Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Jul 1942

Vol. 88 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 66—League of Nations.

The Taoiseach

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £8,338 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, 1943, for a Contribution towards the Expenses of the League of Nations.

The political work of the League has almost entirely ceased in the general disruption produced by the world war. In so far as circumstances allow, however, it is continuing its social, economic and humanitarian activities. The League and the International Labour Office have become somewhat dispersed and the work is being done partly in Switzerland and partly in the United States. The work is also being done in Canada. The work is divided generally between European and non-European developments, Geneva being the centre for Europe and Princeton for non-European developments. Some of the ordinary work of the League is being continued, for example, the work of recording the incidence of epidemics has gone on without interruption and the weekly record is still being published. The main work of the League officials at the moment is the study of the problems which will arise during the post-war reconstruction period. Transport, growth and distribution of population with their economic consequences, the effects of migration, standard of living, agricultural resources, etc., are some of the questions being studied. It is true that these important subjects form the basis of study projects, rather than of actual investigation, which will naturally take considerable time to bring to a conclusion. International assistance of refugees will have to be resumed on a vast scale after the war. Minority problems are also likely to loom up.

A little reflection will show that some great central organisation such as the League—apart altogether from its now suspended political activities —will be essential in the post-war world. The reactions of international upheavals on the internal life of States, even those removed from the centres of disturbance, are becoming constantly more serious, and all the Governments in the world have come to recognise that active co-operation between States in social and humanitarian as well as political matters is essential even for the internal life of each individual State. Some organisation to effect this co-operation will be necessary.

No doubt there was much in its origin which made it difficult for some States to accept the League wholeheartedly, but it is still a definite international organisation in being, and it is far easier to give it a character satisfactory to all States than to attempt to set up a completely new organisation. It is especially important for small States like ours to have a rallying centre for mutual help and consultation. One cannot easily forecast the rôle of the small States in the post-war world, but it is more likely to be a genuine force in co-operation with other small States than as an isolated unit.

It would be extremely unwise for us to abandon this international organisation just because its fortunes are not too bright at the present moment. Membership is relatively costly and immediate returns are not very obvious. But, taking the long view, the League of Nations and the International Labour Bureau should be regarded as likely to serve a great world purpose of immense importance to the individual State, and in that background the expenditure involved may be regarded as justifiable. The amount is relatively trivial.

General Mulcahy

Does the £8,338 include the grant for the International Labour Office?

An Ceann Comhairle

That was on a previous Vote.

General Mulcahy

I should like to know whether the voting of this money, of which I entirely approve, indicates a change of policy seeing that no payment was made last year. Regarding the International Labour Office referred to by the Taoiseach, I endeavoured to get from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, when dealing with his Estimate, some information as to why it was that, in the discussions that took place at the International Labour Congress held in New York last October, our representatives took no part at any time in the discussions that took place. The Taoiseach is aware that, in the acting director's report which was presented to the conference, there was a rather complete summary of tendencies, economically and socially, in the world at the present time, and particularly a summary bearing on the lines of possible developments post-war. The statement was a very important one. It was presented by a very distinguished Irishman, Mr. Edward J. Phelan, and even from that point of view alone it did seem to be an extraordinary thing, with two representatives at the congress, that there was no word at all from them on the report. If there is any country in the world that is given the opportunity to try to see whether all the high aspirations of the people who sent representatives to the International Labour Conference in New York, were all moonshine or not, this is the outstanding country. We are not active in military operations, but we have supply difficulties of one kind or another. If the suggestions on social and economic developments post-war, which were set out in the report, and discussed at great length in New York, are ones upon which the efforts of democratic people ought to be concentrated, in order to bring any kind of social security to the people, we ought to have something to say.

I think it is very unfortunate, in a world struggling with frightful difficulties, while still maintaining the banner of hope and, I may say, of faith, that at such an important conference as took place in New York, and in discussions of the serious subjects discussed, an Irish voice was not raised. If we look back on any of our great declarations at historic moments, if we look back on the declaration of 1916, or the declaration that we issued as a democratic programme when this State—I do not know whether I should say de jure or de facto—was set up by the people in January, 1919, all the aspirations that are now being spoken about by the peoples of one country or another are enshrined in some way in these declarations. Our own history during the past 20 years has, perhaps, hindered or cut across the satisfactory development of these ideas, but they are ideas that were in the hearts of our people during all the tense moments of their national existence, during our lifetime at any rate, and I think that they are burning there to-day and that the circumstances of to-day are driving us more and more to pay more practical attention to them. In these circumstances, I suggest that it is unfortunate that no Irish voice should have been raised at that conference, and I should like to hear from the Taoiseach why that was so, whether he has any report from our representatives at that conference, or whether he has anything to say to the House with regard to that report.

The Taoiseach

With regard to the matter raised by Deputy Mulcahy, I think I cannot usefully add to what the Minister for Industry and Commerce had to say when he was dealing with this particular matter on his Vote. Deputies will very easily understand what the position is at the present time. These meetings were held in one of the countries that was at war— I do not recall, at the moment, if it was actually at war just then, but at any rate it was on the point of war—and from the very nature of things it became inevitable that a lot of the discussions and debates at that conference took a highly political character. What I mean by saying that they took a political character is that the whole question of the war—its issues, and so on—was raised indirectly or directly. It was not possible for us, at the time, to send a Minister from this country, and I think it will be admitted that it was very difficult for civil servants, at that distance, to be able to interpret so accurately the attitude of the Government in all these matters as to be able to take the responsibility of entering into a debate and expressing themselves in connection with it. I think that the position of our representatives there was very difficult, but the fact that they were there at all showed that we were interested, and the fact that they did not take part in the discussions is not to be interpreted as meaning that any matters of importance to us did not have their fullest attention or that they did not communicate with us. As a matter of fact, they did, and the matters that were discussed there, and the attitude of that particular organisation, of course, will be present to the minds of the people who are doing their planning here.

I can only say that the matter was one of extreme difficulty for our representatives. It was impossible, in advance, to give them such complete instructions as would cover every contingency that might arise, and I think it would be unfair to ask them to take part in discussions or debates on matters of such delicacy as were involved there. That is the reason that they did not intervene in the discussions with the same degree of vigour, so to speak, as they did on other occasions. On other occasions, our representatives played a very important part in all these international conferences, and took upon themselves more than their share of the burden of the consideration of the various problems that arose, but this was a case of extreme difficulty for the representatives of a neutral State, particularly when it was not possible to have a Minister present. I should like to say that I was very glad to note, in connection with another Vote, that the work done by the officials of the Department is so much appreciated. I want to say, for myself, that it would be quite impossible for me to be responsible, as the head of that Department, in addition to my own, if it were not for the fact that we are so fortunate as to have in that Department particularly excellent officials.

Vote put and agreed to.