asked the Minister for Defence whether regular reports of happenings in the Congo are received from Irish officers in command of Irish units in the Congo; whether advice on strategy, equipment and other matters is sought by such command officers from, or tendered to them by, the Irish Army Headquarters; and if he will make a statement indicating the general relations in this respect between the Irish Command in the Congo and their Headquarters here.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Irish Command in Congo: Relations with Headquarters.
30.
In accordance with United Nations principles, once the Irish Contingent was made available to the Force in the Congo, all members of it received their orders exclusively from the United Nations and the day-to-day measures and dispositions necessary to achieve the purpose of the Force are determined by the Supreme Commander, the Army authorities here having no function in such matters.
In these circumstances communication between the Contingent and the authorities at home must be restricted to matters of routine administration and all reports and communications must be in accordance with rules and procedures established by the Supreme Commander, acting for the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
The Contingent is in constant touch with home authorities within the restricted sphere mentioned.
Do I gather from what the Minister has said that a decision as to the strength of a patrol, or a reconnaissance detachment or on the arms and equipment to be carried, are therefore matters for the Commander in Chief of the United Nations Forces in the Congo?
The Supreme Commander is the man responsible for making all decisions with regard to all units of the various groups while they are in the Congo. I assume the Deputy is thinking in terms of leave or something of that kind which would also come within the control of the Supreme Commander. It is only the routine matters that can be dealt with by Headquarters at home and by the unit in the Congo.
Reference was made to the arms that the men might have. Is that not a matter for the authorities here? For instance, if we send men out without sidearms, surely they will not be supplied with them by the United Nations? In that case would it not be negligence in our case if they required sidearms for the removal of an obstruction when on patrol and had not got them? The point was mentioned by Deputy Norton.
Question No. 31.