HC Deb 29 November 1961 vol 650 cc435-8
24. Mr. P. Williams

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the present position in the Congo.

48. Mr. Driberg

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the present situation in the Congo; and what steps are being taken, in consequence of the report of the United Nations Commission which investigated the murder of the Prime Minister of the Congo, to bring to justice those persons, including Belgian mercenaries and Mr. Tshombe, of whose complicity in this murder there is, prima facie, evidence.

82. Mr. Biggs-Davison

asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government, and the British delegation, to dissociate the United Kingdom from, and to resist, United Nations resolutions and operations involving further armed intervention in Katanga.

Mr. Heath

The Central Government have taken over the administration of some towns in North Katanga after the seizure of control by Baluba tribesmen. The United Nations forces took action to restrain some of the troops from Stanleyville who got out of hand.

Reinforcements of United Nations troops have been sent to Kindu in Kivu province, following the massacre of thirteen Italian airmen there, with instructions to bring the murderers to justice. Her Majesty's Government deeply deplore this shocking massacre, which has also been condemned by the Central Government. The Central Government have not yet nominated their representative to the joint Congolese-United Nations Commission to investigate the circumstances of the massacre.

The report of the United Nations Commission which investigated the murder of Mr. Lumumba was published on 11th November. It will no doubt be considered by the General Assembly should this be requested.

The Security Council passed a further resolution on 24th November, the United Kingdom delegate abstaining. The Acting Secretary-General and the Commander of the United Nations forces have both stressed that they regard their task as one to be carried out as far as possible by peaceful means.

Mr. Williams

Can my right hon. Friend say what is meant by "as far as possible by peaceful means"? Would he not agree that this whole chapter of United Nations interference in the Congo is a sorry comedy—a tragedy—of errors, using the extravagant financial support given by Her Majesty's Government? Is it not now time to bring this financial support to an end as a first step to giving proper, sensible support to a State in Africa which is trying to work for co-operation between European and African?

Mr. Heath

It is indeed a tragedy that it has not been possible to restore law and order and peace in the Congo as a whole; but Her Majesty's Government are supporting the United Nations' operation to prevent intervention by the great Powers, to provide technical assistance, and to try to encourage conciliation between the secessionist provinces and the Central Government. Those broad issues are worthy of support and that is why Her Majesty's Government have supported the operation.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

Is not the U.N. attack on mercenaries in fact an attack on technical assistance? Has not what happened at Albertville established the fact that it is only when local Congolese forces have the expert advice and leadership of European officers that these terrible events and the running amok of troops do not happen?

Mr. Heath

Her Majesty's Government have supported the removal of mercenaries from the fighting forces, but have never at any time supported the removal of those engaged in technical assistance.

Mr. Warbey

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a number of foreign mercenaries in Katanga are disguised as officials of the public works department? Are not those the people whom the British Government are protecting? Can he also explain why the British Government abstained from voting for a Security Council resolution which would have strengthened the hand of the new Acting Secretary-General in the Congo?

Mr. Heath

I have no knowledge of the disguise of the mercenaries. Her Majesty's Government abstained from voting for the United Nations resolution for a number of reasons, all of them important. Among them were that the resolution referred only to the secession of Katanga and not to secessionist activities elsewhere in the Congo. Moreover, it said nothing about conciliation. Indeed, an amendment referring to this was withdrawn under threat of the Russian veto. Moreover, it included no reference to the cease-fire arrangements. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government could not support it.

Mr. Fell

Will my right hon. Friend say why during the discussion of this resolution, Sir Patrick Dean said in New York: We are strongly in favour of getting rid of the mercenaries …"? That includes all the whites and let us face it. Why did he also say, when speaking of the return of the Foreign Minister of the Republic of the Congo: We should have preferred him to return armed in either hand to deal with secession and armed action wherever and whenever they may occur in the Congo"? Does the phrase "return armed" mean physically armed to deal with the secession of Katanga and with Gizenga's attempt at secession?

Mr. Heath

No, Sir. It does not mean physically armed. It refers to the matter which I have already mentioned—that we thought that the resolution should have dealt with secessionist activities in any part of the Congo and not only those in Katanga. We have always maintained, and so has the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Sir Roy Welensky, that the Congo should have a unity within its present borders. That was the policy which Sir Patrick Dean was advocating. Her Majesty's Government have never supported the withdrawal of technical assistance and have continuously supported the withdrawal of mercenaries from the fighting forces.

Mr. P. Williams

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.