asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the events which led to the resignation from the United Nations staff, from the Department of External Affairs and from the Civil Service of Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - U.N. Congo Representative. Resignation of Civil Servant
39.
As the Deputy is aware, the Minister for External Affairs made a statement on 1st December about the return of Dr. Cruise O'Brien to the service of the Department of External Affairs. This statement was as follows:—
"Dr. O'Brien wrote me about a week ago asking that I approach the Acting Secretary-General to seek his return to the Department of External Affairs of Ireland. I then wrote to the Acting Secretary-General expressing this request a couple of days after that."
On Saturday night, 2nd instant, the following official statement was issued on behalf of the Government:—
"Dr. Connor Cruise O'Brien, in a letter addressed this evening to the Minister for External Affairs in New York, informed him of his decision to resign from the public service."
On Monday, 4th instant, the Minister made a further statement on the subject, arising out of the statement issued by Dr. O'Brien after he had resigned from the public service. This further statement included the following:—
"In regard to Dr. O'Brien's resignation from the Irish service I may say that he resigned entirely on his own initiative."
There is nothing I can usefully add to these statements.
As regards Dr. O'Brien's reasons for resigning from the public service I can only refer to the statements he has himself issued.
Would the Taoiseach say if the Minister for External Affairs still repudiates the allegations by Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien to the effect that Britain, France and Belgium obstructed him in carrying out the directions of the United Nations, especially in view of what seems to be a corroboration of these allegations by General McKeown, the Commander-in-Chief of the United Nations forces in the Congo?
What the Minister said was: "I have no responsibility for the statement of an official who has resigned from the Irish service. Dr. O'Brien did not consult me about the statement he issued after resigning. The statement cannot in any sense be taken as representing my views."
Could the Taoiseach say if he has examined the allegations made by Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien against Britain, France and Belgium and if he has any comment to make on these allegations?
I have no comment to make nor have I available to me the information which would enable me to make a comment.
As the Taoiseach is acting for the Minister for External Affairs in this matter, could he inform the House, as I think we are entitled to be informed, whether the Government accept the view, which is apparently accepted by General McKeown, that Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien was frustrated and thwarted by other countries associated with the United Nations in his efforts to carry out the mandate of the Security Council in the Congo? The people ought to know whether we accept the view that he was thwarted or frustrated or whether he was acting irresponsibly on his own. We ought to know the Government view on that.
Dr. O'Brien was acting as an official of the United Nations, not as an official of the Irish Government. I have not available to me the material which would enable me to express any judgment on the views to which he gave publicity.
Surely these allegations cannot be lightly dismissed and surely the Government must take steps to see whether or not the allegations made were justified especially in view of the fact that Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien has been a responsible accredited spokesman of this country for a number of years.
It seems to me the responsibility is on the United Nations, not on the Irish Government.
He has come from the Irish Civil Service. He was appointed by the Government.
He was not.
He was a spokesman in the United Nations on one occasion.
Yes.
Therefore I do not think allegations that have got world-wide publicity should be treated as the Taoiseach seems to treat them.
I do not know what the Deputy has in mind. Dr. Cruise O'Brien was seconded to the United Nations at their request. He was appointed by the United Nations to the post he held in the Congo. Whatever actions he took there he did under the instructions of the Security Council of the United Nations. Whatever information he gained in the Congo was presumably reported by him to the United Nations. It was not reported to the Irish Government.
Do I take it, therefore, the Government will not investigate these allegations that have been made?
I have not said that. Ireland is a member of the United Nations and it will in the determination of United Nations policy take account of this——
Does the Taoiseach say the allegations will be investigated?
I made it quite clear that in so far as Dr. O'Brien acted as an official of the United Nations and as such expressed views regarding the conduct of the affairs of the United Nations, he made these views known not to the Irish Government but to the United Nations.
Is it not a fact that, although Dr. O'Brien was seconded to the United Nations as an official, the disclosures he has made are very important ones as far as the future safety and the use of our troops are concerned? Surely in those circumstances the Taoiseach has a responsibility to this House to make a statement on this matter?
In view of the fact that there is widespread public perturbation at the developments which have arisen in the last few days, it is important that the people in this country who are so heavily committed in the Congo should know what is the Government's view on the rationality or otherwise of Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien's stand. If it be true that he was frustrated and thwarted by powerful financial interests who had an interest in keeping Katanga out of the Central Congolese Republic, then freedom-loving people throughout the world will applaud his stand against such powerful, political and financial interests.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
We are entitled to know from the Government, which ought to be his friend and adviser, at least in this crisis, whether they support his view or disown his view in that respect.
Question No. 40.
This is a matter of great public importance.
I understand its importance but we cannot discuss it all day.
I think the Taoiseach completely washed his hands of this position. Is it not a part of the pattern of our whole behaviour since the beginning of the Congo operation, in which we have effectively safeguarded the wealth of the Welenskys and the Waterhouses and other great mining interests in the Congo, that we have now finally, in abject subservience to these same interests, taken a very ignoble part in the diplomatic assassination of one of our finest public servants in order to serve these same mining interests? It is most scandalous behaviour on the part of our Government and they should be ashamed of themselves.
As Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien said the contrary, the Deputy's views do not matter. In reply to Deputy Norton I would say I do not feel there is an obligation on the Government to make any comment upon the views, which have been given publicity, by a person who is now a private individual. In so far as the position of the Government is concerned, we are, of course, supporting the attitude and policy of the United Nations which, so far as I am aware, has not been changed in this regard since it was first defined.
General McKeown is not a private individual.
We stood by the assassination of Mr. Lumumba and now we are standing by the diplomatic assassination of Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien. This is a sell-out of the Congolese people and a condoning of the partition of the Congo.
Though it might be true that Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien is now a private individual, does the Taoiseach not think he is now a private individual because, as he holds, certain big forces were operating against him in the Congo? That is the reason he is a private individual.
I am not aware that that is so.
Would the Taoiseach also say what weight he gives to what seems to be the corroboration of these allegations by General McKeown, who is an officer of the Irish Army and who is at present in command of the United Nations Forces in the Congo?
That is not in the Question.
On 2nd December, 1961, Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien said, as to the reasons for his leaving the public service: "I have done so in order to recover my freedom of speech and action" and, later, on the same date: "he had resigned from the Irish diplomatic service because he felt the animosity he had aroused in certain quarters in Britain and France would limit his usefulness to his Government in foreign affairs."
The Taoiseach must appreciate that he left the Irish Civil Service only because he was forced to leave the United Nations Organisation.
I can only refer the Deputy to what Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien himself said as to why he resigned.
Did the public and the press not applaud his appointment to the United Nations and to the Congo? Why do we desert him now, without giving the reasons?
I resent completely the assertion that we have deserted him.
Of course you have.