by all leading States of the world, including the Kingdom of Belgium.

Immediately after the achievement of its independence, the Republic of the Congo applied for admission to membership of the United Nations. Its application was considered by the Security Council which unanimously recommended that the Republic of the Congo should be admitted to full membership at the next session of the Assembly.

Unfortunately, as Deputies are aware, the new State found itself confronted, almost from its inception, by serious internal difficulties and disorders, including local mutinies of some of its armed forces on which it relied for the preservation of its domestic peace and stability. These disorders were marked by attacks and outrages on European residents, resulting in loss of life in some cases.

It is unnecessary for me to enlarge upon these incidents, of which Deputies are now well aware. They are, I feel sure, a source of regret and anxiety to all who have the welfare of the new State at heart and who realise the significance of the position of the Congo from the point of view of the African continent as a whole. These incidents gravely disturbed public opinion in Belgium. The Belgian Government found itself impelled to send contingents of paratroops into the new Republic of the Congo to protect the European residents from the attacks to which they were subjected.

Faced with this, the Government of the Congo appealed to the Security Council of the United Nations. The situation was considered as a matter of urgency by the Security Council. Its deliberations resulted in two decisions. In the first place, it called upon the Government of Belgium to withdraw its troops from the State of the Congo. In the second place, it authorised the Secretary-General to take the necessary steps, in consultation with the Government of the Congo, to provide that Government with such military aid and assistance as was deemed necessary until such time as, in the opinion of the Government of the Congo, the national security forces of that country might be able to meet fully the task of preserving internal law and order.

As is well known, the action of the Security Council has only too often in the past been hamstrung by the exercise of the veto. In this case there was no veto. Not all members voted in favour of the resolution, but none voted against it. The resolution represents, therefore, a positive concrete decision by the Security Council of the United Nations. It is in accordance with this decision that the Secretary-General has addressed his request to the Government of Ireland.

I shall now turn from this brief review of the circumstances of the Secretary-General's request to say something about the considerations which the Government of Ireland had in mind in deciding to comply with it. It is a weakness in world organisations that their members often tend to be more conscious of the advantages these organisations seem to afford them than of the obligations which membership of them implies. That was the principal point made by the then Taoiseach when seeking the approval of the Dáil for Ireland's application for membership of the United Nations. The present is a case in which we must bear in mind what our obligations are as a member of a world organisation.

Article 2 (5) of the United Nations Charter obliges all members to "give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the Charter". By Article 25, all members of the Organisation "agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council". Under Article 43, all members undertake to make available to the Security Council armed forces and other facilities necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

We are naturally anxious that Ireland should honour her obligations in this respect in the spirit as well as in the letter. The Charter provisions are obviously pertinent to the request now addressed to the Government of Ireland by the Secretary-General.

The question naturally arises why the Secretary-General should address his request to Ireland rather than to other members of the United Nations which, from many points of view, might seem better able to contribute to the United Nations force than ourselves. The answer is provided, I believe, by the special position we occupy in relation to world affairs and by the policies we have been able to pursue since we became a member of the United Nations in 1956. We have tried to deal with world problems and issues on their merits and to arrive at fair and impartial conclusions with regard to them, in the light of our obligations under the Charter and of our own national traditions and outlook. In deciding which countries to approach, the Secretary-General must naturally have had regard to the many difficulties in the present situation. I think it is wise to assume that the facts I have just mentioned were foremost in the mind of the Secretary-General when deciding to make his request to us.

It is obvious that, in the situation that exists in the Congo, the national troops constituting the United Nations Force must command the confidence of all the parties immediately concerned. The more they do so, the more successful they are likely to be in achieving their objective. It is a fair assumption that this, more than any other, is the consideration which has determined the composition of the United Nations force and influenced the Secretary-General's decision about whom to invite to participate.

This is a situation in which Ireland has an opportunity of contributing to the maintenance of peace and order under the Charter of the United Nations. The composition of the United Nations Force has yet to be finally determined. Four African states—Tunisia, Morocco, Ghana and Ethiopia—have already contributed contingents, and their troops are already in the Congo. Last week-end the Secretary-General invited five other States, three European—Ireland, Sweden and Yugoslavia—one Latin American—Haiti—and one Asian— Burma—to send troops. Sweden has already agreed. Besides the nine states I have mentioned, at least twenty countries are sending auxiliary services, transport and supplies. In other words the present endeavour is a great co-operative effort of the world community, and we hope it proves a valuaable precedent for the future.

The latest reports from the Congo suggest some improvement in the situation, but the difficulties facing the United Nations Force should not be minimised. The complexity of the local situation will be obvious from the press reports and, though we hope for an early solution, the future is still unpredictable. We all hope that the intervention of the United Nations will achieve its objective and that the Government of the Congo will be able to proceed with the tasks confronting it in conditions of internal peace and order. Deputies will realise that it would not be desirable, if that hope should be destroyed, that Ireland should appear to have failed to play its part.

I should like to make it quite clear that during its service in the Congo the Irish contingent will be under the orders of the Supreme Commander, General von Horn, who has been selected by the Secretary-General, under the authority given him by the Security Council. The contingent will be acting on behalf of the United Nations, subject to orders of the Supreme Commander and not to the orders of the Irish Government. It will be for the Supreme Commander, and not the Irish Government, to determine the day-to-day measures and dispositions necessary to achieve the purpose of the Force.

Members of the Dáil will wish to be clear, I am sure, as to what precisely the purpose of the Force is. As I have said, the situation in the Congo is one of extreme complexity. Apart from the breakdown of the national security forces in that country and the consequent lack of protection for lives and property, internal political dissensions which threaten the territorial integrity of the country have developed between different parts of the Congo. The question naturally arises of the role, if any, the United Nations Force is intended to play in these political difficulties. The answer to this question was made public yesterday in an interim report made by the Secretary-General to the Security Council. I shall quote the three relevant passages of this report. First, "the Force introduced is to be regarded as a temporary security Force present in the Republic of the Congo with the consent of the Government". The second quotation to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is as follows: "Although it may be considered as serving as an arm of the Government for the maintenance of order and protection of life —tasks which naturally belong to the national authorities and which will pass to such authorities as soon as, in the view of the Government, they are sufficiently firmly established—the force is necessarily under the exclusive command of the United Nations, vested in the Secretary-General under the control of the Security Council." The third quotation reads: "The authority granted to the United Nations force cannot be exercised within the Congo either in competition with representatives of the host Government or in co-operation with them in any joint operation. This naturally applies a fortiori to representatives and military units of other Governments than the host Government. Thus, the United Nations operations must be separate and distinct from activities by any national authority. Likewise, it follows from the rule that the United Nations units must not become parties in internal conflicts, that they cannot be used to enforce any specific political solution of pending problems or to influence the political balance decisive to such a solution.

In brief, the purpose of the United Nations Force in the Congo will be to act as an independent entity for the purpose of protecting lives and property wherever they are endangered in consequence of the inability of the Government of the Congo to ensure such protection from its own resources. The rôle of the United Nations Force will be limited to that task. It will have no role to play in any problem of a political nature in the Congo, existing or future.

The sending of Irish troops outside the limits of the State requires legislation by the Dáil. Foreseeing the possibilities that requests, such as the present, might be received, the Government have had legislation for this purpose under consideration for some time. It was proposed to ask the Oireachtas to pass a permanent Bill with a clause requiring approval of the Dáil by Resolution before it could be applied in any specific instance. The urgency of the present request from the Secretary-General has prompted the Government to seek the co-operation of the Dáil in the passage into law, for a limited period of six months, of the special temporary measure now before the House.

The permanent measure the Government has in mind will be introduced before the termination of the six-months period. The purpose of the present measure may be simply stated. Its purpose is to authorise the sending of contingents of the Permanent Defence Force outside the State for duties of a police character on behalf of the United Nations and, secondly, to provide in respect of such members of the Defence Forces as may volunteer for service overseas during the period of its operation the same statutory conditions of service as apply to members of the Defence Forces stationed at home.

I should like to make it clear that the intention is to recruit our contingent from existing members of the Defence Forces on a voluntary basis. Those who may join the Defence Forces during the validity of the present measure would accept the liability to overseas service, subject to the terms of the measure, as part of their conditions of service. We are relying for recruitment of the force on the necessary numbers of volunteers coming forward from the existing ranks of the Defence Forces. I have been informed by the Minister for Defence that the numbers who have already indicated their intention to volunteer is much more than adequate and there is no doubt that, on a volunteer basis, we should be able to provide a force which will do credit to the Army and to the country.

Two years ago we provided a force of 50 officers for service in the United Nations Observation Group in the Lebanon. All the reports I have received speak in the highest terms of the efficiency and the devotion to duty they displayed. Indeed, I might mention, as a matter of interest, that one of these Irish officers, Colonel Justin McCarthy, has just been appointed to replace General von Horn, now in the Congo, as Acting Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation in the Middle East. I have no doubt that the battalion we propose to provide in response to the present request from the Secretary-General will maintain the high standard set by our officers in the Middle East, that it will redound to the credit of the Irish Defence Forces and uphold our reputation as a loyal member of the United Nations.

We cannot follow the Taoiseach in his speculations as to why the Secretary-General called on YugoSlavia, Sweden and Ireland to assist in this situation. All we know is that he has done so and we accept that, as members of the United Nations, we must accede to that request of the Secretary-General. Accordingly, we shall facilitate the Government in the passage of this Bill to make that contribution by us to this joint force within the shortest possible time. We feel, however, that though the Taoiseach has been in a position to read out for us some extracts from the statement by the Secretary-General as to the functions of the proposed international force acting under General von Horn, of which our battalion will form a part, the Government has not only a right but a duty to seek from the Secretary-General a further clarification of the scope and the duration of this assignment in the Congo. I do not think it is unreasonable in the circumstances, with the House about to adjourn for the Summer Recess, that we should ask the Taoiseach to reassure us that he will keep us informed of any information that may reach him. Subject to these observations, we accept our liabilities as members of the United Nations, recalling that Deputy Cosgrave attended there first on behalf of the Irish Government, and we shall provide the Government with the facilities it seeks to pass this Bill today.

All of us regret the special necessity for a Bill of this kind but in view of what we know and in view of what the Taoiseach has said, there is no objection—I am sure there will be no objection from any part of the House—to the speedy passage of this measure. As the Taoiseach and Deputy Dillon said, we have an excellent record in international organisations and have always demonstrated that we are prepared to accept the responsibilities we accepted when we joined them. In view of the fact that we are members of the United Nations Organisation, and that we knew when applying for membership that such requests might be made to us, I think it only right that we should act in accordance with our responsibilities.

The Taoiseach has said, and it is widely accepted, that the reason for forces travelling from different countries to the Congo is the preservation of law and order, but I feel that there are not many in the country, or in this House, who have a full appreciation of what the situation in the Congo really is. Neither do I think that anybody in the country, the Taoiseach, nor anybody on any side of the House, would try to make it more obscure and confusing than it is, but one of my observations to the Taoiseach on this Bill would be to make sure that we are not involved too much. Our volunteers will be sent there in good faith by the Government, with the consent of this House, to police and patrol under the direction of a General appointed by the Security Council or by the Secretary of the United Nations. I would ask the Taoiseach to send someone there outside the Army, who would keep an eye on the situation to see that our volunteers are not involved in something in which they should not be involved.

Our volunteers, as I say, are going as a peace force to patrol and police, to try and ensure that there will be law and order, but we do not know whether in two weeks' time, or in two or three months' time, there may be a different situation. None of us can pretend to understand fully what colonialism has been in the Congo, and Africa generally, and cannot know what developments might take place in time to come. For that reason I think there should be some member of our Diplomatic Corps appointed— if there is someone there already it is all right—to act as liaison officer to see that we do not become too involved.

At all events, I applaud the idea of sending this volunteer force because the important thing is the preservation of peace in what has been known as the Belgian Congo, and possibly it is a contribution towards peace in the world. I do not know whether, in his long statement, the Taoiseach has stated the number of volunteers who will be sent. The newspapers have been speculating as to the number and their estimates have ranged from 500 and 600 up to 1,000. I should also like to ask if there is any period specified for this service? I do not know how intense this operation or manoeuvre will be, but I think there ought to be an understanding with the Security Council, or with General Von Horn, who is in charge, as to the period in which our volunteers will be, so to speak, on active service.

The provision in the Bill that members of this force should be volunteers is a good one, and it is gratifying to know that so many over and above the number required have volunteered for this particular type of service. I also think that the Taoiseach has the care of these volunteers uppermost in his mind. It is a grand gesture for us to say we are sending out 500 or 600 volunteers, but we must understand that when the operation ends— it may be in two weeks' time, a month's time or three months' time—we shall have questions in this House as to how they were treated and as to things that were not done for them. I believe we ought to satisfy our minds on these problems before we disperse today.

I think the Bill includes a provision that members of this Force, for the purposes of pay and pension, will still be regarded as members of the Defence Forces and that their pension rights will be safeguarded, but I do not know what the intention of the Minister for Defence is in this matter. Does he contemplate sending them out to-morrow, at the weekend, or in two weeks' time?

I know there are problems in trying to ensure that the officers and volunteers will not contract the diseases peculiar to that part of Africa. That is one of the little administrative details which, in the ordinary course of events, might be undertaken by the Army, but this is the first venture of the kind for this country. It is hundreds of years since an army sponsored by an Irish Government has gone overseas, and for that reason I should like to be satisfied that all these little personal matters in respect to personnel would be taken care of properly. These would be normal to Governments who control armies that usually go from one country to another, but I think we ought to be satisfied now in our minds about them, and I think the Taoiseach should make a statement to the effect that all necessary safeguards will be taken before our volunteers embark for the Belgian Congo.

In conclusion I should like to say, on my own behalf and that of my Party, that we wish these volunteers well. Their mission has been described, more or less, as a police patrol but we do not know how it will develop. The intention of the Security Council and of the forces of the various countries going to the Congo is to preserve law and order, but the preservation of law and order has not meant much to us beyond the Civic Guards. This will be a little more than that. There may be a conflict, there may be lives lost, and again I should like on my own behalf and that of my Party, to wish our volunteers well and that they will return home unscathed.

We, too, in this Party give our fullest support to the Taoiseach on this measure. We do that for two reasons, the first being that we know it was a very welcome day for Ireland when it was accepted as a member of the United Nations. It is all very well accepting something that is beneficial, but it is very nice to know we are all agreed on shouldering our responsibility, now that a small measure of it devolves upon us. The second reason is that I think this is a step to what some people regard as a dream, a world Parliament and a world police force. If the United Nations Organisation is properly backed up by its members I believe its influence will spread—perhaps not in the very near future—to prevent world conflicts, two of which have occurred in the lifetime of most of us.

One point I should like to mention to the Taoiseach is the possibility of disablement or death of any of these volunteers in the course of their duties. Is there any provision for that? Who bears the responsibility? Is it the country to which they go or is it our own country, and is there any fund to meet such a contingency? Deputy Corish mentioned that he would not like to see this force involved in anything other than police work and I feel we can trust the Commander-in-Chief under whose orders they will be to see that that will be so. The Bill clearly specifies they are to be a police force to help in establishing law and order without taking a part which might leave them in the position of being accused later of taking sides in politics out there. We welcome this move and give our full support to the Taoiseach in it.

There is just one point I should like to make. In recent months the F.C.A. have shown up tremendously well in direct competition with the Army. I should like if a unit of the F.C.A., a platoon or a company, might be considered for this type of service. They now train with the regular Army, although they are volunteers soldiers. I feel that on their showing in recent competitions it would be a great encouragement to that section of the Army if a unit were considered for overseas service.

To me and most Irish people the Congo is as remote as outer space. Nevertheless, it is a new nation. We have commitments to the United Nations which we must fulfil. However, there are a few points I want to raise. It has been suggested that this new force should be given the title of "The Casement Brigade". We all know that Casement came into public life originally because of his disclosures of the ill-treatment of natives of the Congo. I am sure that the title "The Casement Brigade" would appeal to the natives of the Congo and bring home to them the work of Irishmen, particularly that of Casement. It would, perhaps, give them protection and make for respect. The question of naming the force in honour of Casement should be seriously considered.

Our taking part in police work in the Congo could be a very serious matter. We do not know what the development will be. The Congo is a huge country, 1,500 miles in length and at least 1,000 miles in breadth, as long as from here to Vienna. There has been a secession of one party and there may be other troubles. We do not know. What exactly will be the duties of our Force? Will they be there to protect the lives and property of farmers or the lives and property of the natives? Supposing internal differences are aggravated and some sort of civil war breaks out—we hope it will not happen, but it is not impossible—would the fact that we were protecting the natives embroil us in trouble involving casualties?

It is my experience that human beings, whether few or many, do not change at all. Down deep they are all the same. It has been my personal experience that when people intervene in a family argument, even though they mean well, they are often lit upon by both sides. That is what we must keep in mind. Protecting the lives and property of foreigners is one thing. Those are the grounds on which the Belgians claimed they had a right to re-enter and those are the grounds on which the United Nations are now asking the Belgians to retire and allow outsiders with no past to come in. I know this is a matter for the United Nations, but it is a serious matter. We will be there merely to carry out police work at certain points. In a country as large as this the United Nations Force would be like a drop in the ocean. I presume it will be centred around towns and ports. In my opinion nine-tenths of that country is just as primitive to-day as it was 100 years ago.

If men wanted to back out of this Force and return home, could they do so? I know there will be no shortage of volunteers. I would have a go myself if I had not other responsibilities. In life there are only a few exciting periods in which, whether there is a risk or not, you take a chance. Priority should be given to single men and men who know French. Those are administrative matters. We ought to consider this question of giving the Force a name and we should be very careful about what is involved.

If the Government feel that the Irish troops are being used, or attempted to be used, for a purpose other than that for which they were sent out, have the Government the right to withdraw this Force? I think we are perfectly right in acting up to our responsibilities as a member of the United Nations. It would be disastrous to leave things as they are.

When this country applied for membership of the United Nations and was accepted, we signed a Charter and accepted certain commitments to be carried out on request by the United Nations. As the Taoiseach said, this Government wish to honour their obligations under the U.N. Charter. I believe the majority of the members of this House are anxious to honour their obligations, but I must confess to a feeling of amazement when I hear this Government worrying about keeping their word in regard to this Charter. Only three years ago this very Government, members of which played an active part in preparing the Charter of Human Rights, was the very first Government in Europe to flout the terms of that Charter——

That does not arise on the Bill.

It is not true either.

——by interning men without trial.

That matter is not relevant to the Bill before the House.

It is. You seem to be gifted with second sight or the gift of being able to foresee the future. I thought that was not one of your functions—that you could know what I was going to say next.

The Chair has heard what the Deputy has to say.

I merely referred to the anxiety displayed by the Government in regard to honouring their obligations when this same Government were the first Government in Europe to flout their obligations as far as the Charter of Human Rights was concerned.

I have told the Deputy that that matter is not relevant.

That is all I have to say about it. This House is rightly going to honour its obligations in this regard once the request was made by the Secretary-General of U.N.O. However, we would want to be a lot clearer in our minds as to the task which lies ahead of this Irish contingent. I doubt very much if the Government, in their exuberance and flamboyancy, have given full consideration to the implications of this decision.

I want to refer now to the comments of the Taoiseach with regard to his version of what has led up to this situation in the Congo at the moment. He pointed out that the date on which independence was conferred on the Congo was the 1st July, 1960, but he gave far too brief a description of what led up to it. I should like to quote from a statement made in this House by Deputy Gerald Boland on 4th July, 1956, in reference to the Congo and other such states in his contribution to the debate on External Affairs. He said:

These people in Western Europe have been exploiting the people of Africa for centuries. Western Europe has been enriched by loot extracted from Africa by Britain and other countries of Western Europe. That has got to stop.

He went on to say:

If these people continue to act like that they will have the whole of Africa and Asia against the Western States.

The reason I quote that statement is that I congratulated Deputy Boland on it when he made it. His statement was a prophecy and he was quite correct. It would appear that the Belgian Government decided, quite recently, to give independence to the Congo. We know that in January, 1959, the King of Belgium and the Belgian Government decided on independence for the Congo and we know that the date of that independence was July, 1960.

It is admitted by the Belgian Government that between January, 1959, and July, 1960, nothing whatever was done by them to prepare the way for freedom. I am satisfied, and I think there is no denying it, that not one responsible African was put alongside a Belgian to be trained for any function of Government or administration. Nothing of importance was handed over by the Belgian Government or the Congo companies to the Congolese. The Congo is as large as Europe and in that entire vast State there are only 16 University graduates of Congolese extraction; there are only 12 senior civil servants of Congolese extraction. Not one police or one army officer, since the Congo has been in the possession of Belgium, has been a Congolese.

Despite the fact that 18 months elapsed from the time it was decided to grant independence to the Congo and the actual date of independence, no steps were taken to train any officer of Congolese nationality for the army or police force. Is it not startling to find that a nation such as Belgium has deliberately brought about this position of chaos in a newly born state? We must remember that big business has a lot to do with the troubles in the Congo at the moment. The Congo companies have a history that goes very far back and that is anything but good. It is a history that has a close connection with Ireland inasmuch as it was an Irishman who exposed the atrocities of these people, people whom we are now sending our troops to protect.

I think all Ireland has deep sympathy with the women and children who have been caught up in this turmoil. Everything possible must be done to protect these women and children but I have grave doubts if it is the function of an Irish battalion to move into the Congo to protect Belgian property. That is what I want the Taoiseach to clarify. Is the function of the Irish contingent which we propose to send out to be of a police nature? Whom are they to protect? Are they going as friends of the Congolese or as neutrals? We have got no clarification of those questions from the Taoiseach this evening. We are very anxious to beat the drum and make a big show. We are very anxious to jump into the bog and then, when we are in it up to our knees, we start wondering how we are to get out.

I hope the Taoiseach will clarify those matters because we have the situation now that a very important province, Katanga, has declared its independence of the Congo and the Premier of that part of the country has stated that under no circumstances will he have anything to do with the remainder of the country. That is one of the wealthiest portions of the Congo and it is a place where the Congo companies also have their finger in the pie. Which does the Irish contingent fight for if there is trouble between the Katanga Province and the Congo itself?

When we let our contingent go they will come immediately under the control of the General of the United Nations and we shall have no further say with regard to their use. I think we shall require much more knowledge of how they are to be used if disturbance arises between the Congo Government and the Katanga Government. It would be a tragedy if the good name of Ireland were to be misrepresented in this matter. If we are to act as neutrals in this matter we may bring the fire of both sides on us. There should be no doubt that our sympathies are with the Congolese and I believe it is they who need protection and help.

The Taoiseach has referred to the fact that the Government have been considering permanent legislation which would enable them to send our permanent Defence Forces outside the State. I am sure that comes as news to many Deputies. I am rather disturbed at hearing the Taoiseach say that this measure, which is only a temporary one, will be replaced, possibly, before the six months elapse, by permanent legislation. Is it envisaged, on that basis, that this contingent of 500 or 600 may be in the Congo for the next 12 months or two years? Is that his feeling when he suggests that this permanent legislation will come in before the temporary legislation lapses? That is the impression I get—that their stay will be very prolonged. On the question of personnel, I have talked with a number of officers and they are straining at the leash. Practically the entire Army, as far as I can see, has volunteered for service. That is a very healthy sign of the young men in the Army. It also pinpoints the fact that they are all anxious to get away from the sheer boredom of the barrack square, the drill room and manoeuvres in the country. We should consider at this stage how many men we can afford to send—and not in terms of finance. The Minister for Defence is in the House and I am sure he is in a position to give the strength of the Army. My information, over a number of years, is that the Army is short of troops to carry out the normal functions of a peacetime Army, fatigue duties, protection work, maintenance of barracks and, at the same time, to keep the field companies up to a certain strength. While we have been short of troops all along we have never been short of officers. My recollection is that for every five or six men in the Army we have an officer.

Surely these are points that would be relevant on the Estimate for the Department of Defence?

No, Sir. This is a very important matter for the troops left behind and for the public who want to see the Army getting fair play.

The Bill deals with the despatch of a contingent and there is no reference to the number left behind.

I appreciate that; it would be rather peculiar if there was reference in the Bill to the number left behind. I think on the Second Reading, I may, with your kind permission, assume that it is my privilege to deal with what is not in the Bill.

The Chair is ruling that the references made by the Deputy would be relevant on the Estimate for the Department of Defence rather than on this Bill.

I am afraid that in dealing with this matter it would be a little late to raise it when the Defence Estimate comes up next year. If we are to send a battalion to the Congo we must consider the increased duties that will be imposed on the troops left behind. Deputy Noel Lemass made a suggestion, with which I do not agree, that a contingent of the F.C.A. should be sent with the Army to the Congo. Instead, immedate steps should be taken by the Minister to bring in the F.C.A. on permanent service to replace the existing personnel who will be going abroad. It is absolutely essential to do that because of the burden that will be placed on the unfortunate troops remaining behind.

I should like the Taoiseach to elaborate on this very important point made, I think, by Deputy Russell and other Deputies—what exactly are the functions that our contingent will be expected to perform in the Congo? How can we have some say or control over that contingent in the event of its being used for purposes that this House did not envisage when permission was being given to send them abroad?

I wish to reinforce some of the points made by other Deputies. I am very glad that this procedure has to be adopted under the Constitution by which the Government must come to the Dáil before allowing troops to go abroad for service. I am with Deputy McQuillan in that I should like to hear more from the Taoiseach. Would the Taoiseach expand the reference he made to the introduction of permanent legislation to allow the sending of troops abroad as a matter of course? Does he mean that he wants to take away from us the Constitutional right which we appear to have at present of considering the circumstances of each occasion on which it is likely that troops may be sent from Ireland to take part in police or other operations?

I believe this is an ideal procedure and I hope it is not the intention of the Government to depart from it or depart from the principle that our soldiers or service men should not have to take part in an operation of any kind abroad other than one sanctioned by Dáil Eireann. With an inspiration lacking in so many other organisations at the formation of the State, our forces were well named "Defence Forces." For that reason I think they should retain that overall implication that they should not be used as forces for offensive action. I hope power will not be taken from the Dáil to decide each issue as it arises. I could envisage a Government coming into power here which might have quite different views from those of the present Government on political or military matters generally and if this power were taken away from the Dáil it might be vested in a Government or in a Minister of a Government in such a way as to allow them to act without the consent of the Dáil and embroil us in obligations of a nature which might not be in accordance with the wishes of the people.

Taking the present context of international political and world affairs generally into account, I think it would be a most dangerous development and I sincerely hope that it is not one that the Taoiseach has in mind. Probably the Taoiseach is aware that this is a desperately serious situation and serious, it seems to me, at any rate not only from the complications which he envisages in the quotations he gave from the U.N. Secretary General's report regarding the likelihood of the development of internal political troubles in the Congo, the resolution of which we cannot begin to guess at—particularly with our own rather bitter experience of such problems.

It also seems to me that there is the very much greater problem in the Congo at the moment that concerns the very delicate and dangerous relations existing between East and West in relation to the Congo. I am rather concerned about both aspects of this affair at present. Broadly, we are glad to see—personally, I am delighted to see—pictures of the white people fleeing from Africa. I am glad I have lived to see that day. It is about time that they got out. It is their own fault that they waited to be hunted out.

I want to re-emphasise that, as far as I am concerned, any soldiers of ours going out there should go out completely dedicated to the principle that they are sent to these countries to preserve the rights of the natives in those countries, the African people, and we do not give two damns for the Belgian interests except on the humanitarian grounds of the women and children, as mentioned by Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Sherwin; nor are we concerned with the preservation of the rights of any of the financial interests concerned in the exploitation, the rape and loot of the Congo which has gone on for 100 years and more by the mining corporations and the great financial houses, or the invested capital of the various countries, as well as the Belgians; that we are not interested in preserving that kind of property or the rights of that kind of property; that we are, if anything, simply concerned with the transfer of all those rights to their rightful owners, the people of the Congo, and that we shall not be used or allow ourselves to be used or allow our troops to be used as a pawn in the game that is going on at the present time with the great financial interests concerned with the attempted forcible secession of the Katanga Province which is of such vital interest to the whole future prosperity, security and social and political welfare of the whole of the Congo.

I do not know to what extent the Taoiseach or the Government can preserve this attitude in regard to the whole of the Congo with our tiny force sent forward now under the control of a soldier over whom we have not any control but I think that we are facing a very dangerous situation. I think that the suggestion made by Deputy Corish is a good one, that there must be some political liaison officer, a diplomat, sent with our soldiers so that they will be in a position to try to assess this terribly complicated internal problem which is likely to result from the proposed secession of Katanga from the rest of the Congo. Obviously without any bitterness or any attempt to revive bitterness, I would ask Deputies here who were so deeply involved in the instance of our own country only 40 years ago, to think of a united force coming over here and attempting to mediate between the different factions at that time, those in the North-East and those down here, regrettably divided as they were at the time and to think then of asking that force to carry out police action on behalf of the Government. Which Government? To whom would such a force have owed loyalty at that time—the people in the North, or which side in the civil war?

It must be clear to all of us that these soldiers are going into an extremely difficult situation and I do not think it is quite fair to allow them to do so with their limited military knowledge—of an extremely high level, no doubt, and they are extremely competent, no doubt; but they are in no way equipped or educated to deal with the likely situation which could arise, as Deputy Sherwin suggested, should a civil war develop over the question of the right of Katanga to secede.

We know the consequences of the secession of our own very important industrial arm 30 to 40 years ago. Quite clearly, it is the device of the Belgians to attempt to create a similar situation in the Congo. What are our soldiers going to do placed in a situation of that kind? What will be our position should the colonial or the settler element in the Security Council preponderate in the deliberations as to the action to be taken in relation to the Congo, whether Katanga should be permitted to secede or not, and in that way completely castrate the whole freedom movement in the Congo if they were permitted to do so? What action are we to take if the Security Council and the General appointed to control our forces decide that this secession would be tolerated or permitted? Should the settler influence in the Security Council dominate, are we to go along with them? Are we to feel that whatever obligations we have to the United Nations do not permit us to withdraw our forces in that event? I should like to join with Deputy Russell in asking the Taoiseach to please answer that question. Could a situation arise in which we would have to withdraw our forces? If a question of this kind arose in the Security Council and a Russian veto were imposed, which side do we take? Are we to allow the attitude which has been prevalent over such a long time in relation to Russia, that anything Russia does is wrong, to dominate our decision should we be faced with a problem arising out of the Katanga position? Will the Government be prepared to act with Russia should the occasion arise and will they be prepared to withdraw our force rather than allow ourselves to become the tool or the instrument of the financial interests concerned in preserving their illgotten, misbegotten, evilly begotten rights in the Katanga Province?

There is a second issue involved here also. I have always felt that one of the difficulties in talking about foreign affairs in the Dáil is that one always talks in the shadow of the Skibbereen Eagle; one feels one has no right to comment on things which concern large Powers, that one can be tossed aside as a small nation without being allowed any say. For the first time, that is no longer so. Because of our special position, we have now whether we like it or not, to play a part in world affairs and the colonial countries such as America, Britain, France and Russia have been excluded from taking an active part in the sending of forces abroad. That still leaves us with the fact that there is a great global struggle which is to a certain extent between the East and West, between Russia and America, which is to a certain extent now being centred on this struggle in the Congo.

I am completely ignorant of the finer points involved except to know broadly, as the Taoiseach said, from Press reports, that such a struggle is taking place. It is very important that we should continue to maintain our position of neutrality in this struggle and that, in this present dangerous situation, we do not allow ourselves to be drawn into one or other side by any mistaken act on the part of this force which we are sending to the Congo. For that reason, again, it is imperative that the Taoiseach should seriously consider sending out some form of political diplomatic liaison officer who will be in a position to keep him informed of every internal matter to which he referred but also to these other matters which are referred to in the public Press at the present time, that is, the struggle between Russia and America as it relates to the Congo.

I saw recently, putting it more particularly, the fact that Russia has objected to 20 American troops being in Leopoldville. The fact that this proposal to send the security force to the Congo was passed without a veto is an advance for the United Nations. I welcome the decision that such a force should be sent and I wish it well. However, there has been this nominal or superficial goodwill, or whatever you like to call it but it is very effective goodwill, leading towards the general idea that this colonial Power should be hunted out of the Congo and that it should be replaced by a Government native to the country. Are we to any extent exacerbating the difficult feelings that exist between the Americans and the Russians on this issue? Are we likely to lend ourselves in any way to such exacerbation?

Arising out of that, I should like to ask the Taoiseach if there is any truth in the suggestion that our troops are to travel in American Globemaster aeroplanes. It may be a very insignificant aspect of the whole matter but I was surprised to see that the Russians objected to the presence of just 20 American soldiers in Leopoldville. I have no doubt that the Americans would object to 20 Russian soldiers there. If it is true that our troops are to be transported in American aircraft would the Taoiseach not consider the advisability of transporting them in our own aircraft? That may not be possible but there must be an alternative to transporting them in American aircraft, say, Swedish aircraft or aircraft of some other nation which might not be involved in this great global struggle that would enable us to keep far away from these two great poles of power and dissension as the Minister for External Affairs has done so creditably over the months in the United Nations. We should maintain that stand as far as we can in future.

I have a feeling of the greatest perturbation about the sending forward of these troops but I do not think we have any alternative. Going on their record in the Middle East, I am certain they will be a great credit to our country but I should like to be certain that they will not inadvertently, through no fault of their own or through some failure on our part, stumble into some dilemma or some crisis which we can prevent arising by equipping them properly with political or diplomatic advisers, advisers who will be able to steer them on the proper paths. These are our own people and we have the right to protect them in a very dangerous situation.

I should like to ask the Taoiseach, although I know it is an unpredictable situation, if he has taken every possible precaution to preserve, first of all, our position of absolute sympathy with, and our anxiety, for the emergent people of the African Continent, and to preserve our right to debate in the Dáil each issue for the sending of troops abroad as it arises. Whether it is in Africa or in Europe there are situations in which many of us would most vehemently and strongly protest against the sending out of our forces on a side of which we do not approve. We should reserve that right to the House to debate these issues on each and every occasion so that we will be in a position to consider the advisability of withdrawal in certain circumstances and so that our non-involvement in the East-West conflict will be preserved at all costs.

Deputy Dillon and Deputy Corish asked some very proper questions regarding the functions of the United Nations Force in the Congo and the probable duration of the period in which it will be necessary to keep it there. It appears to be necessary to restate that the United Nations Force is going into the Congo at the urgent request of the Government of the Congo. That fact, I think, answers very many of the questions which Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Browne have asked.

What is the Government of the Katanga Province at the moment?

We have agreed to send a contingent to join that United Nations Force in the Congo on the clear understanding that the function of the force there will be, as has been stated by the Security Council of the United Nations and the Secretary General, solely to protect life and property and to preserve order, and that it will not be used in any circumstances for the resolution of any political problems arising in the Congo. Deputy Russell's question can, of course, be answered in the affirmative. It is, I suppose, inconceivable that the United Nations would propose to use the force in the Congo for any purpose other than those I have stated but if it should happen we would, of course, be free to withdraw our contingent without delay.

As regards the duration of operations, the time in which it may be necessary to keep a United Nations Force in the Congo or an Irish contingent in the force, it is difficult to give a precise answer. We have asked of the Secretary General of the United Nations for his estimate of the probable duration of the period in which a United Nations Force in the Congo will be required. The understanding is that the United Nations Force which went there at the request of the Government of the Congo will stay there for so long as the Government of the Congo think it necessary to have it there for the preservation of order. The Secretary-General of the United Nations did not feel that he should attempt to forecast how long that may be.

Apart altogether from the question as to how long it may be regarded as necessary by the Government of the Congo to retain the United Nations Force there, it would clearly not be practicable for us to undertake to keep our unit with the force for a protracted period. We understand that the Swedish Government have indicated that their contingent would stay there for one month subject to reconsideration of their decision to have a contingent with the force at the end of that period. It is clear that the Government of Sweden is holding itself free to reconsider its decision as circumstances develop. If any circumstances should arise which would prompt the Government of Sweden to withdraw its contingent from the United Nations Force in the Congo, it is a fair assumption that the very same circumstances would cause us to take a similar decision.

We can express the hope that the need for the retention of the force in the Congo will be for only a very short period. Deputy Corish said rightly that none of us is sufficiently informed about the situation to make a proper appreciation of it. That is, of course, perfectly correct but I do not think we should regard ourselves as being under any obligation to make that appreciation. Literally, the position is that the United Nations Organisation has decided to meet the request of the Government of the Congo to send this contingent for as long as the Government of the Congo thinks necessary, and as loyal members of the United Nations we are co-operating in that decision of the Security Council in the manner they have requested.

It is estimated that the force will consist of approximately 650 men in all, including officers and N.C.O.s, medical personnel and other necessary units of one kind or another. The force will consist entirely of members of the permanent Army. It is quite impracticable to utilise for this purpose members of the Volunteer Forces. The force will be transported to the Congo in planes provided by the United Nations for that purpose. It is hoped and expected that the contingent will move out on Wednesday next.

Deputy Blowick asked about responsibility for payment of compensation in the case of soldiers who may suffer injury or illness. As far as compensation is concerned, the Irish Government will take care of it in the first instance but will present claims later to the United Nations for recoupment. As far as members of the force are concerned, they are guaranteed by the Irish Government compensation in accordance with the Army Acts. It must be remembered that our Army Acts do not provide for compensation in respect of death or disability due to illness. That is because it is assumed that the circumstances under which soldiers serve here do not warrant a provision of that kind. We contemplate in this instance, however, that the amendment of these Army Pensions Acts will be necessary to provide that soldiers serving in such a force will be entitled to compensation for death or disability due to illness contracted on service. The necessary legislation for that purpose will be introduced in the autumn session and the soldiers concerned are being made aware of the intention to enact such legislation.

Will it be retrospective?

Yes. Of course, it will apply only to service in such a force as this. The Irish Battalion will be accompanied by Army chaplains, medical personnel and welfare officers who will supervise the conditions and look after the welfare of the men while serving in the Congo. Finally, I think I can say that I shall endeavour to keep the leaders of Parties informed of any developments that may take place in relation to the situation in the Congo during the Dáil Recess. I can give an assurance that the situation will receive the continued attention of the Government so that if any decisions are required they can be taken with the fullest possible knowledge of the prevailing circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.
Bill considered in Committee.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill".

Is the Minister in a position to give us information as to what proportion of officers to men will go?

The total will be 650 of whom 43 will be officers.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill".

I understood the Taoiseach to say it was contemplated that the force would leave on Wednesday next. If that objective is realised, I think the House would wish to express its admiration of the state of preparedness in which the Army and the General Staff find themselves so as to be able to provide troops for such a mission at so short a notice. However, I think the House would like an assurance that, in this short time, it will be possible to take all the necessary prophylactic measures to ensure the safety of the troops in a tropical climate. I would be glad of an assurance that this aspect has been considered. I should also like to know whether, in the circumstances, it has been possible for the Quartermaster General to reassure the Minister that the special equipment required for service in that climate has been made available to the troops.

With regard to the prophylactic measures, it is expected the troops can be assembled together by tomorrow night and that they can be inoculated with the assistance of civilian doctors on Friday. Then they must wait four days for vaccination so they should be ready to go on Wednesday if the transport is available at that time. With regard to the special equipment, the required tropical uniforms will be available, on arrival, from the United Nations. Everything else that is necessary will also be available on arrival.

Will this force be confined to single men or are married men being included?

In so far as possible, it will be confined to single men but married men have volunteered also.

With the consent of their wives?

The question of the consent of the wives comes into this.

It does not.

They may want to have a say.

Are we to assume that the only commitment of the Department of Defence is for the pay of the soldiers—that the equipment and the tropical uniforms will be supplied by the United Nations?

The uniform, yes, but they will bring their own equipment. Any extras will be supplied by the United Nations.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share