asked the Minister for External Affairs the relevant article of the Congolese Constitution under which it is alleged that Mr. Kasavubu is empowered to depose Mr. Lumumba, the elected head of the Central Government of the Congo.
23.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Congolese Constitution.
22.
asked the Minister for External Affairs whether the Government accept the interpretation placed on the relevant article of the Congolese Constitution by those powers responsible for seating Mr. Kasavubu or his nominee as Congolese representative at the U.N.O. in place of Mr. Lumumba or his nominee.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 22 and 23 together.
I understand that the action by Mr. Kasavubu to which the Deputy refers was taken under Articles 17 and 22 of the "Fundamental Law relating to the Structure of the Congo" which is regarded as governing these matters pending the enactment of a Constitution.
I would not consider it proper for the Government to express an opinion on the interpretation placed on the relevant provisions of the Congolese "Fundamental Law" by those powers which voted in favour of Mr. Kasavubu and the delegation nominated by him being accepted to represent the Congo in the United Nations. I might point out, however, that the vote in the General Assembly which the Deputy appears to have in mind did not bear on a choice between Mr. Kasavubu and Mr. Lumumba but on the Report of the Credentials Committee, which, by a majority, recommended acceptance of Mr. Kasavubu's delegation.
Surely, if the Taoiseach is quite satisfied that Mr. Kasavubu is the rightful person to seat himself or nominate someone to seat himself as his delegate in the United Nations, he should be quite satisfied to support his nomination?
As the Deputy is well aware, the Irish delegation at the U.N. Assembly considered that the question of seating any delegations from the Congo should be adjourned pending a report from the conciliation committee which it was proposed to send to the Congo. Because that was our view we abstained from voting on the motion to seat Mr. Kasavubu's delegates, but the United Nations have now taken a decision and, as far as we are concerned, that is that.
Is it not a fact that Mr. Lumumba was deposed by a decision by Mr. Kasavubu and this order, which was countersigned by the new nominee, Mr. Kasavubu, had not been ratified by the Congolese Parliament and was consequently an invalid order?
That is an entirely separate question.
It is a matter upon which I do not propose to comment.
Surely it is a matter of supreme importance as to whether the Taoiseach and the Government are prepared to support a military dictatorship in the Congo?
(Interruptions.)