Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 13 Dec 1960

Vol. 185 No. 7

Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1960—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. McQuillan

Before the House adjourned last week I was dealing with the implication of Section 2 (2) (c). This is the most important part of the measure. I should like Deputies to hear my interpretation of what powers the Government are likely to have if this provision is allowed to remain in the Bill. The paragraph in question reads:

The contingent is intended to replace, in whole or in part, or reinforce a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force serving outside the State as part of that International United Nations Force and consisting of more than twelve members of the Permanent Defence Force.

This Bill is designed to embody permanent legislation. If it is enacted in its present form, the Government may at any time—if there is a demand for our troops to take part in any United Nations affair—come to this House and have a Resolution passed empowering them to despatch 12 members of the Defence Forces. They must first come to the House for the Resolution to get 12 members of the Defence Forces but if, the following week, the Government want to reinforce that number by 1,000 men they will be entitled to do so without coming to this House. They are further entitled, without coming near this House, to leave that Force abroad for any period they wish or feel that Force is necessary.

Deputies may have been misled by the subsection when they read it or heard the Taoiseach's opening statement as reported at Column 775 of the Official Report of Wednesday, 7th December, 1960. He said:

I indicated that 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 given effect in any specific instance. The Bill before us is of this character.

The Bill is not of this character. It will entitle the Government, once the Resolution is passed, to send any number of troops they like to the Congo. If the Bill is enacted in its present form the Government will be entitled to send any number they like to reinforce the existing numbers in the Congo. Next January, they may send 600 men, if they wish. In March, they may send another 600 men, if they wish. In May, they may send the rest of the Army, if they wish, but they need not come back at any stage to this House to seek authority on any of those occasions. That is a most serious situation to allow. Paragraph (c) which I mentioned makes nonsense of the statement by the Taoiseach that a resolution of this House would be necessary whenever a decision was being taken to send forces abroad.

This House, is entitled to have a discussion on the merits or otherwise of sending troops abroad. If this measure passes into law, it will mean that next June if the Government decide to replace a battalion in the Congo with another battalion, this House will not be asked to comment on or approve of their action. The country will not know anything about it, except that the Government have made a decision. We shall have allowed the matter to have passed from our hands by this legislation. I shall make it quite clear that Deputy Dr. Browne and I are opposing paragraph (c) of subsection (2). We believe it is not the wish of this House or of the country that the Government should have the power on any occasion they wish to send any number of our troops abroad without consulting this House.

The Taoiseach in his opening remarks also referred to the position with regard to length of service and as reported at column 780, said:—

It will be understood, however, that, as in the case of the first contingent, the period during which the new battalion will be available in the Congo will not exceed six months.

I do not know where in this Bill there is anything in writing to say that the service of any contingent abroad will be not more than six months, or three months, or 12 months. It is not in the Bill. Prior to its becoming legislation a period should be fixed and prior to that period elapsing, the House would then have an opportunity of discussing the situation and of saying whether, in our opinion, further contingents should be sent to a particular locality.

I should like to refer briefly to our manpower in the Congo. Two battalions have been sent and I think the combined strength of the units is over 1,200 men. Our normal peace-time Army is supposed to be in the region of 12,000 men and at no time in the past 15 years, have we had what we had hoped to have—a normal peace-time Army of 12,000. The Army has always been around 8,000 to 9,000 in number and we have over 1,200 men out of that small Army in the Congo. It is estimated in military terms that to keep one soldier in the field at least seven other men are required. Out of our entire Army, we have not at any time more than what I would call one full strength battalion, with all the necessary attachments in the line of cavalry and artillery units and so forth. That is all we could afford to put into the field and the rest of the troops would be in the back lines engaged in various other duties.

We should consider very seriously whether we are straining our resources here at home and whether we are being fair to the units which are being left at home, if we decide to send a certain number abroad. I think we should not set out to compete with nations who have Armies 10, 15 and 20 times the size of our Army. Let me say that on a percentage basis, we have contributed more troops than any other nation to the Congo. On a percentage basis, not perhaps in actual numbers, of our total Defence Forces, we have made a bigger contribution than any other nation. That is a point that should be considered not alone in regard to that aspect but in regard to the welfare and the conditions of our troops at home. That should be taken into consideration as well.

There is another point I wish to make. I do not know if it has been thought about or discussed very much here, but I may tell the Minister for Defence that I discussed it with a number of Army officers. Perhaps I am lucky enough to be in closer touch with men who would be on the active end of the picture than the Minister. It is on that basis that I propose to make these remarks. What I have to say is in no way intended as criticism of our troops, but it is a well-known fact that our troops have no training whatever in bush or jungle warfare and even as far as police work is concerned. While it could be argued, and fairly argued, that there was no time to give the first contingent a reasonable period of training in relation to conditions existing in the Congo, there was no excuse whatever over the past six months for not giving proper advice or training to what may be replacements in the Congo.

It was suggested to me that the advice of some specialists who have experienced such conditions in other Armies should have been sought and, if necessary, they should have been brought here to give the full benefit of their advice to our young men who might be going abroad. It is a well-known fact that the type of training given in our Army is related to completely different conditions from those which the men were likely to encounter. There is no question about that. Any Deputy who has been a member of the Defence Forces knows that that is true. That is not a criticism of the Army, but it is meant to be criticism of responsible authorities who have not taken the necessary steps to give the proper advice and training in preparation for any decision to send troops abroad. It is even alleged abroad that the Supreme Commander of the United Nations Forces is completely unfamiliar with the conditions likely to be met in the Congo.

Mr. Booth

Does that arise on the Bill before the House at the moment? It appears to me to be a criticism of the operations going on at present, rather than a criticism of the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

I did not feel that it was a criticism of what is going on. The Deputy was referring to the preparations necessary when an Army is going abroad, to the training they should receive and which he says the Army is not receiving.

Mr. McQuillan

I fail to see what is disturbing "General" Booth. I want to make it quite clear that I have information direct from the Congo about the lack of training and lack of organisation that has obtained with regard to our troops. It is beyond dispute that small contingents of our troops have been sent out for periods of 10 days on patrol. It is unknown in any Army for those patrols——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is now departing from what he was discussing.

Mr. Booth

Exactly.

Mr. McQuillan

I want to state the facts so that we will be in a position to warn the authorities as to how our troops should be dealt with and protected.

An Ceann Comhairle

I did not object to that, but I do not think the Deputy should proceed to discuss what he describes as the operations in the Congo.

Mr. McQuillan

In other words, we are to pass a Bill here which has no provision in relation to the safety of the troops.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair did not say that at all. The Chair allowed the Deputy to proceed on those lines but he is now departing from them.

Mr. McQuillan

Am I not entitled, like other Deputies, to suggest that if our troops are sent out on patrol work in the Congo in future they should not be sent long distances away from their main body, and that wireless communication should be made available to each patrol? It is beyond dispute that small patrols consisting of 10 or 11 men have been sent distances of 40 or 50 miles from their headquarters.

An Ceann Comhairle

That, surely, is a criticism of administration activities.

Mr. Booth

Is the Deputy trying to get thrown out of the House?

Mr. McQuillan

I have no intention of disobeying the rulings of the Chair.

Dr. Browne

It is nice to see Deputy Booth at last taking an interest in his Parliamentary duties —"General" Booth.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy McQuillan should be allowed to make his statement.

Dr. Browne

I have not seen Deputy Booth here since the beginning of the session.

Mr. Booth

You have not been here.

Dr. Browne

That is what you think.

Mr. Booth

I was not here while you were speaking.

Mr. McQuillan

The question of volunteering arises under Section 3 of the Bill. I do not think the members of the Defence Forces themselves are satisfied with the volunteering arrangements. Some officers volunteered for duty in the Congo in the past because they felt it was their duty to do so and the same applied to the soldiers, but I know for a fact that a number of officers volunteered because they felt that, apart from feeling it to be their duty, if they did not do so, it could possibly have a reaction afterwards on their promotion prospects in the Army at home. I know that very little discretion was used in some instances in the selection of some of the officers.

If the Minister has time to have another look at paragraph (b) of Section 3, he might agree to an amendment. The subsection reads:

Where a member of the Permanent Defence Force (not being a member of the Permanent Defence Force specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection) has offered in writing, whether before or on or after the date of the passing of this Act, to render himself liable for external service during a specified period...

What has happened up to the moment with regard to volunteering should not be taken into consideration when this Bill becomes law. It is only when the measure becomes law that the question of volunteering in writing should be considered. I know there is a difficulty with regard to the fact that a number of men in the Army did not at any time contemplate that they would have to do active service abroad and I am sure members of the House did not contemplate it, either. On that basis, it would be unfair to enact legislation which would mean that these individuals could be ordered on active service.

What I want to get at is this: if a number of individuals volunteered in writing some months ago for duty in the Congo, nothing should be embodied in legislation to hold them to that.

Mr. K. Boland

Nothing is.

Mr. McQuillan

It is not?

Mr. K. Boland

No.

Mr. McQuillan

The subsection says: "...whether before or on or after the date of the passing of this Act..."

Mr. K. Boland

That is to cover those already there.

Mr. McQuillan

I take it, so, that if an individual has already volunteered in writing, he will not be held to that after the passing of this Bill but will be allowed to volunteer again.

Mr. K. Boland

Those who volunteered originally are not being held to it now.

Mr. McQuillan

They are not? Would the Minister tell us when he is replying from what date will a man be held responsible for his offer in writing? What date has the Minister in mind?

Mr. K. Boland

New volunteers have been requested and sufficient have volunteered.

General MacEoin

If United Nations forces are to be sent to Roscommon in the future.

Dr. Browne

Why did the Minister insert "before" in the subsection?

Mr. K. Boland

The temporary Bill goes out of operation when this Bill has been passed. That is to cover people already there.

Mr. McQuillan

The Minister knows what we have in mind and I would like him to elaborate on it, because, if it will affect only those who volunteer from now on, I cannot see any point in embodying in legislation: "... whether before or on or after the date of the passing of this Act ..."

In conclusion, I should like to say — and this goes back to what the Taoiseach said in his opening remarks — that we are all, in this House and in the country, very proud to be able to play our part in the work of the United Nations. We are all very anxious to ensure that the high standing and good name that Ireland has amongst the newly-emerged African and Asian nations is maintained and not besmirched, and that we do not assist or condone the colonialism which is rampant in the Congo. So far as those African nations are concerned, our history is one of oppression and partition, and we must not, in any circumstances, allow our troops to be used for the purpose of bolstering up partition in any of these countries.

My words have reference to the Congo situation and particularly to the position in the province of Katanga. I should like to make it clear that our troops and our officers who are stationed in Albertville, in Katanga, are perturbed at the moment. Recently, at least one very intelligent young soldier wrote home to the effect that the Belgians were trying to hold on to everything they had, copper mines, big business, etc. The letter goes on to say: "They are trying to make a Six Counties here and they brought in a gang of adventurers to train the Katanga army." That is from an intelligent young soldier stationed in Katanga.

When the Minister for Defence states that our duties in Katanga are police duties, I want him to understand that police duties in the Congo as far as the Irish are concerned are not to be those of aiding and abetting what I can only describe as the "B" Specials of the Congo under the control of a breakaway Premier, Tshombe. The Taoiseach has to bear all this in mind when making his final request with regard to sending another battalion to this Province of Katanga. It is beyond dispute now that the province of Katanga is looked upon as the Six Counties of the Congo.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be getting away from the Bill. The Deputy is now endeavouring to discuss the internal political situation of the Congo which does not relevantly arise.

Mr. McQuillan

I am talking specifically about Katanga where our troops are stationed and where the danger exists of their being used in future in police action for the purpose of protecting the Belgians, with their copper mines and big business, against the lawful and rightful authority which should be in control of Katanga, namely, the national Parliament of the Congo.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That cannot be discussed on this Bill.

Mr. McQuillan

Surely Deputy Booth is not the adviser?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is accepting no advice from Deputy Booth or any other Deputy.

Mr. McQuillan

It was only on December 7th that the Premier of this province was decorated with the second highest order of Belgium at a private dinner.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This does not arise. It has no relevance to the Bill.

Mr. McQuillan

I am trying to bring it within the terms of the Bill in this way. Our troops have been sent to the Congo. Is it suggested that this House will pass legislation to allow our troops to be sent to the Congo to protect Premier Tshombe with his Belgian army and to help them to mow down the nationalists? Ireland, with its history of Partition, should surely be far removed from that type of adventure.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy wishes to discuss the situation in the Congo in the detail into which he is going, he will have to put down a motion. The Deputy may not discuss this problem on the Bill.

Dr. Browne

Is it not a fact that, in July, we were allowed to discuss the internal affairs of the Congo on the first Bill, that there was no restriction?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am referring to the Bill before the House.

Dr. Browne

This is merely an amendment of that Bill.

Mr. McQuillan

Whatever about the necessity for that motion, there is another motion of censure of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to be dealt with. The Taoiseach last week pointed out that the Government have at least decided to make an appreciation of the situation in the Congo. We are all glad he has changed his mind with regard to his attitude for the past six months. He said it was not the Government's function to make any appreciation. He has now decided it is the Government's duty to make an appreciation. There are certain circumstances which he says must be fulfilled if the Government intend to despatch replacements or a further contingent to the Congo. The first is that, in the judgment of the Government, the situation there required the continued presence of a United Nations force and of European contingents in that force. The only comment I have to make on that is that the conciliation commission which was set up recommended that non-white forces should be used in the Congo. That advice comes from people who are far more familiar than the Taoiseach, I or anybody else in this country with the conditions and with the history of the African peoples. I think their advice will possibly weigh heavily with the Security Council when they meet in the near future.

The second point the Taoiseach mentioned was that the objective of a United Nations force in the Congo would still be as it was when the first contingent was dispatched, that of helping to keep peace and order in the Congo, while the Congolese people and leaders are getting themselves organised and able to carry that obligation themselves without United Nations help.

When the United Nations took the decision to go into the Congo, they did so on the invitation of the democratically-elected Government of the Congo. They were invited in by the Premier and President of that country. This was the indication given by the Security Council of the powers and the orders which should be carried out by the United Nations contingent. The Security Council authorised the Secretary-General to take the necessary steps in consultation with the Congolese Government to provide the Government with such military assistance as might be necessary until, through the efforts of the Congolese Government, with the technical assistance of the United Nations, the national security forces might be able in the opinion of the Government fully to meet their task.

"The necessary steps" constitute the important part of that directive and the necessary steps, as we know, were not taken by the United Nations forces at the time when they first went into the Congo. Therefore, the conditions and the reasons why we sent our troops no longer obtain in the Congo, and until such time as there is a change of attitude with regard to what the United Nations Forces should do, I think we should mark time in view of the danger again of the force being misused.

The position has arisen that a number of other countries have indicated they are not satisfied that the original objectives of the United Nations in the Congo are being pursued. We may not agree with all the views of these nations but I think we should give considerable thought to the advice of Mr. Nehru who, on a number of occasions, made it quite clear that the United Nations in the Congo have departed from their original objective. It may be that India and the other countries involved may decide in the very near future to withdraw their troops.

Mr. Booth

Are there any Indian troops there?

Mr. McQuillan

There are Indian, observers and Indian technicians and 500 or 600 Indian troops.

Mr. Booth

Are there?

Mr. McQuillan

It is beyond dispute now that the situation has changed completely since last July as far as the objectives of U.N.O. in the Congo are concerned. The danger now is that, if there is a complete withdrawal of U.N. Forces, the gap will be filled by people who are not a bit interested in the Congolese. Clearly what the Belgians would like to see is the U.N. Forces withdrawing completely thereby allowing them to take control, not alone of Katanga but of the rest of the country. I am sure that fact will be borne in mind by the Government.

Ireland has played her part and given of her best. Before there is any question of further contingents, or replacements, the Government should satisfy themselves completely that the original intention of the U.N. Forces is pursued, namely, that democratic government is restored in the Congo. that the Parliament of the Congo is summoned and allowed to take control, that the breakaway province of Katanga is forced to recognise that it is part and parcel of the Congo.

Mr. Booth

Does the Deputy believe that Katanga was not entitled to break away and that force should be used to make it recognise——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order. This has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. McQuillan

The question of allowing the province of Katanga to secede is of vital importance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have already pointed out to Deputy McQuillan that none of these matters is relevant. If the Deputy persists in refusing to obey the Chair I shall have to take action.

Mr. McQuillan

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is not a prophet. I am asking the Taoiseach to remember the circumstances in which our troops were sent into the Congo. I am asking him to make sure, if it is the intention to send replacements, that the duty of the U.N. Forces there is to restore democratic government, help the Congolese people build their own civil service and police force, rediscipline and re-equip their defence forces and, in fact, ensure as far as possible that the United Nations carry out the original intention of forcing the Belgians to get out. If the objectives are as originally stated, there will be no objection to our troops going there. If we are not satisfied that the objectives are those of the U.N. Security Council we should not send our troops to be used as they have been used up to the present.

Mr. G. Boland

We all realise this Bill is necessary to replace the temporary measure. I am very glad to know the Government have not yet made up their minds about the sending of this second battalion. They are, of course, quite right to make all the preparations necessary.

We have, as everybody knows, a rapidily changing situation in the Congo. If, for no other than financial reasons—the Soviet bloc does not intend to spend one penny on these operations—I think the time will come when the United Nations will not be able to carry on. Apart from that, this country has done enough in sending the men it has sent to the Congo. Those men have done their work well. The Congolese have been given an opportunity of settling down. They have had six months in which to do that. If they are not able now to settle down in some sort of order, the United Nations have failed, and failed completely.

My suggestion is the reverse of Deputy McQuillan's. The one and only way in which the situation can now be saved is by bringing the Belgians back and giving them a mandate. I hold no brief for what was done in the Congo, or in any part of Africa, by the white races. I am quite satisfied that in a very short time every white man, except those who are technicians, will have to go. I thought at one time that the African tribes would take control. Now they have fallen out among themselves and they are no longer persona grata with those who seek to hold authority in the Congo — Mobutu and Deputy McQuillan's friend Tshombe.

Mr. McQuillan

He is not a friend of mine.

Mr. G. Boland

The Belgian Government have been trying to make amends for the criminal negligence of the past. They were prepared to hand over an ordered and orderly State to the Congolese had they been allowed to do so. It was their considered opinion that it would take at least ten years— 20 would probably be nearer the mark —to hand over a properly organised state after the manner of the British in Nigeria. Unfortunately busybodies interfered and caused the Army to mutiny. Everything collapsed — law and order, business and everything else. There seems to be no possible hope now of restoration except by calling in the people who understand the situation best; and the Belgians are prepared to hand over in ten years' time, or so, an orderly State, a going concern, a properly organised society to replace the chaos that now exists.

I hear people talk about democratic elections. Can anybody tell me how elections are held in the Congo? Are the bow-and-arrow men put on a register? Is a register kept? Is there a secret ballot? We all know that a head man was picked and the poor tribesmen voted for him by putting up their hands. That is how the Government were elected. Comparing the Congo with Ireland and the Six Counties is simply fantastic. The Congo is a conglomeration of tribes which were kept in subjection, by the Belgians for the last 80 years. When the collapse came, they were all anxious to revert to their original state. There is no such thing as a homogeneous race there at all. There are several different tribes. Unfortunately the Belgians behaved scandalously. Unlike other colonisers they left the Congolese in a very primitive state.

The fact is that there were no clearly defined units in the Congo. There were all sorts of tribal units, some held by the French, who seemed to have done a good job, and some held by the Belgians.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has been endeavouring to keep Deputies within the limit of debate on the Bill.

Mr. G. Boland

The Taoiseach started this debate himself and gave Deputies an opportunity of expressing their views on this matter. The Minister for Defence dealt with the Bill in detail. If I am not allowed to make suggestions I shall sit down but it would be an extraordinary situation if Deputies could not express their views on this matter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Taoiseach spoke generally on the situation in the Congo but the details into which the Deputy and other Deputies have gone were not mentioned by the Taoiseach and would not arise in a discussion on the Bill. If we are to discuss the internal situation in the Congo, it would be necessary to put down a motion to that effect.

General MacEoin

Surely a Deputy is entitled to fill in what the Taoiseach left out?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has already allowed Deputies a certain amount of latitude in this matter.

Mr. G. Boland

What I have to say in this debate has a definite bearing on this unfortunate country, the Congo. If any of us has any ideas on the matter I think we ought to state them and perhaps some good will come out of them. Last week I had intended suggesting that African nations alone should be sent into the Congo because white men are not wanted there, except as technicians. However, some black nations now there are saying that they are going to withdraw. The only way I see out of the difficulty is that we should suggest to the United Nations that the United Nations should give a mandate to the Belgians for 10 years so that they may be able to transfer power in the ordinary way to the Congolese people.

Mr. Sherwin

That is a sensible suggestion.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think it is generally recognised that the restoration of order in the Congo is an essential prerequisite before there can be any prospect of progress. Undoubtedly the situation there is an extremely complex one and, as we know from experience elsewhere no less than from our own experience, it is extremely difficult to establish new administrations where there is a rapid change over from a situation in which an entirely different administration had responsibility. Nonintervention in the domestic affairs of the Congo is a very difficult problem and may well be incompatible with the effort to preserve order. It is not our function to express views on a very complex situation which changes from day to day and, indeed, from hour to hour and on which information may well be out of date by the time the matter is under discussion.

While the United Nations intervention in the Congo continues, we are obliged to support it and to assist it within the limits of our resources. That does not mean that we should be prevented from querying the work of the United Nations mission in the Congo. We are entitled to get information from the United Nations on the situation there. Up to the present, the information furnished to us has been meagre, mainly because the Government have no information other than that which is generally available to Pressmen and others who have visited the scene.

The present situation in the Congo has brought up the most vital question of the effectiveness of the United Nations itself. If certain nations withdraw their support without valid reasons, the United Nations intervention will be so hampered that it cannot succeed. At certain times it is not easy to understand the nature of the United Nations intervention but I have always held the view that small nations have a vital interest in the preservation of peace and in the maintenance of order in situations such as at present exist in the Congo. We have in the past seen many cases of the fatal tendency to refuse to take action where the conditions are difficult or where conflicts arise between different forces on big issues.

This happened in the League of Nations in the Thirties when one error led to another and when the failure to take action finally led to the downfall of the old League and ultimately to the Second World War. We must avoid any such situation so far as the United Nations Organisation is concerned. It is easy to criticise the work of the United Nations mission but at present it seems to be the only effective instrument for action such as is required in the Congo. No doubt at times it seems to the outsider that the Assembly of the United Nations is a mere talking shop but the success of the United Nations mission offers the best prospect of achieving the objective of the Assembly if it is made clear that it means business.

The only people who can gain by its failure are the Communists. They seek to profit by disturbance and disorder anywhere at any time. It is our national duty to resist to the limit any effort the Communists may make to disrupt the United Nations mission. We must do everything we can, to the utmost of our ability, to see that order is restored in the Congo and that progress can develop and be made possible. The very existence of the United Nations as an effective instrument for the preservation of world peace, depends on the efforts being made by the United Nations in the Congo. We all have an interest in striving to see that this effort is successful and in giving it our support.

It may be that the task assigned to the United Nations Force in the Congo may be greater than the scope of the authority they were given by the Security Council. The terms of the order given to them are difficult to implement in practice and, in seeking to implement the directives given by the Security Council, the United Nations force may well have found their difficulties multiplied. The problems created by that directive may at times have overshadowed the work which one would expect the mission to carry out. However, that was the decision that was taken and until that decision is altered or a new directive issued they must endeavour to implement the directive contained in it.

Our soldiers in the Congo have done their duty and those who died died bravely in defending and upholding the responsibilities assigned to them, namely, the establishment of order and peace out of chaos. This is never an easy assignment and least of all in a complex situation such as that which exists in the Congo. In discharging that duty, we should see that our troops are adequately equipped and trained to perform their task. We should ensure that the training and equipment are proper and effective, judged in relation to the task allotted and the terrain and territory to be covered.

Mr. Booth

I am delighted that Deputy Cosgrave has intervened at this stage and spoken as he has done. I am very much in agreement with what he has said. He has brought us back more to the spirit of the speech which the Taoiseach made when introducing this Bill. It is a pity that the National Progressive Democratic Party should have done all in their power to discredit the United Nations and to cast doubts on the value of the operation which is at present being carried on. I do not know whether their Party feel embarrassed by the fact that they have virtually quoted, word for word, the speeches of Mr. Khrushchev in the United Nations.

Dr. Browne

Smear.

Mr. Booth

I have not said that the National Progressive Democratic Party are Communist. Maybe they have influenced Mr. Khrushchev but the point of view is identical——

Dr. Browne

With Mr. Nehru's.

Mr. Booth

And the methods are also identical. All we need now to complete the picture is that Deputy Dr. Browne should start beating the desk.

Dr. Browne

His master's voice. The Taoiseach used that expression.

Mr. Booth

The comparison becomes more appropriate as time goes on. However, what this Bill is attempting to do, and is doing very well, in my view, is to establish beyond all doubt that this country takes its membership of the United Nations seriously and that it is prepared to take risks if necessary to uphold the rule of law in the world.

That was the spirit of the Taoiseach's opening speech and was very largely the spirit of the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition and, just a few moments ago, by Deputy Cosgrave. That is something which is of tremendous value. It is particularly appropriate that a small country like ours should undertake such a very great responsibility. It has been made perfectly obvious during the Congo operation that our troops have been particularly well received by the people of the Congo, and the report of the Chief of Staff, when he returned only yesterday, was that he had received requests in several cases from the local people that where an Irish garrison was to be replaced it would be replaced only by Irish troops.

Mr. McQuillan

And that he was glad to be back himself.

Mr. Booth

There again is the spirit of the National Progressive Democratic Party, trying to denigrate the whole operation. What the purpose of that is I do not know. If they hope to achieve Party advantage from it they are very much mistaken. Some of us take our responsibilities seriously and I only wish they would do so, too.

Dr. Browne

We do not want the Congo partitioned, as Ireland is partitioned, by Irish troops.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dr. Browne has already spoken.

Dr. Browne

I am enlightening Deputy Booth who was not here when I was speaking.

Mr. Booth

I have no intention of listening to Deputy Dr. Browne, if I can possibly avoid it, because I find it agonising.

Dr. Browne

The truth is often agonising.

Mr. Booth

I have carefully read his speech which was as irrelevant, inappropriate and malicious as one could imagine. We are attempting here to take a very courageous step, one which I hope will be an example to many other countries, particularly those who are now losing faith in the United Nations and who are obviously influenced to some extent by the Soviet Union. We are taking a very wise step here and one which I hope we shall take without faltering.

Reference has been made to the difficulties experienced by our troops in this operation and I would anticipate that similar difficulties would arise on any similar operation. War is difficult enough but at least an army has an enemy provided for it and knows against whom it is fighting but in any police operation such as is envisaged in this Bill, our troops will come in without any enemy, purely as police, purely as neutrals, not knowing who is friendly and who is not.

Under those circumstances I particularly welcome the Taoiseach's assurance that men will not be kept abroad on such an operation for longer than six months because the strain of such operations must be almost incredible. The fact remains that our troops have proved extremely valuable in this connection and if they are replaced by a further contingent, this third battalion to leave the country will, I hope, acquit themselves at least as well as those who went before. They probably will acquit themselves better because, all going well, they will have some chance of learning from the experience of those who preceded them.

I would hope that this Bill will go through without any further contentious matters being raised. I feel very much for those who will be affected by it. I would not wish for a moment to discourage anyone from criticising this Bill in a constructive way but I hope this House will be unanimous so that these troops who will go abroad in future will know they are doing so with a unanimous House and a unanimous country behind them, with the support of us all in an operation which is of value not only to ourselves but to our children.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I support this Bill and I consider it is necessary, if we are to send troops abroad, to cover them by some form of legislation. There are certain things in the Bill which might need some alteration. Before referring to the Bill itself, I say that we should not lose ourselves in confusion in this House. Our troops are in the Congo because originally they were asked for by the Congolese themselves. We acted as members of the United Nations. We responded to the call sent to us here, I think the Taoiseach told us, direct from the United Nations to send troops there for the purpose of endeavouring to establish law and order and to assist in every way possible this new and emergent country which found itself in difficulties. The sympathies of Ireland and the Irish people must always go out to a young country trying to build itself a government.

Several Deputies have tried to draw a parallel between the situation in Africa and conditions here at home. I have had the privilege of being in Africa. It is many years since I was there, but nations, customs and national outlooks do not change much over the centuries or over the years. We have got to face the fact that, in Africa, the tribal system is entirely paramount. That is one of the greatest difficulties the world has to face to-day. Before they secured their own Government, these tribes appear to have come together and to have united in the fight they were making to establish their own Government. Since then, it appears that disunity has crept into the ranks and we have the unhappy situation that prevails at the moment.

We joined the United Nations fully conscious of the obligations we were accepting, and as an honourable State, we must fulfil those obligations. It may be difficult at times. There is a good deal of propaganda going on from both sides, from the East and from the West People may try to argue that the United Nations Forces are not carrying out the mandate imposed on them. It is very hard to know what is actually happening there, unless you are on the spot. So long as the United Nations decide by a majority that they are going to maintain a force in the Congo for the purpose for which they were originally sent there, I think it is our duty to live up to our obligations.

I was very interested in what Deputy Boland said just now. I should like the Taoiseach, the Minister or some member of the Government to say whether or not it is a fact that on the withdrawal of the present force, whose time expires on 25th January next, it is intended to replace it. I think Deputies generally were under the impression that it was the intention to replace that force. It may not be possible at the present stage to say if such is the case, but I think the Government could indicate to the House whether, if conditions from the point of view of the overhead charges on the United Nations are unchanged on 25th January next, it is intended to replace the force or not.

With regard to the force itself, it is only fair that we should express our opinions here, first, concerning the difficulties they have to face, and also in regard to suggestions we might have to make to the Government of things that might be necessary. The terrain in Africa is entirely different from conditions at home. I think I am right in saying that the correct term for the type of warfare you meet there is "bush warfare." Africa consists of roads in the modernised areas and tracts in the large, rather backward areas of solid bush. Bush warfare consists of ambushes in a deep thicket, and, in effect, that is what happened when our personnel lost their lives there recently. It was suggested by Deputy McQuillan, I think, that our troops going out there should have instruction in the type of warfare they would have to contend with and that they should betrained by those who have personal experience of that type of action. Perhaps that does not arise so much now in that our troops have been out there and those who return will be able to instruct those who may follow them.

With the present wave of anti-colonialism that exists and with the antipathy that exists among certain tribes to all white races, it is very difficult for U.N. troops to do their job there. I should like to pay this tribute to the Irish troops. I think they are doing a magnificent job. Irishmen have fought through the ages with great courage and distinction, on land, at sea, and in the air, for other nations before we achieved our freedom. It is something to note that today they are fighting in their own uniform even though under the United Nations flag. They are carrying out a work of reconstruction, but I think the term "fighting" might be applied to it because there has been loss of life and they have shown great courage and honour like the great Irishmen who went before them. I should like to say how much I deprecate the remarks that have been made by certain people, non-nationals outside. I refer particularly to what the "People's Government of China" accused our troops of the other day— of attacking men with bows and arrows. That was an infamous libel on a religious people who went out to do a job and to try to preserve and encourage peace in this land.

This Bill, I think, is intended for permanent legislation and to cover any force that we may be called upon to send abroad according to our responsibilities to the United Nations. I notice in the Bill that the word "men" is employed in some caces instead of "personel." I do not know if it is intended ever to use female personel or not, but it might well arise, if we are passing legislation at some later date, that we may be sending nurses or ambulance drivers abroad as so many other countries do. I draw the Minister's attention to that fact. Perhaps he might consider amending the Bill accordingly, so he would not have to return to the House at a later date for further legislation.

There is another thing which strikes me. I have had personal experience of this in the case of a descendant of an Irishman who was actually born in India. I wonder if it would be possible to arrange that anyone born abroad of Irish parentage may in some way be registered here at home?

The reason I bring this before the House is this: I know of a man born many years ago of Irish parentage in India. He came under the Indian quota for immigration into the United States and although all of his family had gone to the United States and had settled down there, this man of 75 years of age was unable to join them. The Indian quota was so small that he was unable to get into the United States. I should like the Government to consider that point to see if they could get around it in some way, so that parallel conditions may not arise for children born outside the State and so that they will not find themselves blocked by immigration laws from entering a country.

The Taoiseach

At the outset, I should like to associate myself with the well-deserved tribute which Deputy Dillon paid to the Army Command for the efficiency and despatch with which they arranged the organisation and movement of the two battalions to the Congo. In all the circumstances, it was a remarkable performance. However, the speed with which these two battalions had to be grouped and sent created problems, including problems associated with the equipment of the troops with tropical gear and their inoculation against tropical diseases. The decision to proceed forthwith with the arrangements for a third battalion was taken last month so that the Army Command would have time to ensure that problems of organisation would be reduced, that the troops could be despatched equipped with their tropical gear and fully recovered from any after effects of inoculation.

The bringing back of the two battalions from the Congo next month will, of course, be spread over several days. The present intention is to start moving the 32nd Battalion back to Ireland on January 10th. When that operation is completed, the planes and personnel involved will go back to the Congo to lift and bring home the 33rd Battalion.

Whatever maybe the future of the United Nations effort in the Congo, and our part in it, the people here can salute the officers and men of the 32nd and 33rd Battalions when they are back on Irish soil on their performance when in United Nations service. I have heard nothing but widespread praise by everybody, including Press correspondents who have had the opportunity of seeing events there at first hand, of their efficiency and morale. I had the opportunity to-day of hearing the report of the Chief of Staff and the Quartermaster General who have just returned from a tour of the Congo, in which they visited every single detachment of Irish troops there, which confirmed reports already received from other quarters that our men are going very well.

The nation has every right to feel proud that soldiers of the modern Irish Army on their first overseas service under arms have demonstrated their professional competence and a high quality of general behaviour.

General MacEoin

Hear, hear!

The Taoiseach

The 34th Battalion which is being organised may have to face a more complicated situation in the Congo than the first two battalions anticipated, but it is certain that they will do their duty with equal competence. That battalion will be composed of officers and men who have volunteered for the service, knowing everything that has happened and with some understanding of what may eventuate. There has been no dearth of volunteers, which speaks well for the spirit of our Army and for their understanding of the world importance of the duty for which they are volunteering.

Our Army is, of course, in its entirety, a volunteer army. In future, those who join it will be volunteering for service outside Ireland with a United Nations force, if the occasion should arise, and they will be aware from past events that the occasion may arise. The Army authorities do not think that that knowledge will have any other effect than to popularise Army service and to help their present recruiting campaign.

The situation regarding the Congo is changing almost daily, as Deputies know. In our judgment, there is no prospect of the problem of the Congo being resolved without a great deal of United Nations help, not merely to keep order but also to maintain in operation the essential community services and to get the machinery of government there organised in some way.

If the United Nations should be unable for any reason to continue to provide help to the Congo, and to provide help on the present scale as a minimum, the situation there could very well become quite chaotic and if as a result of the failure or inadequacy of the United Nations effort, there should be direct intervention by great powers, the world, as Deputies have indicated they realise, could be brought still closer to the brink of a major world conflict.

If that should happen, or if there should be any deterioration in the international position because of events in the Congo, we would not wish that there could be any suggestion that it was due to a failure on our part to afford the modest measure of help that we have been asked to contribute.

Deputies will remember that I said in my introductory speech that the despatch of the third battalion to the Congo on the withdrawal of the two battalions already there would be subject to certain conditions. I do not wish to be taken as suggesting that there is any doubt in our mind that these conditions will be met. It is practically certain that the further battalion will be despatched. It will be realised by Deputies who are noting the course of events that our withdrawal from the United Nations force in the Congo now might cause misunderstanding which could prejudice the success of the whole United Nations effort there and could also create the mistaken impression that, in our view, the United Nations objective in the Congo has changed in a way of which we did not approve.

It has been announced that certain countries with contingents in the Congo—the United Arab Republic, Morocco, Guinea, Ceylon and Yugoslavia—are withdrawing their contingents, although in the case of Ceylon and Yugoslavia, the contingents were of token size only. The decisions of these countries to take that course appear to be due to the disinclination of the United Nations to change the directives given to the force in the Congo in a way which would involve intervention in internal Congolese political affairs. I cannot now attempt to forecast what effect, if any, the decisions of the Government of these countries may have on the United Nations operation in the Congo but it may not be decisive.

As a general rule, we shall base our policy and attitude in respect to the Congo and all other matters on the presumption that whatever the United Nations, through their proper organs, decide to do is prima facie right. The extent and the duration of our contribution to any action upon which the United Nations may embark must, however, remain a matter for our decision. We would not have been in breach of any legal obligation to the United Nations if we had declined to meet their request for military contingents for the proposed Congo force and we can, even where a clear legal obligation would arise, accept commitments only in proportion to our resources.

Some Deputies, both during the present debate and on other occasions, have expressed views on the internal Congo political situation and its possible solution, and Deputies Browne and McQuillan on many occasions, by Parliamentary Question and otherwise, have tried to provoke me into comments on the internal political situation there. I want to make my position clear in that respect. I am not going to make any such comment because, apart from our strict adherence to the official United Nations attitude in the Congo, I have to bear in mind that any statement of that character by the Government—any apparent taking of sides in the internal Congo situation—could very well increase the hazards facing Irish troops in the Congo. Our understanding of their function is quite clear. Our troops are there in accord with the terms of the resolution of the Security Council under which a United Nations force was sent to the Congo—which assumed the unity, territorial integrity and political independence of the Congo, and affirmed—this is a quotation from the resolution of the Security Council—"That the United Nations force in the Congo will not be a party to, or in any way intervene in or be used to influence the outcome of any internal conflict, constitutional or otherwise". That is our clear understanding of the function of the United Nations force and no statement made here in the name of the Government must give any impression that we regard them as having any other role and particularly any duty to discriminate between the rival claimants to political authority in the Congo.

We all know that the purposes of the United Nations in the Congo are being misrepresented by many people in many countries and with apparently ulterior motives. There appears to be a desire to bring about a failure of the United Nations effort with the long-term aim of discrediting and weakening the United Nations as a world force.

Before our contingents were despatched, we understood from expressed statements made on behalf of the United Nations that the operation of the United Nations force in the Congo would be separate and distinct from the actions of any national authority and for the sole purpose of maintaining order and protecting life. We understand now that the purpose of the U.N. force there remains unchanged, notwithstanding the subsequent collapse of any internal Government authority which existed in the Congo.

The efforts of the United Nations, through their Congo Advisory Committee or their recently appointed Congo Conciliation Committee — a delegation from which is now reported to be proceeding to the Congo—to bring about a political settlement are distinct and separate from the actions of the United Nations Force there and, as we understand it, that Force will not be used to give effect to any political settlement.

As regards the composition of the United Nations Force, we accepted the policy declaration which was contained in the first Report of the Secretary General, which was based upon three principles. The first was that the ultimate solution of the Congo problem must be found in the Congo itself, with the assistance of the United Nations. The second principle was that assistance should be given within the framework of the United Nations, in the first instance by sister African States as an act of African solidarity. The third principle was that this reliance upon regional solidarity should be qualified by an element of universality which would emphasise the United Nations character of the force and which, in the opinion of the United Nations authorities, required that non-African contingents should be included in it. That view as to the desirability of retaining in the force European contingents, and thus emphasising the universal character of the force, has been reinforced strongly by subsequent events in the Congo. So long as, in the judgment of the United Nations, the universal character of the force should be made apparent by the presence of European units in it, we would be very slow to question the wisdom of that decision. Clearly the non-African contingents are regarded as more detached from the internal Congo problem than some of the African States with contingents there.

The suggestion that there should be an Irish diplomatic representative in the Congo seems to me to take no account whatever of the prevailing circumstances. In the existing conditions, even the selection of the Congolese authority to whom a representative would present his credentials would be a controversial decision. Such a representative, if sent, would presumably be resident in Leopoldville.

Mr. McQuillan

Why not attach him to United Nations headquarters in the Congo?

The Taoiseach

The United Nations headquarters are in New York. I would point out that the Congo is almost as big as the whole of the West of Europe, with primitive communications, and that a single representative of ours there in one centre would be a most unreliable source of information. Such a representative could have no function whatever of screening the directions issued to the Irish contingent by the United Nations Command. There is only one non-African country with a contingent in the United Nations force and with diplomatic representation in the Congo and that is India. It is doubtful whether India has found that arrangement very helpful. The great majority of the countries with contingents in the United Nations Force in the Congo have no diplomatic representation there. Like ourselves, they probably believe they can get more reliable information concerning the Congo situation through the United Nations Congo Advisory Committee and that if they have views to express on the situation it is there they should make them known.

I do not know if Deputy Corish was serious in suggesting we should send some Dáil Deputies to the Congo to explore the situation. However tempting that prospect might be, there is nothing in my view more likely at present to lead to misunderstanding of our attitude in the whole Congo situation. When there is a stable and representative Congo Government prepared to extend an invitation to an Irish Parliamentary delegation, the suggestion could be considered. I do not think it should be considered before that.

I gather Deputy Dillon was not quite satisfied with the information I have been giving him during the course of the months since July last regarding the Congo situation. It was at least considerable in bulk. Therefore, it must have been the quality of the information that the Deputy was complaining about. I considered that I should confine myself to conveying to Party Leaders documentary information that came to me, the authenticity of which could not be questioned. I did not consider it wise to send on to them purely speculative or doubtful items of information that came along. I realise that many of the documents sent to Party Leaders, including the fairly voluminous reports made by the Secretary General to the Security Council, did not contain anything, or not very much, that had not been published in the newspapers. I felt, however, that it might be convenient to the Parties to have these documents and statements readily available, in the form in which they were supplied, for reference purposes. I shall consider whether it is possible to improve the quality, if not the quantity, of documentation which I can supply.

Questions were asked about the type of activity engaged in by the United Nations Forces in the Congo, including the Irish contingent. In the main they are engaged in very routine types of duties—protecting essential installations, keeping open vital communications, guarding civilians engaged in various activities there, including church missions, where necessary, and, generally, acting as peacemakers. The reports I have received from our Army Command indicate that their relations with local Congolese are very good indeed. The shock which the Niemba action caused to members of the contingent was due entirely to its unexpectedness. Previously, the patrols of Irish troops, wearing the United Nations uniform, in that area, had experienced little difficulty in dealing with any groups of the local tribesmen whom they met. A not unusual experience when coming upon such a road block as they were removing at Niemba was that the local tribesmen having identified them as Irish members of the United Nations Force, helped them to remove the road block. The ambushed patrol had not anticipated anything else when they saw the group of tribesmen at Niemba. The general feeling amongst the Force was of surprise that such an attack had taken place at all.

Generally, the indications are that the Irish troops are not merely maintaining good relations with the local Congolese but, as the Chief of Staff said in his interview with the Press, published this morning, in districts which he had visited, and where the prospect of the withdrawal of Irish troops was known to the local Congolese, people had urged that they should be replaced by further Irish contingents—so happy were the relations which our troops had established with the local residents.

It is a great tribute to the Irish people and to their understanding of the vital role which the Irish contingent is playing in the Congo that notwithstanding the unfortunate loss of Irish lives in the Niemba ambush and the consequent increased public anxiety for the safety and welfare of the rest of the force, not one voice has urged that, for that reason, the Force should be brought home. In that respect we have displayed a maturity which has been universally recognised and which cannot but enhance Irish influence in the world's affairs. We can only hope that the Congo situation will be resolved on a basis which will preserve the unity, territorial integrity and political independence of the Congolese State, with a Government that in time will be able to protect and advance the welfare of their people and through which can be channelled the aid, moral and material, which the world is so very willing to give. If that should be the outcome of the whole United Nations operation there, we shall be proud to have been associated with it.

Mr. Dillon

The Taoiseach rightly emphasises that public reaction to the hazards our men have met with in the Congo has been admirable and highly desirable. In some measure, that must be attributed to the atmosphere of this Assembly which can be preserved, as the Taoiseach recognises, only on the basis that those of us who share some responsibility in matters of this kind are kept reasonably well informed of essential developments. I appreciate the Taoiseach's difficulty in giving any more information than the bulky material he has furnished.

I appreciate his desire to improve the quality of that material hereafter, if that is possible. If a short appreciation of the situation in the Congo from our Government's point of view were confidentially made available at reasonable intervals, say, monthly intervals, to responsible leaders of this House it would help them to bear their share of the burden of decisions this House may from time to time be called upon to make in the name of the people in regard to events transpiring in the Congo.

Question put and agreed to

Ordered: That the remaining Stages be taken on Wednesday, 14th December, 1960.