asked the Minister for External Affairs if, in connection with a reply of 21st November relating to the action in the Congo on the 13th September, 1961, he will state what action the Government propose to take in the matter in view of the fact that some Irish troops lost their lives in the affair.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Irish Troops in Congo Action.
19.
I am satisfied that the Irish and other United Nations troops carried out gallantly and as humanely as possible the orders of the military officer in command of the United Nations forces in Katanga to stop attacks on the United Nations officials and troops and on the Balubas and I have nothing to add to the statement I made on the 21st November.
May I say, before I ask a supplementary question, that I did not question the gallantry of the Irish troops or the fact that they carried out the duty as they saw it to protect the United Nations forces? Arising out of the Minister's reply, the Minister, on 21st November—column 1465 of the Official Report for that date— said:
Action, however, should not have been begun without the authority of the late Secretary General—then en route to the Congo and due to arrive within a matter of hours—and above all the action taken on the 13th September should not have been alleged to be an operation undertaken by the United Nations for the purpose of ending the secession of Katanga by force.
May I point out that it is not in order at Question Time to give quotations?
The Question is based on the Minister's reply of this date. He has given me a reply that the Irish soldiers acted gallantly. I did not ask him whether they did or did not. What I asked was—I addressed the question to the Taoiseach—what action the Government propose to take against the person or persons responsible for throwing them into an action where apparently they had no authority to do so.
That is not in the Question.
Arising out of the Minister's interjection. I addressed the Question to the Taoiseach but it has now apparently been transferred to the Minister for External Affairs. I asked the question if in connection with a reply of 21st November relating to the action in the Congo on the 13th September, 1961, he will state what action the Government propose to take in the matter in view of the fact that some Irish troops lost their lives in the affair. As I say, I did not ask whether the troops acted gallantly or not. What I have asked is what action the Government propose to take against the persons responsible.
That is not in the Question.
Arising out of the Minister's reply that it is not in the Question, and out of the Minister's reply on this date, does the Minister say that the person who carried out the orders, apparently, or who directed the orders, should be given compensation for carrying out the orders? Was he dismissed or was he called on to resign or what action was taken against him or what action is it proposed to take?
That is a separate question. The Deputy asked me a question relating to the action of the troops.
No, no.
He did, of course, and the Irish troops acted under orders of the competent military authority in Katanga and they carried out their duties gallantly and as humanely as possible to stop the attacks on the United Nations forces and officials and on the Balubas.
May I re-read the Question?
The Deputy has already read the Question.
The Minister has now asserted that I did not ask him a certain question and I will read the Question for the purpose of clarification. "To ask the Minister for External Affairs if, in connection with a reply of 21st November relating to the action in the Congo on the 13th September 1961, he will state what action the Government propose to take in the matter in view of the fact that some Irish troops lost their lives in the affair." Does the Minister intend to leave it there?
I answered that question rather comprehensively on the 21st November and if the Deputy reads that answer he should be satisfied.
I do not think the Minister has answered the Question. The Question is what action is the Government going to take. I have not heard any answer to that.
Would the Minister say whether he approved of the action?
I answered that comprehensively on the 21st November.
With all due respect to the Minister he gives the impression that he approves of the action.
I stated on the 21st November that I satisfied myself that a situation existed in Elizabethville which, if it did not come to an end, would have required the use of force-to stop it. That is what I said.
What action is the Government going to take? The Minister has not answered that.
I answered that several times.
This is developing into an argument.
The Minister has said, in further answer to the question, that he answered it fully. What he said was this: "Action, however, should not have been begun without the authority of the late Secretary-General—then en route to the Congo and due to arrive in a matter of hours." I asked the Minister what action he proposed to take in that matter and he tells me that he is not going to take any action whatever.
I have nothing to add to what I said on the 21st.
Question No. 20 postponed.