The Taoiseach in his opening statement suggested that the position in the Congo has in some way been saved from being very much more serious than it is by virtue of the fact that the United Nations forces intervened. I wonder if the Taoiseach is really serious about this suggestion? Let us see what is the present position in the Congo of which the Taoiseach is so proud. As Leader of the Government he is responsible for the part our contingent has played there. He has been a silent partner, especially since July, in the activities of that contingent. The Taoiseach has sat silent while the Parliament in the Congo has been repudiated. The Taoiseach and the Government have sat silent while the Premier in the Congo has been deposed.
Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1960—Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Surely that is a matter that cannot be debated on the Bill before the House?
The Taoiseach made the point that the position in the Congo is better now because of the intervention of the U.N. forces. He made that part of his argument for sending out another force.
And the Deputy has repeated that statement on at least three occasions.
The Chair will find I did not repeat that statement. I am now summarising the position for Deputies.
The Deputy may not go over the whole ground again.
Surely I can summarise my arguments in the best possible way I can in spite of the continued intervention of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, which makes it impossible for me to make any coherent argument?
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is endeavouring to keep the Deputy in order. That is the duty of the Chair.
I am expanding on the Taoiseach's statement that the position in the Congo has benefited by the intervention of the U.N. contingent.
And the Chair is pointing out to the Deputy that he has already said that on two or three occasions and that repetition is not in order.
The present position is that civil war is imminent in the Congo, that there is a military dictator, Mr. Mobuto, in complete control, and that Mr. Kasavubu has no effective control whatsoever.
This has nothing to do with the Bill. The Deputy might try and relate some of his remarks to the Bill. If the Deputy does not do so, I will ask him to resume his seat.
The Taoiseach seems to be satisfied with the fact that, in his view, the situation could have been very much worse if the U.N. forces had not gone out.
The Deputy said that on four occasions.
Surely the Taoiseach ought examine the possibilities of the situation if the U.N. contingent had been properly handled in the Congo? Surely it was incumbent on the Government, throughout the period that the U.N. contingent has been in the Congo since July, to examine and analyse the political situation as it changed from time to time, and make their views clearly understood in the United Nations that we felt that the U.N. contingent, and certainly our part of it, was not being effectively used?
I see now that it is being suggested in the United Nations that the present Commander of the force. General van Horn, should be displaced in view of the imminence of civil war and that his place should be taken by a man with more personal detailed knowledge of jungle or bush warfare. I wonder if the Taoiseach has considered the implications of that situation? What experience of bush or jungle warfare have our unfortunate men? They are very highly skilled in their own particular form of conventional warfare which they expected they would meet when joining the Defence Forces and presumably fighting in their own country. In view of the possibility that civil war will break out and that troops with special knowledge of jungle and bush warfare will be required, surely it is very questionable that we should seriously consider sending a further contingent of our troops into the Congo in a virtually untrained condition, untrained in that particular type of jungle warfare?
Debate adjourned.