Muddled Planning By U.N. Alleged

Press, Volume C, Issue 29620, 16 September 1961, Page 11

Muddled Planning By U.N. Alleged

(N.Z. Press Association— Copyright) LONDON, September 15. Who pulled the trigger first in Katanga, and why? These questions were posed by the “Daily Express’s” political correspondent today. , .

He said no British Cabinet Minister knew the answer last night “and this despite a full report to London from Birtain’s Ambassador to the Congo, Mr Derek Riches, detailing an astonishing talk he had wi’h the United Nations Secretary-General late on Wednesday.” The correspondent said Mr Riches found Mr Hammarskjold “largely ignorant” of the actions of his representative in Katanga, Mr Connor O’Brien.

“From such clues reaching London it began to look as if the bloodshed might have been a grotesquely tragic farce. There is growing fear that although Mr Hammarskjold laid down the policy behind the take-over of Katanga, his instructions to Mr O’Brien lacked precision,” the correspondent said. He said that when things “went wrong” there was no understanding between the two men on how to deal with the situation.

The “Daily Mail” expressed a similar opinion in an editorial. “It appears that Mr O’Brien was given woefully loose instructions and

that he interpreted them on his own initiative in a disastrous and blundering manner,” the editorial said. “The operation was misguided from the start. It was not yet completely clear who was to blame for the initial attack,” it said. The “Daily Mail” said a number of important questions were raised by the United Nations’ action. “How can Mr O’Brien have been allowed to take action of this kind on his own initiative? Was there sufficient control from United Nations’ headquarters? Was the Sec-retary-General himself trying to rush things?” it asked. The “Daily Telegraph” diplomatic correspondent also said Mr Hammarskjold had been unable to explain fully to the British Government the United Nations’ actions. He was still awaiting reports from Katanga. Four leading Indian newspapers today fully endorsed the United Nations’ action in Katanga and criticised Britain for demanding an “explanation” of United Nations policy from Mr Hammarskjold.

The “Indian Express.” welcoming the United Nations’ action, said: "It is to be hoped that the United Nations, having embarked on action calculated to set the Congo on an even and stable keel, will not allow itself to be hamstrung by the interested protests of one or the other bloc.”

Describing the British demand as “impertinent and disquieting,” the paper sai'd: “One should have 'thought that the United Nations' policies, as well as their implementation, were obvious to all members of the United Nations, more particularly to members of the Security Council” The “Hindustan Times” said the United Nations' action was fully justified under the mandate of the Security Council resolution of February 21, which authorised the world body to use force if necessary to prevent civil war in the Congo. Referring to the British demand, the newspaper asked: “Is it Britain’s contention that civil war should have been allowed to break out before the United Nations’ mission intervened?”