asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the current situation in Biafra; and if the Government intend to take any fresh initiatives in ensuring the extension of aid.
30.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Nigerian Situation.
29.
asked the Minister for External Affairs the basis of the Taoiseach's statement of 16th January, 1970, that the Government were not prepared to support any actions in the relief field contrary to the wishes of the Nigerian Government.
31.
asked the Minister for External Affairs if he is satisfied that the United Nations of which Ireland is a member have taken sufficiently strong action to resolve the acute hunger that exists in the eastern district of Nigeria.
32.
asked the Minister for External Affairs (1) if he is satisfied that the needed emergency distribution of food in the Owerri, Umhahia, Enugu and other districts in the war zone has been fully met since the cessation of hostilities in Nigeria; and (2) if not, what action his Department have taken to rectify the situation.
33.
asked the Minister for External Affairs if he was aware of the facilities that Africa Concern had available at the end of hostilities in Nigeria to rush in food by air; and, if so, what action he took to highlight and enable the implementation of such available help.
34.
asked the Minister for External Affairs if he has any information on the distribution of relief supplies sent from this country to Nigeria; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
35.
asked the Minister for External Affairs if any recent representations have been made by his Department to the Nigerian Government concerning the welfare of Irish persons, including missionaries, in Nigeria; and if he will indicate the outcome of any such representations.
36.
asked the Minister for External Affairs if in view of the great concern and uncertainly in regard to the position of Irish missionaries and other Irish persons in Nigeria and in view of the long-standing good relations between Ireland and Nigeria, he will make representations to the Nigerian Government to allow Irish missionaries to continue their work in Nigeria; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
37.
asked the Minister for External Affairs the position now obtaining in relation to the Irish Holy Ghost Community in Nigeria.
38.
asked the Minister for External Affairs what steps the Government intend taking in relation to the reported intention of the Nigerian Government to expel Irish missionaries.
39.
asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will make a statement on the reported detentions and subsequent deportation of Irish priests and nuns from Nigeria.
40.
asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will make a comprehensive statement on the Biafra-Nigerian situation with particular reference to the present position of Irish missionaries in the region.
41.
asked the Minister for External Affairs what steps are being taken to safeguard Irish missionaries in Nigeria; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
42.
asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will make a comprehensive statement on the position of Irish Holy Ghost missionaries in Nigeria with particular reference to Bishop Whelan of Limerick.
43.
asked the Minister for External Affairs whether the assurances received from the Nigerian Government after the collapse of Biafra concerning the security of Irish missionaries included an assurance that they would be left in freedom; if not, what steps the Government then took to seek such an assurance; and what response any such further inquiries received.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose taking Questions Nos. 29 to 43 together.
Since the end of hostilities in Nigeria the Irish Government have concentrated on doing what is possible to safeguard the lives and welfare of Irish citizens and to promote the relief of the victims of the war. We offered further relief assistance to the Nigerian Government and in this context we have taken into the fullest account the unique humanitarian contribution which can be made by Irish missionaries in the whole relief and reconstruction situation. The Irish Government have been constantly aware that the utilisation of our offer of assistance depends on the wishes of the Nigerian Government.
Of the 700 Irish missionaries in Nigeria over 600 are carrying on their normal duties without restriction. Twenty-five of the remainder were accused and convicted of entering the country illegally and of taking up employment without federal authority. Of those sentenced some were fined and other were imprisoned. As a result of our representations they have been freed to come home. I am advised by our Ambassador that he has received information that 30 others, including Bishop Whelan, were brought to trial yesterday.
In view of the gravity of the situation, I wish to give notice that I propose to raise it on the Adjournment.
Could the Minister indicate what action he or his Ambassador took to make it clear to the Nigerian Government that there was already an existing service capable of putting in food straight away to relieve the disastrous situation that existed in the former Biafran State?
As I have indicated, in our offer of relief we were conscious of the part that could be played by our missionaries in the area. However, I think that most people in Ireland—certainly I do—now accept, and always did, that the Government of Nigeria are in control of the internal matters in that country and that we have no right to interfere in the internal matters of another State.
Would the Minister agree that the violation for which the missionaries are imprisoned is a technical one arising out of the fact that the Nigerian Government during the period of hostilities did not permit relief to be brought from outside into the area formerly known as Biafra and that therefore the technical violation arose directly out of the newest of the missionaries' concern for the people among whom they had been working, and has this point of view been made clear to the Nigerian Government?
I have no doubt that the majority of the missionaries worked for humanitarian purposes and——
The majority only?
A majority?
Is there a minority who worked for another purpose?
Well, I think the House should accept at this time — this is a very delicate situation — that there are certain people not acceptable to the Nigerian Government.
They are not acceptable because they tried to break the starvation blockade of the Nigerian Government.
Whatever the reason, there are people who are not acceptable to the Nigerian Government. I accept that the purpose of all our missionaries — if that pleases the House better — was to carry out their priestly work and humanitarian duties and I am making no judgment in the situation except to inform the House that some of our missionaries were not acceptable to the Nigerian authorities. I make no personal judgment on this. I accept that the motivation of any missionary going out is to carry out his priestly duties, and purely humanitarian, but in this situation we deal with what is accepted by the government in charge of the country.
Do I gather from what the Minister has said that the Nigerian Government's view of Irish missionaries only applies to a small minority?
As I have indicated in the reply, about 600 or 700 missionaries are carrying out their normal duties without restriction. Of the others who were in the area of conflict, the Nigerian Government are taking certain steps which appear to me to be like an examination. I believe myself that the re-entry into Nigeria will be determined on an individual basis but, as I say, 600 or 700 of Irish missionaries in Nigeria are carrying out their duties without restriction.
Arising out of the Minister's reply and in particular reference to Question No. 43, could the Minister say what assurances he received from the Nigerian Government immediately after the collapse of Biafra? He will recall that he stated at that time that he had received assurances of the safety of the Irish missionaries concerned. It was clearly understood by everybody in this country that that meant they would not be locked up or expelled. Could the Minister now say what, in fact, assurances he received? Did he receive an assurance that they would be left in freedom? If not, what steps did he take to secure such an assurance and what response did he receive to any further inquiries of that kind that he made?
The Deputy will appreciate that a person in my position and in anybody's position in this House would not have foreseen the arrest of missionaries.
I sought the security of their lives in the breakdown of the war situation at the end of the war and I got the assurance that the Federal Government had made plans for the protection of foreign people in Nigeria.
By locking them up?
I repeat that one could not have foreseen this possibility but when I did discover that some of our missionaries were locked up I took the only action available. I think the House should appreciate that our one contact with our people in Nigeria is through our diplomatic relations with the Nigerian Government.
It was ignored and snubbed.
No, no—they were free to come home through my representations.
It was ignored and snubbed because the Ambassador there could get no information and what did the Minister do about it?
And our representative was expelled from Port Harcourt.
The House must acknowledge that they were free to come home. There were some of them sentenced to prison and we made representations and they were freed to come home and I believe——
These were illegal convictions in Nigeria.
Are Bishop Whelan and those now being tried free to come home now?
I think so. I think I can tell the House that they will get the same treatment; that they will be free to come home. It is a situation in which I cannot talk for another Government but I have an assurance from the Nigerian Government——
That they will be allowed to come home?
——and up to this time none of the assurances has broken down — has been disregarded.
First, the Minister stated that there were large amounts of money made available to the Federal Government. Not one of these missionaries in captivity in Port Harcourt has been supplied with any food from the Federals. It is all supplied by the nuns in the area. They are completely unprovided for in the area. He has made no representations along these lines to provide food for the missionaries who are under detention. The other point that I want to make is as regards the re-examination of their credentials.
The Deputy may put a question but may not make a statement.
I want to clear up the background.
Arising from the Minister's reply, how is it that it is only the missionaries in the area captured by the Third Commando Group of the Federal Army who were tried in Port Harcourt? Is the Minister aware that the trials in Port Harcourt are not recognised by the Federal Government in Lagos, that they are kangaroo trials and bear no legal commitment at all on the part of the Federal Government and this is why they are releasing them and not because of the representations made by the Minister's Department?
I do not seek any credit for the release of our missionaries.
The Minister stated it earlier.
The only credit I would seek would be for keeping my mouth shut at the right time, which other Deputies did not do.
Would the Minister not agree that, in view of the uncertainty of the situation in which some of our missionaries still are in custody in Nigeria it would possibly be not in the best interests of those missionaries to discuss this matter any further in this House at this time?
That is right. I would agree with that.
Is it not an accepted principle of international law or diplomacy that if an ambassador from a country wants to see people who have been jailed by another Government he is entitled to do so? Is it not a fact that the Minister and the ambassador were ignored in that they were refused this facility which is an understood facility in modern diplomacy?
I think the Deputy should appreciate that the time has gone when we can impose on other States — not us but Europeans — what we want to impose.
I am not asking the Minister to impose anything.
The Convention of Vienna would allow what the Deputy wants, but I think the Dáil should appreciate that we are dealing with a State as sovereign and independent as we are, which is no longer a colony of any other country.
That is rubbish. The Minister is not answering my question. According to the ordinary rules of diplomacy the Minister was entitled——
I cannot deal with theory, Deputy.
The Minister is toeing the line with the British Government.
I am calling Question No. 44.