Defence Forces General Staff Against Jadotville Medal Awards

As a maturing nation we have benefitted for decades from the healing powers of restorative justice. Government and religious institutions sought to make amends for the mistakes of the past through this process. Restorative justice has been prominent in inter-community healing in Northern Ireland post the Good Friday Agreement. Against these backgrounds it is deeply regrettable, therefore, that our military’s General Staff have chosen the refuge and rigidity of Defence Forces Regulations to frustrate the long overdue award of the bravery medals recommended by their commanding officer for the standout bravery of Irish soldiers at Jadotville, Congo, in 1961.

Military Boards were convened in 1962 and 1965 to consider the actions of these soldiers who served in the Congo and A Company 35th Battalion stationed at Jadotville. I am informed that the Military Board Reports and associated documents are unavailable and do not exist. In the absence of any such reports recording the considered deliberations of the Review Boards, I find it remarkable that the General Staff would not have more forcefully supported the case to reconsider the information that has been available during and after the sensitive period 1962-1965 and up to the present day.

I understand that there is limited official documentation available with respect to the deliberations or findings of the Medals Boards convened on Jadotville in 1962 and 1965. These boards considered the award of medals for varying military actions in the Congo, including to a number of those who served in “A” Company, 35th Battalion at Jadotville, but not for the action at Jadotville. The conclusions the General Staff have arrived at are deeply flawed as there is nothing irrefutable to support their conclusions. They make it perfectly clear that there are no records or documentary evidence to prove that properly constituted medals boards were convened, nor are there any records of their deliberations. It’s an old intelligence adage that; “absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence”. Their conclusions are based on conjecture and not facts.

It is my view that the events of Jadotville must be considered using whatever evidence there is available today, from whatever source, or sources, from open sources, or based on documents held in private ownership. The terms of reference ask the current ongoing Independent review board to consider new evidence. However, what new evidence can there be given Military Archives have no pertinent records, and those involved in the action at Jadotville still living are now all in their 80’s.

With respect to the current review of the Jadotville recommendations, the General Staff appear to be preoccupied with supposed risks associated with reopening the Jadotville case. This suggested risk leans heavily on fears it could lead to the reopening of further, or as yet unknown or unspecified, medal awards from multiple subsequent overseas missions. In truth, what would be so wrong with this should it happen? If there were deeds of valour that to date have not been recognised, then international best practice of retrospectively recognising such deeds should be initiated. There are several international examples of medals being awarded 75 years after the events.

Natural justice requires that those recommended for medals for acts of valour should have been informed of that recommendation, and where medals boards rejected those recommendations, there should be an appeals mechanism in place to allow for a subsequent second independent opinion? If no such appeals mechanism was in place, and where any serving soldier was not awarded a medal recommended, then the state has an obligation to provide for such an appeals mechanism, retrospectively if necessary and inform all of those who were recommended for military awards.

When appointing the current Independent Review Board on Jadotville, there was an obligation on the Chief of Staff Vice Admiral Mellett DSM to ensure that this board was truly independent; that it be seen to be free from any perception of bias; and that no member of the board had a personal connection to individuals or families of those likely to be the subject of forensic scrutiny by the board of their actions or inactions relating to Jadotville.

From the moment the board members were named there have been allegations that at least one member of the board would not pass any reasonable test of independence or absence of bias on the matters being investigated. It now falls to Vice Admiral Mark Mellett DSM to address this allegation with rigour and probity. Has the Chief of Staff truly established that no member of the board he has established is conflicted in any way through personal relationships with some of the personalities or members of their families involved in the Congo and Jadotville in the period 1960/61; has any member of the board served closely in a military formation in Ireland with an offspring of military personnel germane to the matters under investigation by the board; and has any member of the board recently appointed by the Chief of Staff been a member in an official capacity of any board which previously considered any matter relating to Jadotville?

Finally, the question must be asked, was it appropriate or fair to have the leadership of a Defence Forces veterans representative association so actively involved in such a politically sensitive issue? This has the potential to be hugely divisive and damaging to ARCO.  

PressReader.com - Your favorite newspapers and magazines.