The Press FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1960. The Congo And The United Nations

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29383, 9 December 1960, Page 16

The Press FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1960. The Congo And The United Nations

The Russian demand for the release of Mr Lumumba has caused a new Congo crisis for the United Nations. But the demand , cannot properly be addressed to the United Nations, whose emergency force has fallen over backwards to avoid any interference in Congo affairs. The demand would, however, fall on deaf ears if it were directed - to Colonel Mobutu, who exercises de facto power in much of the Congo. He has expelled Communist and Ghana diplomats and technicians because he suspected them of collaborating with his political opponents.- The position of United Nations representatives in the Congo is difficult enough without further complications. They are trying to preserve some sort of order and to maintain public services in the middle of a revolution in which they are forbidden to take sides. Mr Lumumba was thrown out of office not because of United Nations interference but rather in spite of it when Colonel Mobutu was able to obtain a greater following in the undisciplined army. For a long while the United Nations was even able to protect Mr Lumumba from Colonel Mobutu and would have done so still if Mr Lumumba had not escaped to try to rally his forces. No-one can condone the violence with which he has been treated since his arrest; but this is only an incident of civil war in which the United Nations cannot intervene without breaking the rule under which it entered the Congo at Mr Lumumba’s invitation. As the “Daily Telegraph” has commented:

Between order and disorder it has maintained a strict and lofty impartiality. It seems equally opposed to those who retain some

shreds of authority and those who are trying to seize them. In short, it has achieved the paradox of being neutral as between the fire brigade and the fire.

What makes the situation worse is the difficulty of deciding at any given time which is the fire brigade and which is the fire. Should the United Nations then withdraw from this thankless task that threatens its own existence? It could not do so with a clear conscience, however obstructive it may feel its neutral position is 1 to political development in the Congo. If the United Nations did withdraw, it is not likely that the Congo would be left to work out its own salvation. Intervention would surely corrie from less disinterested parties. Reports of an Egyptian plan for invasion are circumstantial. President Nkrumah’s new African army might move in. The Belgians would increase their activities in Katanga. And while these interests were being tangled in Congo cross-currents the savage tribal warriors in no-man’s land would be spreading their own particular form of anarchy and murder. On the other hand, can the United Nations risk a more positive attitude that would be resented by some of the independent African States as well as by the Communists, who hope to profit from confusion? It might do so through President Kasavubu, who has the greatest moral stature in the Congo today, and through some proposal for the loose federation that all along has seemed the best solution. Such a risky course should not be taken, however, until the good offices committee of the United Nations has been to Leopoldville and tried to instil some sense into the conflicting factions