Quite; I have dealt with that. And Fianna Fáil has no use for Fascism. We have had many boasts in this House as to where the views of the majority of the people of this country were represented. Am I to assume that the Minister for External Affairs—I gather that he spoke altogether in that capacity this evening—can believe for a moment that the sympathies of the majority of our people are on the side of what the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Hugo Flinn, calls democracy in Spain? Is that what the President meant to convey? I have appealed to the President before in this matter, and so has my leader, Deputy Cosgrave. Last November we introduced a resolution here. Owing to the peculiar tactics, owing to that great respect which the President has for parliamentary institutions and the extraordinarily peculiar way he has of showing that respect, the Opposition was practically limited to those two speeches. At least one thing characterised those two speeches. The President might agree with them or disagree with them, but I challenge any fair-minded man to examine those two speeches and say that they did not go as far as was possible to avoid raising anything in the nature of purely Irish party politics in reference to that matter. We tried to keep that entirely out of the dispute, and the only answer we got from the President was a Party political speech of the characteristic type. Knowing the seriousness of this particular case, knowing that the fate of Europe, and, therefore, the fate of this country was involved, we tried to lift that particular plea that we were making out of the ordinary realm of Party politics. I do not think there was a word that could be taken as having reference to the politics of this country; yet the only answer we got was a Party political speech of the worst type, and there was no attempt to answer our questions.
One of the reasons why we did that in November, and why we are doing it now, is this—just to do our best to contribute to the defeat of a certain type of propaganda that is going on all over Europe—in this country, in Great Britain, and in every country in Europe—a propaganda that tries to make the suggestion that the struggle in Spain is a struggle between Fascism and democracy. The very thing that the Parliamentary Secretary for Finance accepted is the thing we are anxious to combat; we are certainly anxious to deny that this struggle in Spain is merely a struggle between "isms". It is nothing of the kind. But I will say this: I have always had an extraordinary admiration for the power and cleverness of the propaganda of the Communist International and of the Soviet Government. I do not know if its success has ever been more clearly demonstrated than in the present case. When this revolt broke out in Spain last July, I think the general opinion in Europe was against the Communists. The Communists and Anarchists had put themselves out of court by their conduct. But by subtle propaganda, by raising false issues, by suggesting that this was a struggle between Fascism and democracy, between Fascism and anti-Fascism, that this was a struggle on the part of the people against military dictatorship and Fascist dictatorship, they have been able to win over a large bulk of public opinion in Europe. This has been done by raising false issues. They have done it in an unmatched manner. They have changed the names of their journals in different countries, dropping Communist labels and substituting popular front labels. They have changed the names of their organisations, dropping the Communist labels and substituting other labels—all for what purpose? To get it across, as apparently they have got it across to the Fianna Fáil Party, that this is a struggle between Fascism and democracy. It is nothing of the kind. Here was an opportunity, as we pointed out to the President before, to show that it is not. We asked him to do it. There was no censure involved. We asked him to do it—to show that there was a Government in Europe which nobody could accuse of not now being a Parliamentary Government, whatever its ultimate aims might be, a country with democratic parliamentary institutions, that was against the Communist Party in Spain. The President had an opportunity of doing that. He failed to avail himself of that opportunity last November. He has failed to do so now.
Can anybody explain the obstinacy with which he goes against what I at all events hold is the sympathy of the great bulk of the Irish people? I interpret it in a way different from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance; I have no doubts as to where the sympathy of the Irish people is. I have no doubt as to the strength of that sympathy. I believe that the great bulk of the Irish people know perfectly well what is at stake. Here we had an opportunity for at least doing our little bit. The President may not think we are much; at least we had an opportunity of doing our little bit to counteract that propaganda—one of the most successful things that have been carried through by the Communist International. The President brings in a Bill of this kind; it is unfortunate but at least he did not have to remedy that. But at the precise moment that he is bringing in this Bill his Minister accredited to the Caballero Government goes back to resume his functions, goes back to the place where most of the diplomats of Europe are. I think everybody will admit that the answers given by the President to-day in that respect are a revelation, and not the kind of revelation that the country will like. He tried to convey as little information as possible, but there were certain things which slipped out and to which I should like to call his attention. To the first question, as to terminating diplomatic relations and assuming relations with other people, I am not aware that there is any particular time at which States determine to recognise Governments. The President seems to think that a time suddenly comes when, almost of itself, recognition comes from all Governments. That is not so. The same Government has been recognised by different Powers at different times, and there is no hard and fast rule as that behind which the President tries to shelter himself. He need not pretend that there is. See the length of time it took the different Powers of Europe to recognise the Government of Soviet Russia. It is the same with other Powers.
He speaks of established Governments. Is the Caballero Government the established de facto Government of Spain? Over what portion of Spain does it rule de facto or de jure at the present moment? Can he explain why he keeps his representative with that particular Government, ruling over a small portion of Spain, de facto, and refuses to send him to the Government ruling over the larger portion of Spain? Or are his views represented in this particular Bill as to the people warring in Spain? Section 3 sets out that the word “belligerent” means one of the Governments or organisations in the nature of Governments between whom war is being waged. Perhaps the President will explain what he means by that? Are there Governments in Spain? This Bill recognises that there are. The President introduces a Bill here which recognises different Governments in Spain. Otherwise there is no meaning in that particular drafting. There are other juntas, too, apparently, namely, “organisations in the nature of Governments,” but there must be more than one Government in Spain, according to the President's own Bill. Why is it he recognises one and only one?
How can the Irish people interpret his action? I pay very little attention to the words "There is no doubt as to where the sympathy of the majority of the Irish people lies." The Irish people will judge by his action, and how can they interpret his action in any way except this, that he regards, and that this country is held to accept the view, that this is a struggle between Fascism and Democracy and that he has his representative with the democratic Government? I fail to see how the Irish people can interpret the action and words of the President in any other manner but that. Then, in so far as this country is known in Europe, and I will agree with the President that perhaps there is not much known about it in Europe, there are certain things known about it there. I think it is known in Europe that we have certain ideals and beliefs in this country. How can Europe, in so far as Europe is interested in us, any more than the Irish people, interpret this combined action of the Minister for External Affairs and of our Government in bringing this Bill in and in sending its diplomat back to the Caballero Government? How can it interpret it otherwise than that this Government has made up its mind that this is a struggle in Spain between "isms," between Fascism and Democracy, and has made up its mind that the anti-Franco cause is the cause of Democracy?
I do not see how the President's action can be interpreted in any other way, and it was to prevent that, to prevent misinterpretation of that kind, that we moved our amendment. We made it quite clear at the time. We gave an opportunity in Questions to-day and we give an opportunity to the President now of at least getting rid of that misconception on the part of our people and any other people who are interested in our views. Deputy Dillon to-day, in reply to the first answer, put a very pertinent supplementary question. In that question he suggested the undesirability of this country holding itself out amongst the nations of the world as one which considers it desirable and expedient to maintain diplomatic relations with a Government which is notoriously Communist, and which is primarily concerned in Spain at present to drive religion out of that country, and to deny the very existence of God. It was a very definite and clear question. What was the illuminating answer the President gave to the House and to the Irish people? "My answer explains the question." That is a serious treatment of a serious question!—"My answer explains the question."
Deputy Dillon, possibly owing to the lack of subtlety that prevails on this side of the House, being unable to understand precisely what the President is talking about, asked: "Does the Minister for External Affairs decline to answer that supplementary question?" and we got the very enlightening words: "I have nothing to add to my answers."
I quite admit that it is a matter for laughter for the Fianna Fáil Party. I quite admit that for the Party that thinks this is merely a struggle between Fascism and democracy, it has its humorous side; but we have maintained, and still maintain, in this House that a great deal more and much more vital issues are involved. It is absurd to try to get away from that issue. Then when he was asked in a second question about accrediting a Minister he then did what is, I am sorry to say, quite characteristic of the President, he tried in some extraordinary, back-stairs way to suggest that this man had been in touch with Franco. Why did he not answer straight out that he was not accredited to Franco? Why? Because he was ashamed to say that straight out. Is there any other explanation why when the question was deliberately put—was our Minister who is at present in St. Jean de Luz accredited to Franco, he refused to answer? Why did he refuse to answer? There is only one explanation. He knew perfectly well to what side the sympathies of the Irish people strongly lean and he tried just to pull the wool over Irish eyes; there is no doubt about that.
Look at the seriousness with which he treated the question! He was asked a very serious question. It is not the professor of mathematics who is giving us a lecture. It is the Minister for External Affairs who, we are asked to believe, takes himself seriously, very seriously, indeed. He is most anxious that a "correct" attitude should be adopted by the Government of this country. He was asked what did he mean when he said that our representative was in St. Jean de Luz and that there he would have an opportunity of observing what occurred on both sides. He was asked a straight question—did he mean to say that the Minister was accredited to both sides, and his reply was that if Deputy Dillon would look at the map he would see that St. Jean de Luz was nearer to Burgos than to Valencia. Well, now, this is a very serious Minister for External Affairs! This illustrates the serious mind we are asked to bring to bear upon this question— this is the President who is so overcome with the seriousness of the question that he wants to rush this Bill through. That is the way he treats the House. I will say this: the President is running true to form.
