Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Jul 1938

Vol. 72 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 68—League of Nations

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £9,136 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1939, chun Síntiús mar chabhair do Chostaisí Chumann na Náisiún, agus chun Costaisí eile mar gheall air sin.

That a sum not exceeding £9,136 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for a Contribution towards the Expenses of the League of Nations, and for other Expenses in connection therewith.

Sub-head A gives particulars of the contributions towards the expenses from Member States to the League of Nations. The expenditure is met by contributions from the different States on a unitary basis of calculation. The contribution to be made by Éire represents ten units out of a total of 932 units. The contribution attributable to the cost of the International Labour Organisation is borne on Vote 67. The total contribution from all Member States in 1938 is 29,416,883.75 Swiss francs, of which Éire will contribute 315,124.75 Swiss francs. Of the amount contributed by Éire 315,124.75, a sum of 81,907.90 Swiss francs is attributable to the cost of the International Labour Organisation. Sub-head B provides for travelling and incidental expenses. The provision under this sub-head is to meet State expenditure in connection with the attendance of a delegation at the General Assembly of the League, which will be held in September, and any expense which may arise in connection with special conferences called to consider important questions. Sub-head C deals with the loss on exchange and is required to bridge the difference between the par value of the Swiss franc and the current rate. In general, during the year which has elapsed since the House was last asked to pass the Vote for the League of Nations, two Assemblies have taken place, the first, a special Assembly held last May to admit Egypt to membership, at which we were represented by our permanent delegate. In September and October, 1937, there was the ordinary 18th Session of the Assembly which was attended by an Irish delegation. The General Assembly and its committee was largely taken up with two or three questions of very great importance to the maintenance of general peace in the world. These questions related especially to the civil war in Spain, to the conflict of interests in Palestine, and the trouble which was and is still taking place in China. The Irish delegation took an active part in these deliberations. On the question of non-intervention in Spain, they opposed a proposal which seemed likely to entail the cessation of the non-intervention policy there. With regard to Palestine, our view that no solution involving the partition of that country should be sanctioned in any way by the League of Nations was duly put on record.

Regarding the ordinary day to day activity of this country as a member of the League, I need only tell the House that we are allowing no practical opportunity to pass of doing our share in the social and economic war of the League. During the past year our contribution to that work has been somewhat greater than usual. We obtained for Ireland a seat on the newly constituted and very important permanent commission now sitting known as the Advisory Committee on Social Questions. This position will enable us to co-operate in, and, no doubt, influence to an extent the great humanitarian efforts of the League of Nations, particularly so far as they affect the welfare of women and children. Finally, as the House will recall, we have recently become parties to some of the International Conventions sponsored by the League. I refer, in particular, to the convention regarding the suppression of the traffic of women of full age and to the Broadcasting Convention to which our accessories have just been formally notified. As to the larger question of the League itself, what the future is to be, and what our attitude is, I do not think there is enough definite matter to make it the basis of a special discussion. I indicated a couple of years ago what our attitude was likely to be if the question of a re-organisation of the League took place, and we are awaiting certain negotiations now going on in regard to the future of the League. I do not think anything has emerged that would enable us to see the future in any definite way. In general, we think we should not take any special action, in the hope that something positive may result from these deliberations, in which we could actually participate, as we may then be in a position to try and have them moulded in a way that would seem best from the point of view of our own interests, and in the general interests of the world and co-operation towards world peace. I am sorry the position is so indefinite and vague that I can only recommend the House to adopt a certain policy and to do whatever ought to be done in the present circumstances.

There is, as everybody in the House knows, a very great change in the situation as regards the League of Nations from what it was, say, five or six years ago, and I think we should not do anything at the moment which would prejudice our liberty to act in accordance with what we regard as wise, if any propositions are put forward for reconstitution of the League or remodelling it. I think it is wise to hold on to what is there at any rate and not by any action of ours do anything which would weaken the League any further. The position, however, is by no means satisfactory.

I was hoping once more, Sir, that the Taoiseach, having broached the general question, might have indicated on what lines his mind was travelling. He spoke in reference to a reform of the League, that it would be useful and commendable we should be there to take our part in the remodelling of the League along the lines that we desire and which were best to forward the interest of our own country and also best to improve the international relations. I thought that was an introductory sentence and that he was going to tell us along what lines he wanted the League to reform, because I think it is of supreme importance. At the very close he referred to the fact that the League was not now in the position that it was six years ago—I think that was the term he mentioned. That is quite true, and for that I do not know whether to blame the enemies of the League or the friends of the League. I can never make up my mind which of them was the more responsible—those who are continually carping at the League and its failure to carry through certain things, to live up to the highest possible ideals, carping at the League because it was not perfect, and those who wanted the League to be about 100 years ahead of the time. It is extremely difficult to know which of those two sets of opinion was the more responsible for the League not now being in the healthy position it was six years ago. It was for that reason that I was hoping the Taoiseach would indicate along what lines his mind was travelling when he spoke of the reform of the League.

There is a strong demand in certain quarters for reform of the League in the sense of strengthening the powers that the League already has and the using of such powers, undeterred by the fact that it is really the exercise or the attempted exercise of powers of that kind that is largely responsible for the position in which the League finds itself at the moment. I know it is easy to condemn the League at the present moment because of its powerlessness. But such condemnation of the League does not improve the international situation. Because the League is not able to do everything that its admirers would like it to do, and that it is far from perfect, that does not mean that it is useless. The Minister referred to the useful social work—when he says social matters I presume he is not referring to the social in another sense of the words—and also the valuable health work that is being done. That alone would almost justify the existence of the League. As I mentioned, I think, on a previous occasion, even the fact of bringing a number of Powers together to discuss matters is useful. It is quite true that the League was not able to enforce sanctions, but the fact that there was even that discussion at Geneva and that there was division of opinion there —I am not speaking of the formal Vote —and the recognition that certain things could be attempted, but beyond that it was dangerous to go—some people forget that that itself may have stopped a European war on that particular occasion. Therefore, although the League and its recent history has been disappointing, I should be very sorry if we left it. It is not perfect. It is not at the moment growing in strength or respect. There are certain dangers, grave dangers, I will admit, there at the present moment; but we do not make these dangers any smaller or we should not make them any smaller by withdrawing from the League. There are certain dangers. There is the danger undoubtedly that the League may become not a League of Nations but a coalition of certain Powers. I can say that the friends of the League in certain countries in Europe, and not so very far away from this country either, are doing a great deal to damage the League in that sense. They are trying to turn the League into a combination of Powers against certain other Powers. About these certain other Powers I have no delusions whatsoever, and about one or two of them I have had occasion on an entirely different situation from this to speak about 12 months ago. There are certain big Powers in Europe, in the centre and the east of Europe, between which I see very little difference. Yet I think it is a wrong thing—this aligning and this effort to align the League on the side of one set of Powers. I raise that because I think it is a very practical question. I think it is a matter to which our representative at Geneva might have his attention especially called. Our representative at the assembly might dwell on that point, that there is that danger. I think the Taoiseach will agree with me that there is that particular danger that the League is now almost formally and officially becoming an alliance of certain Powers against certain other Powers. That is not its function, and, as I say, the people that are doing most damage to the League in that respect are those that put themselves up as being the greatest advocate of the principle of the League of Nations. They are making it exceedingly difficult for those who believe in the League to continue in their belief in the League because they are using the League either for an idealism that fails to take account of facts or else they are using the League for what I might call Party politics, using the word in the biggest possible sense, or, as the phrase is now, for or against a certain ideology. It is a danger, and I think it is useful that we should be there, small as we are, to try to help, because sometimes small nations find by experience that by a lead of theirs they can stir up the others—especially if they repeat the attack one or two years. I found that myself in dealing with the question of economic control. The first year I do not think I had a single supporter. The next year I had half the League with me. Hence I think it useful to stress this danger as one to which I would like our representative's attention specially directed.

The other thing I am afraid of is that some people are much too anxious to pull the League into everything. It is desirable that the League would be strong enough to enforce international obligations. But it is not strong enough. It has neither the moral authority nor the physical authority to do that. And do not blame the League for that. Blame us here, and Great Britain and France and Germany and Russia, and every other nation, for it. It is no good pretending that the League has all the original sin. It is because we and every other one of us uses the League for his own ends. Every nation there looks after its own interest first and foremost, even in the League of Nations. There was a time when the League of Nations was obviously run by one Power, but even so, it was doing useful work. That control was not too blatant. I am afraid it has now become just a little too blatant, and if the friends of the League have their way, will become more blatant still, so that any chance of a real League will be out of the question.

Take, for instance, a couple of the questions in which the League—failed, shall I say? On the Abyssinian question it failed, because public European opinion was not ripe enough. The League and the friends of the League wanted the League to do things, and there was no real international moral sense behind them. That moral sense does not exist in Europe, and speaking of Europe I mean the world. It does not exist in the world at the present time, and you have to rely on force alone. That is a weakness. That makes the danger of going too quickly all the greater. And if the League on that occasion did what some people thought the League ought to have done—went to the length of war—let us clearly see what that meant. It meant that a League of Nations founded for the express purpose of preventing European war could not carry through that purpose without causing European war! Its very raison d'être was gone in the attempt to assert it.

Therefore, a great deal of the criticism of the League is due to the people who expect too much from it —and I am speaking now my personal opinion merely. If there is to be a reform I should prefer that we should advance slowly rather than try to advance ahead of international public opinion which I am convinced hardly exists. As I pointed out before, it has taken centuries to get respect for the ordinary law within any country, hard work, hard hitting on the part of Governments; centuries with colossal failure time after time and yet the thing has been done. But behind that use of force there was always a sense of moral obligation, the condition that the Government had a definite moral authority. Let us remember that does not exist where the League is concerned. All we are anxious, therefore, to get is a working instrument which at the beginning may be able to do very little. I am convinced that a portion of its failure is due to the fact that they are attempting too much.

Take the other instance that happened the other day. Technically, I suppose, the League could get out of it. There was the invasion of Austria. We all have our views, some very strong and very definite, on that particular piece of policy. Austria was a member of the League of Nations. Technically, of course, there was nobody there to appeal to the League. Technically, the Schusnigg Government had resigned and handed over its authority to somebody else, and, therefore, there could be no appeal. Again, surely it was quite clear there could not be an appeal because things internationally had come to such a pitch that an appeal was out of the question and would have been useless. Austria had to stand alone. The League could be appealed to, but what could or would the League do? Again, it is not the League that is to blame, but the individual Powers.

I personally approve of the waiting attitude. I do not know that there is anything to be done at the moment, but I should like that we should have a definite line as to the developments we should like to see occurring there, and I should like our representative to be made aware of the dangers that undoubtedly are there at the moment of developing along lines that can only lead to the final damnation of the League. There are withdrawals from the League, but I do not think we ought to follow that line.

It is an attempt to preserve European peace. You may say it has three-quarters failed. Well, for the remaining quarter I still hold we ought to back it up. There is useful work to be done, and there is useful work being done by the League. If our representative is not there, the League might do certain work of which we might not approve. The Taoiseach referred to health work and social work. It is easy to get international conventions there to which we might have strong moral objections, and in that sense it is useful to have an individual there to represent our point of view. Our delegation from the very start has always taken up a very definite line on these matters. We should not let these things go by default by coming out of the League. That is my attitude towards the League itself.

There is one other question which perhaps the Taoiseach might answer. I saw that our representative at Geneva was present, across the lake, at Evian at a conference. What line are we taking up at that International Conference meeting at Evian? I see that it has now adjourned to London. Have we a policy on the matter at all, or were our people there simply in the capacity of observers?

With regard to the general question as to what lines we are thinking on, in general we are thinking on the same lines as the Deputy, so that in that matter there is no difference of opinion between us. As to the question of holding on to the League at present and trying to use the League as best we can for the purpose for which it was originally intended, in so far as it was possible to do it, that has been our aim, and in so far as it is not possible to do it completely, we are anxious to make the best of the situation; so that from the point of view of staying on and doing the best we can, we are again at one with the Deputy. We are also at one on the question of the general lines that we will have to take if there is to be a change in the League; that is, that there is no use in trying to strain the League by undertaking obligations which we know human nature will not accept at the moment when things are not ripe for acceptance.

I wonder if we will ever get a situation in which the selfishness of nations will be overcome by anything except force? Unless you have to think on the lines of the super-State, or something like that, I do not think that you are likely to make progress in that direction. The only time they seem prepared to do that is when they realise, even from the point of view of selfishness, what a modern great war means. When they realise that the alternative to taking certain actions, may involve sacrifice on the part of individual States, and when they may recognise that failure may mean sacrifice on a much greater scale elsewhere, only then can we make progress. I am afraid we are all narrowly selfish in certain matters and we are not sufficiently wise to be selfish in a farsighted way.

If my wishes were to determine the way that the League might go, it would not be undertaking obligations which would put too great a strain on individual members. I think too great a strain was put on them. That was the position in regard to Abyssinia, although it was a clear case. Others may not agree with me, but my view is that it was a clear case. Probably if the ultimate strain was put on the individual members, they would have broken down under it. Perhaps in the long run it is just as well, from the point of view of the League members in general, that the full strain was not put upon them.

With regard to the other matter, I think I already adverted to that in a speech which I made in Geneva. I refer to the danger of the League becoming a coalition of powers with certain purposes against a coalition of other powers with different ideals. As the Deputy pointed out, that would be fatal to the League and anything we can do to prevent that happening, will be done. The third point is in regard to the Evian Conference. Our representative went there. We see a situation in Europe, which is a ghastly one from the point of view of certain people, and if anything could be done by international co-operation to remedy that, I think it would be a thing our nation should participate in, in bringing to a head. Again, you have the difficulty of what can you do? What could each individual nation do? There you are up against the difficulty that some of the nations that would like to see it done are not in the position to do anything effective, and those who are advocating something to be done, unless they are themselves prepared to do that something, are not likely to be listened to with much attention. I would say at the moment that our representative has not got very much beyond the observation stage—as an observer.

If, as the discussions develop we see any way in which we could assist, I can only say that the Government would be very glad to give it its most careful attention and, if it is possible to do anything, we would be prepared to come forward with proposals here for the implementation of any scheme to which we would agree or in which we would be in any way directly or immediately involved as a partner. The presence of our representative there is an indication of general goodwill, a general desire to see that situation remedied, if a remedy can be found and, in so far as our situation here would make it possible, to contribute in any way practicable towards a solution. Therefore, I think the most accurate way to describe the position of our representative there up to the present, is really as an observer, to see if there is any development to which we could contribute in any forward way. His presence there is an indication of our appreciation of the situation and of our desire to try to find a remedy for it. As I said at the outset, I do not think anybody who examines the situation can regard it otherwise than as ghastly for millions of people.

I should like, with your permission, Sir, to put a question to the Chair. On the occasion of the entry of Russia into the League of Nations, the Taoiseach made a speech in which he made reference to the position of religious liberty in Russia, and for that he was justly applauded at the time. I should like to know if, as Minister for External Affairs, he can disclose whether there has been any improvement, or was the hope he expressed then merely a pious hope. Has our association with Russia and other members of the League of Nations helped to improve the position of religious minorities, or religious majorities even, where they have been crushed by the Government in power?

I cannot say, as far as I have been made aware, that there has been any special improvement in the situation. In fact I have tried to get inquiries made. I have made representations, if not directly, almost directly, to representatives of that country about the situation, but the facts were disputed, and I have no means of convincing the people who took a different view of it, that the facts, as we saw them, were correct. However, I think, in general, the position is that there has been no improvement from that point of view.

Has the Taoiseach made any representations to the League of Nations that the only collective form of action that is of any use is collective force?

That is the trouble.

Is it not time that that representation was made to them, and stop this sham which cannot be made effective? It is really a joke.

If I might say so, I would suggest that the Deputy should talk to Deputy O'Sullivan, because this is a thing which Deputy O'Sullivan was anxious to find out from me, whether for instance, my mind was travelling in the same direction as that of Deputy Gorey. There was a time, I will admit, when I was thinking very much on those lines but, from my observations in Geneva, I had to consider how obligations of that kind would be met in various countries, how, for instance, our people would meet them. We had an example at the time the Abyssinia question came up. When you bring it home to the exact time at which your own country will be asked to use its own forces to carry on a movement of that sort, when you proceed to that point, you perceive the difficulties. If we are going to reform the League at the beginning, it will not be on the lines of strengthening all the old sanctions, but rather weakening them. There are two points of view.

The Deputy has one. That of Deputy O'Sullivan and the policy of the Government is framed on another. I think that it would require a long time to go into that question. I would prefer if that point had been raised at the beginning, and I would have repeated what I had said in a previous debate. If the Deputy is interested in my view of the matter, he will find it in the debate of the 19th May, 1937, when I discussed that particular matter. If he wants more than he will find there, he might discuss it with Deputy O'Sullivan, who has indicated very fully the lines on which my mind has been travelling as Minister for External Affairs.

Motion put and agreed to.
Top
Share