Adjournment of the Dáil. - Relations with Spanish Government. – Dáil Éireann (8th Dáil) – Friday, 27 Nov 1936

Adjournment of the Dáil. - Relations with Spanish Government.

An Ceann Comhairle

The motion before the House is:—

That the Dáil at its rising this day do adjourn to Wednesday, February 3rd, 1937.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move:—

To delete the words and figures "February 3, 1937" and to insert the words and figures "December 2nd, 1936".

I do so in order to ask the House to express the view that the Government should take the necessary steps leading to the recognition by us of the Government of General Franco in Spain. Recognising fully that the matter is delicate, we are taking this action now because, in the circumstances in which the Opposition finds itself placed by the continued silence of the Government, no other course is open to us. We have waited for months, daily hoping to hear the President in his capacity as Minister for External Affairs take the House, or at least the leaders of the political Parties in the House, into his confidence. From the abundance of facts which must officially be in his possession, we expected an explanation from him, if not publicity, then privately, on the position in Spain to-day so far as that position affects the fundamental principles upon which we here are all agreed.

Unfortunately, the President has adhered to his deliberate plan of keeping the leaders of political Parties in opposition to him in the Dáil completely in the dark with regard to the facts, or reports upon which decisions with regard to foreign policy are based. This is an undesirable state of affairs, and it has been repeatedly urged from these benches that political leaders should receive such information, in absolute confidence if need be, so that as far as possible there may be agreement on vital matters of foreign policy. Our representations have been ignored and so we must decide, on the information available to us, merely as members of the general public, what our course of action should be.

We have avoided as long as possible taking parliamentary action in this matter. We do so now with a full sense of our responsibility to the nation and even to what goes far beyond the boundaries of our own State. It is impossible to look on Europe to-day without being acutely conscious of the vital character of the struggle now being waged in Spain. It is not the fate of either party in Spain, not even the fate of the whole gallant Spanish people and their centuries-old glorious civilisation which are at stake. It is something more important even than these. It is the fate of European civilisation and of everything in it which endears it to us that is in the balance.

For a number of years past, for almost 20 years, we have seen that civilisation gravely threatened by the existence and activity of a State and a Party which have pursued their aims with a determination, a ruthlessness and a singlemindedness that should have been a warning to all statesmen who still attach value to European traditions. After a revolution which has no parallel in history, it has relentlessly attacked every pillar by which that European civilisation is supported. It is the outspoken, forceful, and never sleeping foe of Christianity, that Christianity which has supplied the most valuable element in our inheritance. The Soviet State has been almost equally hostile to every other form of religion. It has put atheism in the forefront of its programme. It has trampled underfoot every right of the individual and every right of conscience. It has denied the most rudimentary economic constituents of our civilisation. It has recognised no other standard of conduct, no other guide of its public activities, no other measure for its actions than their usefulness in promoting the victory of the Communist cause. It has spurned, as the invention of an effect bourgeois philosophy, all the canons of morality in which we have been brought up, canons which should shape our every action. In forcing its cause to victory over its own people it has shrunk from no terrorism and has been held back by no consideration of mercy. But the party that has been responsible for the triumph of Communism in Russia has always regarded its doctrine as meant, not only for its own people, but as a gospel to be spread by every method, secret or open, which would seem likely to help it to victory, with the aim of finally bringing the whole world under its domination.

There have been apparent advances and withdrawals, as external and internal circumstances dictated in the intensity with which the propaganda has been carried on. Many a statesman in Europe has probably solaced himself in recent years with the assumption that the Soviet Union has, apparently, finally settled down, within its own borders, content to take its place in a normal fashion amid the other States of Europe. Those statesmen and nations who have founded on that assumption a sense of security have paid no attention to the two-fold voice with which in recent years Moscow has been wont to speak. The Russian Foreign Office tries to attune its voice to the accustomed language of the Chancellories of Europe, but the work of spreading the gospel has been ceaselessly prosecuted by the other voice, the Comintern, the Communist International, with its Headquarters in Moscow and under the domination of the party which controls the Russian Government.

Twelve months ago it was possible for people to be misled by that apparent change of policy on the part of the Russian Foreign Office, but the events of the last year and, especially recent happenings in Spain, should tear the bandage from the eyes of everybody who has any interest in the higher aspects of our present complex social organisation. Whatever pretence there may have been in the beginning it must surely now be clear to everyone that the cause of the Caballero Government and the cause of the Communist International are identical. Moscow, Barcelona and Madrid form a common front. We have only to ask ourselves do we wish for victory for the cause for which these comrades stand. Let there be no mistake about it, the victory of the Communist cause in Spain would probably be a deciding factor for the fate of Europe. It is not a question which any person with a vision which extends beyond his own parish can regard as something in which he has no interest. The war in Spain is a war for the victory or defeat of Communism and all it stands for, with its denial of Christian principles, individual liberty, and democracy.

I do not see how a country with our history, our beliefs, our traditions and our ideals, moral, religious and political, can fail to withdraw recognition from a Government standing for everything we abhor and accord it to a Government that is fighting enemies that are the greatest we have to combat in Europe now or in the future. I am not suggesting that we abandon the policy of non-intervention. I am bringing forward this amendment, not for the purpose of criticising the Government for having adopted that policy. Of that policy we on this side of the House fully approve. I believe that the intervention of outside Powers would, as far as our human intelligence can judge, almost certainly lead to a general conflagration, a conflagration that might bring upon us at once these disastrous consequences that would follow inevitably but at a slower pace on the victory of the Red Forces in Spain. Considering the present position in international affairs, and considering any other machinery that might possibly be called in to preserve the peace, I can see no better method than the policy of non-intervention to prevent such a catastrophe.

Whole-heartedly desiring as I do the defeat of Communism and all it stands for in Spain and elsewhere, I do not believe that the policy of intervention could accomplish that defeat. Intervention might do irreparable damage in that respect, too. But what I advocate connotes in no way the abandonment of the policy of non-intervention. The recognition of General Franco's Government does not, it is clear, run contrary to that policy of non-intervention to which the Government is rightly committed. We, I am quite willing to admit, are but a small State. Our material resources are comparatively slight. We cannot sway the counsels of the European States, but against this I put certain considerations before the House. I do not believe that our influence in world affairs can be measured at all adequately by our material strength. There is another consideration of perhaps even greater importance. It would indeed be a pity, in this present struggle for and against Communism, in which all Europe seems determined to take sides, that it should seem to be left to those States that boast their non-democratic character to take the step of recognising as a Government that Party in Spain which is fighting our most deadly foe. I believe that Communism is in the end not only destructive of our civilisation but is more injurious to democracies than to dictatorships. It is fitting and necessary that a Christian and democratic State such as ours should give a clear and clean lead in this matter which involves a life and death struggle against the enemies of our common civilisation.

I have confined myself to the essential issues in the case. I have not dwelt on the sacrileges, the destruction, the atrocities, that have shaken our people to the very core, because I was anxious that the main issue at stake should be clearly put before the Dáil. I believe that a step of such paramount importance as this should transcend all party issues, that our national honour and more than our national honour is involved. It is of importance that the nation here should speak with one voice on this issue, and it does appear to me that the plain facts as they appear to all men indicate that whatever may have been the beginnings or the history of the struggle at present being waged in Spain, that struggle has now assumed a character of European and of world importance. It is not fitting that even by passive taking of sides we should as a nation interest ourselves in domestic quarrels between two sections of any people. The war in Spain, as I have said, has ceased to have that character. Ranged behind the Madrid Government are all the forces whose aims we, as Christians and as Irishmen, abhor. What I am asking the Government to do involves no military operations, no breach in the policy of non-intervention. It seems to me to involve merely the taking of a simple action which will bring this generation of Irishmen into line and into harmony with those who have gone before us and left to us a great tradition.

I think, and I hope the House will agree with me, that the Government of General Franco in Spain should be recognised and that recognition should be withdrawn from the combination which opposes him.

Professor O'Sullivan

I beg to second the amendment that has been moved by the leader of the Opposition, I think he has made quite clear what we are asking the President to do. We are asking him to take such steps, and to assure the House that he will take such steps, as will lead to the recognition of what is called the Franco Government in Spain. As Deputy Cosgrave pointed out, there may have been a time when a number of well-meaning men may have been in doubt about what was at issue in Spain. They may have felt that the Liberal Government might have been given a chance. There were many more who believed that the best that could be said for that Government was that it partook of the character of the Kerensky Government in Russia in 1917. But that is not what is now at stake. What is now at stake is clearly and definitely the victory or defeat of the Communist International in Spain, the victory or the defeat of the Red cause in Spain, the victory or defeat of Communism.

We have several problems that divide us here in this country. I have never tried to slur over the seriousness of the divisions that politically divide the various classes and Parties in this country, but here is, I think, a matter on which every class in this country, every political Party in this country, every creed in this country, should be in full agreement, once they realise what is taking place in Spain, once it is clear to them that it is not merely a question as to who in future will rule in Spain, but that it is a question of what cause is to be triumphant in Europe. We cannot disguise from ourselves the tremendous change that has taken place in world outlook in the last 12 months. I feel that it is only because people still are able to shut their eyes to what is taking place or what has taken place in these 12 months, that there can be any hesitation or any doubt about the importance and the real significance of what is taking place in Spain at the present moment, and about the importance of the outcome of the struggle there. It is a thing that is not merely serious; it is urgent for the reasons indicated by the leader of the Opposition in introducing his amendment.

It is useless for us to say that we are against Communism, that we will not allow it to take a full root in this country, that we will stop it here once it openly shows its head and indulges in anything that is illegal. To adopt an attitude of that kind, to think that we can put an antiseptic iron wall about this country, is to live in a fool's paradise. We can do nothing of the kind. Even were we to look at the thing, as I strongly hold we ought not, from our own selfish point of view, our own selfish point of view would dictate that our sympathies and interests should lie with the defeat of the Communist Party in Spain in the war. I make no distinction, and I do not think the House or anybody who wants to face the issues ought to make any distinction, between the victory of Communism in Spain and the victory of Moscow. There may be controversy about matters of detail but there can be no doubt or no difference of opinion as to the common front that is being put up by the Communist Party in Spain and the Moscow Government.

This civilisation of ours has had to submit to many revolutions, revolutions that some people think have been salutary and that others regret, but I think we can all agree that never in its history has our race witnessed such a revolution as Communism implies—a revolution not content with ordinary destruction but bent on tearing up humanity and all the traditions handed down for centuries, tearing them up from their roots. Do not think that it was ever meant to be confined to the States or the countries or the people that comprise the Soviet Union. It never was. Never have we witnessed such a determined attempt as is being made to-day under our very eyes. Anybody who looks at the international situation at the present time must be appalled—I do not think appalled is too strong a word—at all the dangers that confront us. But is there any danger as serious or any danger as permanent as that represented by the declared victory of Communism over what they themselves boast to be one-sixth of the surface of the globe already, and its spread through western Europe, to one of the oldest countries in the civilisation of Europe, a country famous for its crusading on behalf of our civilisation and our Christianity?

Have you asked yourselves what the spread of Communism there and the victory of Communism there would mean not merely for that country but for the whole of Western Europe? That is the issue which we have to face. When we speak of that danger I think one of its great elements is that public men, statesmen in many countries of Europe, will not realise the danger. It is exceedingly difficult, and it has always been exceedingly difficult, for a generation standing on the very threshold of a world revolution to realise that they are doing so. Surely it is up to the people who see that clearly, and who clearly see the danger, to put it before the people. I am often amazed at the apparent indifference shown by public men throughout Europe to the advance of that particular cause. I could only understand it on one of two assumptions, or perhaps both. One reason is, they do not know what that Communist cause stands for, and that is quite possible. They do not know it except in a vague and general way. There are many people who think that it is a kind of altruistic, humanistic, harmless, idealistic philosophy. It is nothing of the kind. It is something much more terrible and real than that. But I am afraid there are many statesmen and many public men in Europe who still regard it in that particular light. The other reason why they are so complaisant is this, that they will not face the danger of its coming to their own shores or beyond their own frontiers. They are playing with fire, and they do not know they are playing with fire.

I do not want to exaggerate; I do not want to indulge in any criticism within this country at the present moment. I can understand that there may be honest differences of opinion as to the best way of combating the menace, but I cannot understand why the seriousness of the menace should not be seen, and why the danger should not be kept continually before us. We are face to face with a doctrine, with a cause, with which there can be no possible compromise. We could only accept it by rejecting, by spurning, everything we have been taught to hold dear, and everything we have held and do hold dear. I admit that even with the triumph of that cause the human race will survive. It will! But if that cause triumphs it will be a very different civilisation and a very different human race, deprived of all the important values that we cherish. When we ask ourselves what are the alternatives, and when we answer that question for ourselves, I put it to the President ought the Government to have any hesitation in putting the necessary machinery in motion that will lead to the recognition by his Government of the opponents of Communism in Spain?

It is not a question as to whether the form of government that that Party will set up is the precise form of government which we should set up if we had the settling of matters there. That is not the question. I have particularly avoided that question because I do not think it is the issue. What we want first and foremost is the defeat of Moscow and the defeat of the Communist cause in Spain. I see no other possibility of that being achieved except by the victory of the present opponents of Communism in Spain. Ask yourselves is there any other alternative to the recognition of the one side or the other? We might prefer a parliamentary system of government. We do. As the House knows, I am strongly attached to that particular form of government. I do not believe it is effete; I do not believe it is worn out; but that is not the situation we are asked to face. The only alternative in Spain is victory for the Reds or for General Franco. There is no other possible alternative. In those circumstances, seeing that it does not involve—and it is made clear by the statement of the big countries in Europe that it does not so involve— any breach of the policy of non-intervention to which the Government is committed—is there any reason why the Government should hesitate to go on the road towards the recognition of General Franco?

It has often seemed strange to me that, just as I was convinced that the Communist menace was growing more and more, a large number of public men throughout Europe were lulling themselves into the security of the opposite opinion. I admit that spectacular action in interference in the internal affairs of outside States is no longer the official policy of the Soviet Government. I will admit that, but I claim at the same time that from the point of view of the triumph of Communism, not merely in Russia but in other countries in Europe, the situation is much more serious to-day than when that aggressive intervention, the fomenting of revolts, and ceaseless propaganda carried on in most countries in Europe were the order of the day. The situation is more serious to-day than when all that thing was patronised and carried out by the official Soviet Government. It is much more serious for the very reason that the Soviet Government is an established Government, and, as far as people can see, is destined to exist for a number of years at all events. People can point to it and say "Well, it works. You told us it would not work, and still it is working. It has done great things. It has done colossal things." That is a much more attractive thing to many people in Europe—accustomed to pay snobbish tribute to success without considering what the success serves—than the intribute to success without considering what the success serves—than the intervention of outsiders in their internal affairs. From that point of view, the propagandist value of Russia has increased tremendously, but, as Deputy Cosgrave has pointed out, that is only one side of the picture.

I have studied this matter for a number of years. In my readings I did not confine myself by any means to unfavourable critics. I have read the favourable and unfavourable critics of the Soviet Government, and I have read any speeches of the heads of the Soviet Government that I could get, provided they were written in a language I could read. One thing is clear: whether it is in Asia, Europe or Africa, the steady work of propaganda and fomenting of revolt has been carried on all those years—there has been not a moment's cessation. The Soviet Government, which a few years ago was pointing out the degrading character of that bourgeois assembly—this is what it called the League of Nations—can go to Geneva and can speak the language of that assembly quite as well as any of the older statesmen in Europe. All the time the Communist International, with its seat at Moscow, is engaged in ceaseless work of propaganda. That work of propaganda will differ in character with the diverging character of the different peoples for whom it is intended. That propaganda is ceaseless, sometimes open and unashamed, sometimes secret. But, you may say, the Soviet Government is not responsible for that. That is the Communist International! The Soviet Government and the Communist International are both under the domination of the same force. They are both voices of the same controlling force in Russia, namely, the Communist Party of Russia. In Russia, itself, the Government is merely the instrument of that particular party.

In connection with that, it is quite a revealing fact that for a number of years—I cannot speak as to what the position is at the moment—the real ruler of Russia had no official position in the Government. He was merely general secretary of the Communist Party. The Communist Party controls both the Government of Russia— which so often now makes such play of correct diplomatic action—and the Communist International, which acts far from "correctly," in the old hemisphere. I cannot speak of the new hemisphere. Unfortunately, therefore, the assumptions that some statesmen make about the situation being now much easier than it was ten years ago, rests on no solid foundation. The situation now is much more serious and much more dangerous from the point of view of the opponents of Communism than it ever was. Watch how cleverly the propaganda is done. Deputy Cosgrave alluded to that in the course of his speech.

I have tried to put before you what are the real issues in Spain. I should be surprised if there is any division of opinion on that particular point, but you need only read a number of papers—English papers shall we say? —you need only listen to the wireless, to see how cleverly it is being insinuated that the struggle in Spain is a struggle between Fascism and democracy. Read—listen to—the pronouncements of the official Labour Party in England on that point. Take their whole attitude to this struggle, and you will see the cleverness and you will see the success with which that propaganda is being got across, the success with which the real issue is being clouded over. Remember that that same Labour Party has rejected Communism, and yet, so cleverly has the propaganda been conducted, that. for them, in Spain, the struggle is between democracy and Fascism. It is nothing of the kind. For us, the struggle is between Communism and the foes of Communism. It was a remarkably clever thing in the way of propaganda to pretend that this is a struggle for the life of democracy and to pretend that democracy is, at the present moment. represented in Spain by the Government of Señor Caballero. It has deceived many—some quite genuinely; others, perhaps, had no objection to being deceived. That being so, however, is not that, as Deputy Cosgrave pointed out, all the more reason why we should take this step? Many things may be said about us. Many things can be said in our praise, and many things can be said in criticism of us; but, at least, the Government of this State can claim to be a Government based on the goodwill of the majority of the elected representatives of the people here. I know of no country to-day that is more democratic, from the Parliamentary point of view, than is our State with our Constitution here at the present moment. There are no exclusions for people over the age of 21. And the Government holds office at the will of the majority of the representatives elected on a basis of universal suffrage. Certainly, we can boast that there is no more democratic country in the world than ourselves at the present moment. It is all the more important, therefore, to take a step of this kind. It is, at least, an indication, so far as attention will be given to it, that there is a democratic country that believes in the necessity of defeating Communism; that the forces arrayed in Spain—that the sympathies of the peoples arrayed against the Caballero Government outside Spain—are not confined to those who repudiate what they call democratic government, at least of the Parliamentary type.

That is one of the important reasons why I should like this step to be taken by this Government. I do not know what the wars in the future may be. They may be something analogous to the old wars of religion. They may be wars of rival philosophies. I cannot go into that; but, at least, let us be clear that the cause of anti-Communism is not the cause of anti-democracy. I believe that, in bringing forward this motion, the Leader of the Opposition is expressing the will of the bulk of the Irish people. I believe that the emotion by which they have been stirred is a genuine emotion on their part. I believe that it was a natural emotion on their part.

If we had any doubt about the danger, nationally or internationally, coming from Moscow, the Spanish crisis, and the Spanish situation, ought to have banished all such doubts. What is at stake, as I said already, is our civilisation—every factor in that civilisation that makes it dear to us and that makes it valuable to us. Deputy Cosgrave referred to it as the Christian European civilisation, and he did so because he recognised that the Christian religion was the principal component part of that civilisation. Now, let there be no doubt as to what the triumph of Communism stands for. It stands, not merely for the destruction of Catholicism, not merely for the destruction of Christianity, but for the destruction of every kind of religion whatsoever—and that is no chance development on their part. That is a fundamental article of their creed.

May I point out to you—may I read for you—an extract from the address of the founder of that State: the founder of practical Communism—delivered, quite appropriately, to the Congress of the Young Communist League. I refer to an address by Lenin in Moscow in October of 1920; and you can see by your papers to-day that this policy is still being carried on. I bring forward this quotation for another reason, and that is, because, with a morality of the kind put forward here before our eyes, we shall be in a better position to understand a great deal of what is happening in Spain; because this quotation justifies the statement of Deputy Cosgrave that, so far as that cause is concerned, the ordinary rules of morality—the rules that we have been accustomed to and the rules that we observe—simply do not hold. This is not a momentary statement made in the heat of the moment by Lenin—he did very little in the heat of the moment. I can give you quotation after quotation of the same tenour from his followers. Therefore, with people who hold a view of morality such as this which I am about to quote, need we be surprised at any plotting or planning, or at anything that they do in Spain or elsewhere? I am afraid the quotation is rather long, but this is what Lenin says:—

"Is there any such thing as Communist morality? Of course there is. .... In what sense do we deny ethics and morals? In the sense in which they are preached by the bourgeoisie—a sense that deduces these morals from God's commandments. Of course, we do not believe in God. We know perfectly well that the clergy, the landlords, and the bourgeoisie all claim to speak in the name of God in order to protect their own interests as exploiters .... We deny all morality taken from super-human, or non-class conceptions. We say that this is a deception, a swindle, a befogging of the minds of the workers and peasants in the interests of the landlords and the capitalists."

Now, here is what I want to come to particularly:—

"We say that our morality is wholly subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat. We deduce our morality from the facts and the nature of the proletariat—but morality taken from outside of human society does not exist for us. It is a fraud. For us morality is subordinated to the interests of the proletarian class-struggle."

That is the issue I put to the House. That is the issue in Spain at the present moment. Therefore I should like an expression of opinion from the President on the matter.

Mr. MacDermot

Sir, as between the Government of General Franco and the Government of Senor Largo Caballero I suppose there is hardly anybody in this House, and very few in this country, who do not sympathise rather with the Government of General Franco. Whether the Spanish revolution was necessary is another question. I take the view that the Government in Spain having ceased to govern, having ceased to protect its citizens against the operations of thugs, the people who felt disposed to throw off their allegiance to it were morally justified in doing so. But whether, taking the wide view, it would not have been wiser for them and better in the long run for all concerned if they had decided on intensifying political activity and developing their party organisation for the overthrow of their enemies by parliamentary methods, is another question. Seeing the appalling things that have occurred in Spain since the outbreak of the revolution, one certainly feels inclined to wonder whether those who threw off their allegiance to the Government by methods of violence would not, however righteous their cause, have been wiser and more patriotic if they had adopted other methods. But that is a side issue. We do all of us want to see the Franco Government in preference to the Caballero Government.

But this motion is in effect a vote of censure on our own Government for their attitude towards the Spanish conflict and for their alleged indifference to the general menace of Communism. Frankly, I cannot see any ground for that censure and I do not think that the speeches of Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy O'Sullivan have given us any ground for that censure. I should have thought that if they considered that the Government should before now have recognised General Franco, it was incumbent on them to indicate what they believe to be the test of the right moment to recognise a revolutionary government. Surely the test is not merely our sympathies. Suppose a revolution broke out in Germany or in France in which some of the rights of the Catholic church were involved, a revolution which for some reason or other attracted the sympathy of people in this country. Just at what moment would it be proper to recognise the revolutionary government instead of the previous Government? That is a difficult problem, and it is a problem with which neither Deputy Cosgrave nor Deputy O'Sullivan has attempted to deal. Perhaps Deputy McGilligan or somebody else may do so later in the debate.

I take it that the test accepted by the world in general is whether or not the new Government has obtained de facto control of the country of which it claims to be the legitimate Government. There are a great many nations in the world which are concerned in this matter besides ours. So far the

Government who recognise General Franco have been those of the Fascist line-up—Fascist countries and countries controlled by them, such as Albania. But the world in general has adopted the course for which President de Valera is being censured by the Opposition. It is suggested, for example, that we should recognise the Government of General Franco without any consultation with the other Governments of the British Commonwealth? Have we faced the difficulties of the constitutional position that would be created if the King and his Ministers in this country were to recognise one Government in Spain and the King and his Ministers in other parts of the Commonwealth were to recognise another Government in Spain? Is it suggested that we should pay no heed at all, apart from the British Commonwealth, to the attitude of countries such as the United States of America, or the Scandinavian countries, or Belgium, a country as Catholic as we are? I think we have a right to expect a great deal more light to be thrown by the Opposition upon their principles of action in this matter before we can agree to censure the Government for the line they have, so far, taken and are taking. I believe that the ultimate victory of General Franco is pretty certain, and I believe that our Government will be amongst those most ready to recognise his Government when the right moment comes. Frankly, I have not enough experience of these matters to lay down a hard and fast rule as to when that moment will come, but I suggest it is better for us to act in concert with the general body of countries other than Fascist countries. I am not eager to see this country linking itself up with Fascist countries, while other countries, which are not in the least Communist, are standing aloof.

It is folly to talk as if the mere action of this Government in recognising General Franco was going to make a fundamental difference in the whole situation. Recognising General Franco to-morrow would contribute little or nothing towards the prospect of General Franco's victory. Therefore, what we have to be guided by is what is correct—and what is the normal diplomatic practice. I would much rather, in forming our conclusions about that, that we should act in concert with the other Governments of good-will which are neither Communist nor Fascist.

As regards the Communist peril in general, we all sympathise with the denunciations we have heard of the Communist International, and of the horrors which have taken place in Spain, but what are the practical suggestions of Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy O'Sullivan with regard to Communism? They say that the Government has shown undue indifference to the subject. Just what do they want the Government to do? There was a speech made a few days ago by the very amiable and very able Director of Organisation of the Fine Gael Party on this subject, and I imagine, as it was obviously carefully prepared, that it would not have been made unless it had behind it the full authority of the leader of the Opposition. In it Mr. Burke said:—

"In May of the present year in Wexford Dr. Ryan expressed the Government view in the following words: `If people said that in their opinion the best form of government for this country was the form of government in Russia, they were bound to protect them and allow them to put their views before the people.' "

A little lower down, after elaborating the subject, Mr. Burke said:—

"The attitude of Fine Gael had always been, and would always be, directly opposite to that of Fianna Fáil in this matter."

Again a little lower down, he said:—

"No Government can afford to ignore the wishes of the people in a matter so close to their hearts. At the moment a great non-political movement had arisen in the country which would, no doubt, in due course force the Government's hand and secure that adequate steps are taken to check the moral and national menace which has been growing in our midst."

I have said before that if there are organisations, Communistic or otherwise, in this country which are advocating the use of force for the overthrow of the Government, it is right they should be prosecuted and suppressed. But the quotation I have just read to the House goes far beyond that and plainly suggests that people who hold Communist opinions, who are in favour of the form of government that exists in Russia—which, by the by, is a form of government that could only inaccurately be described as Communist, because Communism in Russia has been a failure, and every day they seem to be dropping further and further away from Communism— should be prohibited by law from expressing their views. I can only say that I totally and absolutely disagree with that.

I do not believe that is the way to fight Communism. That is not the way in which Communism is being successfully fought in Great Britain, America and elsewhere. If you look at countries where Communism has been conspicuously successful, like Russia, Mexico or Spain, you will find that these are countries which were not noted for their liberalism. You will not find that even before the advent of Communism they were remarkable for the liberty of speech that was encouraged in their midst. The very way, to my mind, to increase the risk of popularising Communism is to turn your back upon the principles of democracy and to try to suppress free speech. I hope very much that these ideas do not represent the last word or the last thoughts of the Opposition Party on this subject.

We all want to see this country secure against the propaganda of the Communist International, and the way to achieve that is by conducting our Government and our national life in accordance with Christian ideas; spread principles of class harmony instead of class hatred throughout the country; to see that people really care about their fellow-men and suffer with their sufferings and are interested in alleviating their misfortunes. The fear I have is that a sort of hysteria is being created in Ireland owing to all this excitement about Communism that may result in doing just the kind of thing that may increase Communism rather than dispel it. For my part, I believe that President de Valera and his Government are perfectly willing and even eager to recognise General Franco's administration when the proper moment comes, and there has been nothing in the speeches delivered from the Opposition Front Benches which suggest to me that they have clearer ideas on this subject than the Government has, or have more sense of responsibility on this subject than the Government has.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The President to conclude.

Dáil Éireann debate - Friday, 27 Nov 1936

Adjournment of the Dáil. - Relations with Spanish Government.

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 27 Nov 1936