Committee on Finance. - Vote 65—External Affairs. – Dáil Éireann (11th Dáil) – Thursday, 11 Nov 1943

Committee on Finance. - Vote 65—External Affairs.

Minister for External Affairs (Mr. de Valera)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £30,500 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith inioctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1944, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Gnóthaí Eachtracha, agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá fé riaradh na hOifige sin (Uimh. 16 de 1924).

That a sum, not exceeding £30,500, be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1944, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for External Affairs, and of certain Services administered by that Office (No. 16 of 1924).

The Estimate for External Affairs for the current financial year is £98,000 That is an increase of £2,282 compared with 1942-43. Receipts from fees, etc., however, are estimated at £22,300, an increase of £800 on the estimated receipts for 1942-43. Actually, there have been no significant increases in staff or expansion of existing services, and the increase of £2,282 is due very largely to normal salary increments and exchange compensation and, in the case of sub-head A of the Vote, to the fact that we are this year obliged to provide in this Vote for the replacement of certain junior staff which other Government Departments have until recently been able to lend to this Department. Provision for the salaries of this loaned staff was formerly borne on the Votes of their parent Departments, so that we are now providing in this Vote for expenditure that has hitherto been borne on other Votes.

When presenting this Estimate last year, I gave the Dáil a fairly full review of the activities of the Department, particularly the activities that have arisen from the war situation and the difficulties in which our citizens abroad have found themselves in consequence. All those activities that have arisen as a result of the war situation continue to take up an appreciable amount of the Department's time and attention. For instance, remittances totalling the equivalent of approximately £14,000 have been made during the year to a number of our citizens in 12 different European countries. The necessary funds were lodged with the Department by the relatives and friends of the citizens and paid to them through our Legations on the Continent. Close on 900 individual payments were involved in the cases to which I refer.

Numerous inquiries affecting the welfare and whereabouts of our citizens all over the world were also dealt with. Ordinary postal communications with countries abroad are, nowadays, slow and uncertain and, in some cases, non-existent. Deputies will realise the great comfort it is to people, both here at home and in countries abroad, to be able to get news, even at secondhand, in regard to those who are dear to them. Wherever possible, the Department, as far as it can, assists such of our citizens as desire to come home. Over 70 — including a number of priests from Rome — have come home from the Continent in the past financial year. The difficulties in regard to securing travelling facilities and the necessary visas etc., are very great and have, in fact, of late increased.

A final aspect of the Department's war-time activities to which Deputies might like me to refer is that of the collection of debts due to firms and individuals in this country from European countries with which the normal banking facilities are no longer available. Since the outbreak of the war, over £8,000 has been collected by the Department in such cases, for close on 60 firms and individuals here.

As I pointed out last year, much of the ordinary work of the Department is still carried on, despite the war conditions. One example frequently referred to in the debates on this Estimate is the work in connection with estates of deceased persons abroad. During the year, the Department handled nearly 800 new estate cases and the amount of money which accrued to Irish beneficiaries was appreciably more than $600,000, of which over $300,000 was distributed to the Irish beneficiaries directly through our Consulates in the United States and the Department.

Those are the details of the Estimate and of the Department's activities. I do not think that now is the time for anything like a general international survey. Most of the Deputies have been following events as closely as I have been able to follow them and the general situation is known to all. What the post-war international political position will be it is too soon to state at this particular time. Naturally, it is our business to keep as close a watch as we can on developments, with a view to being able to take our part in any post-war international organisation that may be set up for the purpose of securing the maintenance of peace. Our national wishes in that matter are clear from our actions in the past. We were ready to join any international organisation which aimed at collective security and the maintenance of peace on the basis of the equality of sovereign right between nations, large and small. In any such organisation in the future we will, I feel certain, be prepared as a nation once more to take our part. On another occasion, it may be useful to talk on that particular subject and to give views as to the basis on which such an organisation must be founded if it is to have any hope of achieving this aim.

Most of us are aware of the faults there were in the League of Nations. We were aware of them long before the present war broke out. Nobody seemed to be able to find a solution for the obvious difficulties that were there. Whether such a solution can be got in the future remains to be seen. The one thing that is certain is that no solution can be found unless the various nations are prepared to make the sacrifices which appear to me— and, I am sure, to any other Deputies who have been thinking about these matters — to be absolutely necessary. Apparently before this war, nations were not prepared to make those sacrifices: they wanted the results, without being ready to make the sacrifices. We cannot have it that way; the world cannot have it that way. If we want peace, if peace is of primary importance, the sacrifices that peace requires will have to be made.

It would be idle for us to go into a discussion on that matter at the present moment. However, I was asked a question by Deputy Anthony the other day which seemed to indicate anxiety in that regard, and I want to avail of this occasion to assure every Deputy that, so far as we are concerned, and so far as we are able to direct national policy, our actions will be in the direction of being prepared once more to take our share in any international organisation that may be set up for the maintenance of peace and for national security.

Mr. J. Larkin (Junior)

While, possibly, during the last four years, our votes and our debates in this House in relation to our own internal politics have been of the most outstanding importance, we have now, I think, reached a point where external affairs will take on, possibly, a greater importance and greater meaning. We have been successful in going through this, in my opinion, major portion of the world conflict. I am quite convinced that we are now not merely over the half-way mark but so rapidly approaching the determination of the conflict that, like many of the military experts, we may be overwhelmed by events. While the viewpoint put forward by An Taoiseach may be correct, that it is possibly a little too early to try to formulate our policies and even our machinery to meet the post-war situation, we must take cognisance of the changes that have taken place, and, above all, of the speed of those changes. We have to realise that the situation we were in some years ago no longer exists for us. We have of our own voluntary desire pursued a certain policy — a policy of neutrality. Our people as a whole have decided on that policy and have reiterated their decision time after time; but, just as war exacts its cost in flesh and blood and the economic evils of our civilisation, so also does our policy of neutrality call forth problems. If we do not realise that, and do not take steps to reduce those problems to the smallest dimensions, the price to us in the post-war years may be greater than the price we would have had to pay in the war years if we had not followed the policy of neutrality. It is time we ceased to put our heads in the sand and to look upon ourselves as living in an outpost here in the western ocean, entirely unconnected with these world changes in events. We should not think that, because we have a perfectly legitimate right to decide our own national policy and the particular path we want to traverse, that policy of ours will not have its reactions on the minds and thoughts of the people outside our own country.

We have had many friends in different countries in the world, but I am afraid that our friends may not be as numerous as we might like in the years immediately ahead. Therefore, while we are quite entitled to stand by our own policy, by our own rights, we must realise that those rights, and our utilisation of them, need some explanation. We must make some attempt to get those people who, in the past, have been our friends, and who, in the future, could well be our friends again, to understand our position. They may not sympathise with us, but at least they will give us due credit for our earnestness and sincerity.

In the course of the debate on wireless broadcasting I heard a suggestion from Deputy Esmonde to the effect that our broadcasting station should be utilised to put our point of view before the world. The Minister's reply was that we are sick to death of propaganda. It seems to me that we are very badly served by the Minister responsible for dealing with that particular form of expression. Surely now is the time when all our resources, not only the wireless and Press but even personal contacts, should be availed of. Now is the time, I suggest, when individuals who, by reason of their outlook, not only in national but also in international affairs, are in a position and have the right to speak to the people of other countries, should utilise our wireless service. All the forces at our disposal should be utilised to bring this country again to the notice of the civilised world.

It is quite true that the world is divided into camps and certain nations have been engaged in conflict for the last four years. Throughout this great conflict there have been certain fundamental issues on which we, as ordinary decent men and women, have different viewpoints. There are certain issues involved which this, as a democratic country, views from different aspects. In this country we are living in the democratic way; we follow the ordinary, peaceful course normally followed by small nations. If because of our geographical position, because of our economic and social circumstances, we have decided to follow a certain line in this great conflict, that does not preclude us from considering world-wide issues, issues far greater than any immediately affecting the belligerents. It is on these world-wide issues that we must make ourselves known and understood by those forces which stand for civilisation and for the progress of the ordinary common man. They must realise that we stand with them and that we are not content to remain an isolated outpost in the ocean following our own narrow, insular life and not desiring to associate ourselves with the wider civilisation outside.

Many of the links we had in the past have been severed, not deliberately but because of the conditions which have prevailed and the policies which have been followed. We must try to re-establish ourselves. We may do so, in the beginning, in a small and humble way; perhaps in certain cases we may do it in haphazard fashion and by roundabout means; but we cannot afford to stay still and wait until the holocaust is over and then expect someone to call us to the conference table. Certain rights would seem to have been established by some small nations, rights that will entitle them to a place at the council table when the war is over. We have not got such a right at the moment, even though we have an historic heritage in relation to our struggles for freedom and an association with such struggles elsewhere. These things are apt to be overlooked, and it is necessary that we should bring ourselves again under the notice of the world.

I was rather disappointed when the appeal made by Deputy Esmonde was met in that narrow fashion, the Minister merely saying that we are sick to death of propaganda. Surely everything we formulate and spread abroad, either from this House, through our political Parties, or our cultural and social organisations, and even in our schools, is just propaganda, a system of propagating news and opinions, and all that makes for intellectual development. But, to take the narrow view that, because propaganda is being abused and turned very often into a hated symbol, we must deny ourselves the use of such a powerful instrument, is typical of one of the most dangerous outlooks that is prevalent to-day. Some of us are inclined to sit here contentedly and watch the world go by, but I suggest we should take care lest the world may reach a new stage of development and we will be left behind.

We are a civilised people living in a world which has, for a short period, gone mad; but it will move back again to civilisation. Civilisation represents life in its highest form and, while the world has been engaged in dreadful conflict, underneath it all a healthy civilised life has existed and that is now endeavouring to struggle through the hard crust that has covered the world during the past four years. Every day that passes, that life is becoming stronger and it has to be nourished, not only by those directly involved in the conflict, but more especially by nations that have been fortunate enough not to have had, except in a very minute degree, a dreadful burden placed upon them. Therefore, they had some opportunity properly to value the progress and civilisation that are our common heritage.

I urge that we should start now to make our position clear to other nations. Apart from the main camps engaged in conflict, there are small countries, many of them inoffensive and democratic in their outlook, and progressive, trying to live their own lives, but they have been overwhelmed by this avalanche. Whatever may be our feelings with regard to the main conflict, surely every one of us is at one with these individual countries, not only in their suffering, but in their desire to restore their national life and their social and economic institutions. It is most probable that there will be some form of international organisation established after this war. It will be based on the experience gained in recent years and it will be strengthened by the lessons men have learned in bitterness and suffering. Surely the basis of that organisation, if it is going to be successful, will depend largely on the small units that go to make up civilisation.

On the previous Vote we expressed a desire to make some contribution to the recovery of the world. It seems to me that, in addition to the contribution that represents our humanitarian feelings, our contribution of finance and food and medical supplies, we should do something more. Already in a number of neutral countries people are taking active steps to bring together trained personnel, especially in the medical field, so that immediately facilities offer themselves, even before the termination of actual hostilities, those trained people in medical and social work, and in the various sciences, will be available to be thrown in at the first opportunity to give their services in restoring and building up life in those shattered countries. That would be even more important than the actual contribution which we could make in food, finance or clothing.

We have claimed here for many years that in days gone by we were the apostles of western Europe, and brought to those countries civilisation, Christianity and a new way of life. We have got to realise that a new epoch is coming in the world, and that our claim to a place in the new State is not going to be automatically granted to us because of what has taken place either in the immediate or the remote past. I think that to-day and for the future not only countries, but possibly even individuals, are going to be judged on their immediate merits and contributions. In my view it would be possible, with the actual surplus that we have in this country of trained minds, especially in the medical profession, either through the Red Cross or some other form, to organise groups of those men and women — doctors, nurses and people trained in social work of various forms — and give them charge of the duties that they will be expected to perform if they have already decided in their minds the lines on which they could operate. In that way they would be ready, at the earliest possible moment, to give their contribution to this tremendous task confronting the world.

The Taoiseach made reference to a conference that is being organised among one group of belligerents. It seems to me, as I have said, that he has the feeling that we should wait to be asked. I do not want to force upon the House or upon anybody else my own personal views of what is going to be the outcome of the present holocaust. I think that to every thinking man the end is quite clear even now. The end may come so quickly that we may be overwhelmed. We have got to view it from the point of view, no matter how indifferent we may be about it, that we cannot wait and sit back to be asked.

I think there is in the reports of that conference an indication that there may be a way in which we could bring ourselves back again to the notice of the peoples of eastern and western Europe, and find ourselves again associated with those with whom we have many common ties. I agree that at the moment it is an awkward time to raise this question of policy. There is very strong pressure from many parts of the House as to the means we should adopt in regard to our post-war policy. On the question of external policy, we cannot afford to lose time, or wait to see how events will turn out. The shaping of events can already be plainly seen. It does not require any deep student of foreign affairs to know what the main lines of that development may be. There may be various small changes, but the main lines of the development for at least our generation are already quite clear. We have got to decide how we are going to align ourselves with them.

In this Vote some 14 of our representatives abroad are listed. Of these, two are accredited to countries within the British Commonwealth of Nations, five in various cities of the United States, four are accredited to neutral countries, two to countries within the Axis and there are representatives to one or two others. I realise that the basis of this representation is contained in our trading and economic relations with those countries, and of the need there is to give service to our nationals abroad. There is one very significant omission to which I have already drawn the notice of the House, and that is that we have not got contact with one country which, on a previous occasion, we went out of our way to establish contact with when we ourselves were looking for friends. That is the Soviet Union. I do not know why that is so. Possibly, we may have our own views as to its political, social and economic system, or we may feel disturbed in our minds about having any association with it. But there are many things that we disagree with in the world, both in the countries where we have representatives, and in the countries where we have none. We cannot afford any longer to lack this contact with a nation that, apart altogether from its political system or its economic or social system, does represent not merely one-sixth of the world in geographical extent and nearly one-tenth of the world's people, and, that so far as recent years show, represents one of the most vital and powerful forces in the human race.

I would submit that, while it may be difficult at the moment that our Government should approach this problem and should understand what the point of view of ordinary contacts is between groups in the civilised world — contacts with forces which are shaping and making our future destiny in the world — it is time we realised that insularity and intolerance are just as much a crime on our side as it may be on the side of those whom we condemn.

It is time, I think, to revaluate our position and make ourselves known in the world. It is very interesting to recall that a number of those countries which during recent years have been held up as pillars of wisdom, countries whom we were not only to follow in the world of external affairs but even in their system of internal affairs, have made some changes. Whether their changes in foreign policy commend themselves to many people who have advocated their particular way of life here I do not know, but their views on internal policy can be very well tested by the opportunist changes that have taken place in foreign policy. It is very interesting for us to reflect on the opportunism manifested among many of those countries in Europe. In their ordinary social and economic systems they have been more or less opportunist, trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

Mr. Dillon

I hope Deputy Larkin will not take it amiss when I compliment him on what I think those who agree and disagree with him must admit was a remarkable contribution to the debate in this House, remarkable not only for its courage, but for its obvious honesty of conviction, and the calm deliberation that characterised it. I say that though I find myself in profound disagreement with him about a matter he mentioned. I salute his courage and honesty. I refer to what he said on the matter of having diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. I do not think that we should have diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. I do not think that, to borrow Deputy Larkin's own term, we should join in the ranks of those nations who run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. This is a Catholic and a Christian country. We proscribe no man's faith. Anyone who desires to serve God according to his conscience is free to do so in this country. I believe that in Germany and in Russia no man is free to render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's and to God the things that are God's. I would have diplomatic relations with neither, whatever the cost materially or ideologically. I would have diplomatic relations with neither one nor the other of those nations.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

It might be one way of finding out which is right.

Mr. Dillon

If the Deputy or anybody else can carry conviction to my mind that religion is not proscribed in the Soviet Union, I will be in favour of establishing diplomatic relations with them. I do not care whether a nation is authoritarian, socialist, or anything else within its own jurisdiction. That is the business of its own people, but all men have the right to render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's and to God the things that are God's, and no Christian man or woman can stand indifferently by while that right is denied to his fellow-man in any part of the world.

It may not be possible to go directly to the aid of the individuals victimised, but it is, at least, possible for a small State of this kind to lend its moral weight, and to protest against such tyranny. The proper way, it seems to me, for a Christian country to do that is to declare that it will have no contact with States or Governments that persecute the faith. I have said before that all I ask from civil government is freedom for its citizens to render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's, if they want to render them. I do not expect civil Governments to make people good, but I do demand that civil Governments, wherever they are, should leave men free to do their duty by God, if they so desire.

I rejoice in the impending destruction of Nazism in Germany. I pray for the ultimate ruin and disappearance of Marxism and materialistic communism in Russia, and in every other State which has been contaminated by contact with it. The United Nations, thank God, are winning this war without us. I had no hesitation in saying since the beginning of this war that I had no doubt where our duty lay. I believe that our duty was to render to the United Nations the same help and assistance that Portugal has given recently. I would have wished to do it from the very commencement of the struggle. Deputy Larkin stated that our people, apparently, took a different view. That was their sovereign right, but it was my duty to define my point of view in this House. It was also my duty to accept the decision of the people but acceptance of that decision does not impose the duty of assent. I dissent from that decision. I think it was wrong. I think it is wrong, and that for all time it will be recorded against us that it was a mistake. But I do not know that the issue is now as live as it was last year, the year before, and the year before that, because the United Nations are winning this war without our help. I thank God for it.

In discussing our policy on the Vote for External Affairs I ask myself, what guiding line has our Minister for External Affairs in the things he does? I am informed that the policy of this country is one of indifferent neutrality. I solemnly protest against the offensive imputation that we Irish do not know of any difference between Nazi Germany and the United States of America. I do not believe that is true. I believe the vast bulk of our people recognise in the people of the United States of America a community peculiarly sympathetic to all we believe in, a community we would be proud to claim as our friends, a people on whom we were never ashamed to lean in the past, and whom, on different occasions, we promised to support if adversity ever came upon them. I remember that when the Taoiseach was leaving the United States in 1921 he drafted a valedictory message, the concluding passage of which stated that he need not assure the American people of the gratitude of the Irish people for the assistance they had vouchsafed him, nor need he assure them that if the occasion should ever arise they would never turn to us in vain for help. What did the Taoiseach mean when he penned those words?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Taoiseach would not have asked for a literal quotation had not the Deputy introduced the matter.

If anybody differs from the Taoiseach, he is injuring his country. I think the Taoiseach has done more injury to this country in his day than I could ever do in five of my lifetimes, but that is another cup of tea.

Mr. Davin

On a point of order. Is it not a fact that claims were made for damage done, and admitted? The Deputy knows that both as a private member and as a member of another body.

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Davin

I got it out, anyway.

Surely we must have friends? Surely this country does not look forward to living in a world without friends of any kind, to cutting ourselves off absolutely and turning our backs on those who believed they were our friends? Now, I can quite conceive the Taoiseach getting up and saying: "We have leant backwards in order to avoid hurting feelings on either side. We have tried to steer an absolutely straight course between them, and to do nothing that could give offence to the most susceptible person in Great Britain or the United States of America." But let us face facts. Let us take our own personal experience. If we are engaged in a conflict, if we are in a tight corner, and a complete stranger looks at the state we are in and passes by, we may say: "That fellow was not much good," but we have no particular grudge against him. Then, somebody whom we think is our neighbour and our friend, the best friend we have got, comes walking down the street and we immediately begin to think: "Here he is coming, thanks be to God; we must redouble our efforts to hold out until our friend comes to our help." But, to our consternation, we perceive that the friend walks by, expressing no opinion as to who should win the battle, but with exactly the same mien as the complete stranger. Could that friend conceivably meet us on the morrow and say: "You have no complaint against me. I took no side. I did not intervene. I did not indicate that I had any sympathy with your enemies?" Surely we would reply: "We expected more than that. When we saw you coming, we thought our peril was over and that you would come to our aid."

Deputies may say that that is unreasonable, that it is asking too much. Is not human nature the same in Ireland as in America, and the same in America as in Ireland? If, during the British oppression of this country, my father, the present Taoiseach, or the Leader of the Opposition had gone to America and had been met by the American people with the declaration: "We are neutral. We would not like to express a view one way or the other. Get on with the fight. We will not help the British. Of course, we need not tell you, at the same time, that we will not identify ourselves too closely with you," would we not bitterly resent it? Do you remember the sick horror we experienced when President Harding announced that he would not take sides in the issues between the Irish and the English, in the course of his last presidential campaign?

Do you remember how we thought that policy belied the true feelings of the people in America and how, despite that declaration, we did not hesitate to approach the people directly and found in the people tried friends whose intervention the Taoiseach well knows played no small part in securing the Treaty for our people and the independence and sovereignty that flowed therefrom? I do not want to suggest to anyone that the Taoiseach is indifferent to that or that he denies that. I do not want to suggest to anybody that the Taoiseach is pro-German or anti-American, or that he has any grudge against America.

The Taoiseach

Why does the Deputy try to give a completely one-sided disparaging statement of the position with regard to his own country?

Mr. Dillon

I am not. That is where the Taoiseach goes wrong. If anybody tries to describe a situation in terms displeasing to the Taoiseach, he immediately says: "That is a mean, disparaging, one-sided view." I am trying to present the situation as it appears to people outside this country.

The Taoiseach

As it appears to you.

Dr. O'Higgins

On a point of order, is not a Deputy entitled to express his own views?

Mr. Dillon

The Taoiseach always gets impatient when anyone crosses him. We should make allowance for that. If you agree with the Taoiseach, everything is lovely in the garden. If you disagree, he is convinced that you are mala fide. I make allowance for that. I can assure the Taoiseach and this House that my sole purpose in public life at the present time is to prevent the development of relations between us and the Americans on the one hand, and the Commonwealth of Nations on the other hand, which will prove disastrous for our people. How can the Taoiseach be obsessed with the idea that I, who have stood in the public life of this country for closer relations with the Commonwealth of Nations and with America ever since I had a voice to speak, am now concerned to poison the relations between us? How will that serve the cause I have consistently stood for? I have been denounced by every member of the Taoiseach's Party as being pro-British. I have been denounced by every member of the Taoiseach's Party for preferring the interests of the United States of America to my own country's.

How could that conceivably be consistent with a desire to poison the relations between my country and the United States? One of the things that keeps me in public life at present is the desire to contribute in some measure to the joining of our people closer to the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Nations.

It is wrong for the Taoiseach to try to persuade Deputies that there is only one view about the consequences of the policy he has pursued. I suppose that in embarking on the policy he has pursued and in recommending it to the Irish people he did what he believed was best. But I think the consequences of his policy will prove disastrous for our people. The disaster that I foresee I shall describe clearly and explicitly. The disaster I foresee is estrangement between our people and the American people and between our people and the people of Great Britain. There is time yet to take some measure to soften the asperity of the feelings that may be growing in the several places. There is nothing I will not do to help in softening that asperity. We will not soften it by sticking our heads in the sand and saying that that asperity does not exist. It does exist and it is growing, and the reason is that these people, rightly or wrongly—let us not canvass that now—expected that we would be enthusiastically sympathetic to them. They expected that the sympathy of our people would be unequivocal and whole-hearted. But they were disappointed to discover that our national policy was one of indifferent neutrality.

It is true that when America came into the war the Taoiseach said in O'Connell Street that our attitude during this war would be one of friendly neutrality. Actions speak louder than words. There is no use in saying that any policy is going to be one of friendly neutrality if, on the following morning, you pretend not to recognise the man to whom you said it, if you take good care to appear with the American Minister on your left arm and the German Minister on your right arm. If you tell him that your attitude will be one of friendly neutrality, he will say: "We have seen the neutrality, now let us see the friendliness. Where is the friendliness? What is the difference between friendly neutrality and the other kind? So far as I can see, there has been none at all."

I appreciate the difficulties of enforcing the policy of neutrality, but I ask Deputies to realise the dangers. This is the kind of thing neutrality draws us into. Recently, a film from America was submitted to our censor and the censor informed the American distributors that he could not allow pictures of American soldiers in action to be shown in this country. That picture was put out. Then a picture was submitted showing soldiers in training. He said that our neutrality forbade us to permit the display of that picture and that picture was put out. Then there was a "March of Time" film showing the training of chaplains of the Jewish, Protestant and Catholic communions before going to the war. That picture was put out on the ground that our neutrality demanded that it should be suppressed. Then there was a picture submitted and, in the preliminary display of the list of characters and the name of the director and so forth, there was in one quarter of the background a picture of the Stars and Stripes with a picture of the President of the United States super-imposed on it, and because that appeared it was suppressed. I can understand the attitude of the Taoiseach or the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures. He may say: "I would not mind a bit showing that, but if it is shown an incident may occur." But look at it from the other side of the picture. The people of the United States of America are informed in due course that that has taken place here, that we have forbidden the reproduction on a cinema screen in Ireland of a picture of the Stars and Stripes and the President of the United States of America. They are not going to stop to inquire into the reasons as to how and why that was done. They feel that this is an outrage. They ask themselves: Is it conceivably possible that the Stars and Stripes can no longer be seen in Eire? Could we conceive a situation in which the Green, White and Orange of Eire would be prohibited in a parade on 5th Avenue? They say to themselves: "Could we ever imagine an occasion on which Winston Churchill could tell us to pull down the Irish flag if we chose to fly it?"

Of course, we are not a big nation and we cannot defy people as readily as they can, but what I am trying to drive home to this House is that where you are dealing in foreign affairs you cannot expect to be dealing exclusively with people who are your bosom friends and who will interpret all your actions in the most favourable possible way to you. You have to think of the consequences of your action being examined at their face value without any concessions being made to your special difficulties. You have to ask yourself: "What impression is it going to create in the United States of America, if it becomes publicised that the Stars and Stripes will not be allowed to fly in Eire?"

I know, and I suppose Deputies on all sides of this House know, that to 99.9 per cent. of the Irish people the sight of the Stars and Stripes flying anywhere is a welcome sight, a sight which they regard almost as gladly as the sight of our own flag flying. We know the peculiar devious mind of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures; we know the peculiar devious mind of the Taoiseach, and when these astonishing ukases are made, we can wind our way through these labyrinths to the queer purpose for which they were originally thought up. But people outside do not know them and what I apprehend is that at the end of this war we will find ourselves with no friends on the Continent of Europe, very few friends in Great Britain, very few friends or, to put it in another way, a great many enemies in the United States of America, and the rest of the Commonwealth saying: "We are damned if we are going to allow Ireland to have the benefit of the Commonwealth association when she was not prepared to share its peril."

Mr. Donnellan

On a point of order, will this appear in the Press of the world?

Mr. Davin

It will be sent out, as it was before.

Mr. Cogan

On a point of order, is it not desirable that a debate of this kind should be held in secret session?

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

Nonsense.

Mr. Dillon

Are Deputies of this House going mad? Are we afraid to stand for the things this nation has determined to stand for? If you are afraid to stand for them, I will go out and defend the position of neutrality in the world.

Mr. O'Donnell

Set the good example. Get killed yourself. The Deputy was not a married man when he wanted our fellows to go out and get killed.

Mr. Dillon

Surely we have not sunk so low that we are afraid to discuss amongst ourselves the decisions we take openly and frankly, and justify the things we do? I take a certain view of these things and other Deputies may take a different view, but the right thing to do and the proper thing to do is to discuss them here amongst ourselves and consider the consequences that are going to ensue. I am not one bit afraid of discharging what I conceive to be my duty in this House, and so long as I stand in this House I will do it.

Mr. Friel

Will the Deputy condemn Britain for being an aggressor in the Six Counties?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Dillon

There are Deputies in this House who have worked harder to get rid of Partition, in silence and in secret, than those who are continually blathering about it in public ever did. It is not to-day or yesterday that I have been trying to get rid of Partition, and it is not to-day or tomorrow that I or those associated with me will stop working for that end. I am trying to warn our people against the consequences of the course of action they at present pursue. I know it is not popular to be telling people that the course of action they are pursuing involves danger and grave consequences for our own people, but there is no use trying to avoid these dangers by denying their existence. I want to bring home to the people of the United Kingdom, to the people of the Dominions of the Commonwealth and to the people of the United States of America that, whatever the appearances may be, our people are on their side; the bulk of our people are in sympathy with them; their welfare, their deliverance from danger, is the anxious solicitude of the Irish people and, though in this hour we may not be associated in what they regard as the common purpose of defending freedom and democracy in the world, in spirit we are with them and, in the post-war situation, would be desirous of co-operating with them and would be glad to help them in the tasks that lie ahead. I warn Deputies that unless measures are taken to bring that home to these peoples, the present trend of their thought is away from us and we are in danger of creating enemies for ourselves whose enmity will be extremely inconvenient when we stand badly in need of friends.

I have no hesitation in inviting the Taoiseach, although he suggests that it may not be expedient to contemplate such matters now, to think for a moment of post-war affairs. I believe in the sovereign independence of this State. I, and all belonging to me, have been fighting for that for many a long day. But I invite Deputies to consider this fact: This is a poor country, standing alone. It has very limited resources, and I am suggesting to Deputies of this House that the very development of social services in the post-war world is going to constitute a serious menace to the independence of this country. If we were situated in the mid-Atlantic, where the Azores are, we could carry on as an isolated unit without reference to circumstances in large rich countries in other parts of the world. But we are not. We are living within two hours' steam-boat travel and ten minutes' air-travel of the United Kingdom, which is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. There is going to be an immensely high standard of social services in that country after the war. There is going to be a rate of wages far higher than this country can afford if we stand in isolation and the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth belong to some association in which the United States of America and other democratic countries take part. Suppose we stand in isolation, I foresee the serious danger that the superior standard of living which will be available in the United Kingdom will draw away most of our young people, who will go to England to earn their living and enjoy the better conditions they can get there than the wealth of this country will be in a position to offer them.

Therefore, I say to our people now that our concern, in order to secure and maintain the independence of Ireland, should be to collaborate with some combination of sovereign States which would enable us to partake in such a measure of prosperity as that combination of States can secure for itself. I foresee that the United States of America and the British Commonwealth of Nations will enter into some such federation in the post-war world—"federation" may be too rigid a word —but some kind of association for the exchange of reciprocal advantages. I implore Deputies of this House to awake to the necessity of securing for the Irish nation a position of equality with these other great associations of nations in that federation, whatever it may be, because I believe that if we fail to secure it, it will be virtually impossible to maintain the sovereign independence of this State. Unless we can maintain the sovereign independence of this State, the generation to which we belong will become accursed in our history. Without taking prudent foresight now, we will put that sovereign independence in desperate jeopardy.

I believe that self-sufficiency means isolationism and the consequences I have outlined. Therefore, I say that we have got to ask ourselves now, is it our intention post-war to collaborate in whatever association the United States of America and the British Commonwealth of Nations may combine in? I agree that if there is no such collaboration, different problems may arise for us, but if there is such collaboration between these two great powers, are we going to share in it, and, if we are going to share in it, what steps do we propose to take to ensure that we will be afforded an opportunity of doing so?

I make that request for and on behalf of the maintenance of sovereign independence in this country. I have never made any disguise of the fact that I believed in the membership of the Commonwealth of Nations for this country, and I believe in it still. If the Commonwealth of Nations had not existed, I would have tried to bring one into existence so that this country might have the advantage and protection resulting from association with a group of other sovereign and co-equal States. I still believe that it is to the best advantage of Ireland, and of the ultimate unity of Ireland, that we should be members of the Commonwealth of Nations. I foresaw at the time that the only alternative to refusing to being a co-operating member of the Commonwealth of Nations would be the ruin of this country. I foresaw that if we were not willing to co-operate with the United States of America or with the British Commonwealth of Nations, it might mean ruin for this country at the end of the war, and I asked the Government, in shaping their foreign policy, to try to appreciate what the consequences of their action might be. I think that it is still not too late to remedy what has happened.

As I say, there was a time when I held that it would have been good policy to abandon our attitude of neutrality, and that we should have thrown all our resources into the fight on behalf of the anti-Nazi forces, but I admit that if we were to abandon our policy of neutrality now, when it seems that the Axis forces are likely to be defeated, it would amount to trying to get on the band wagon after the battle was won. When this war started, I quite admit that there was danger so far as this country was concerned, and that I wanted this country to prepare itself as against the Axis powers.

My point was that, if Germany should declare war on us, even if we were neutral, we could have afforded the same accommodation which has been afforded by Portugal now. At the time when I advocated that, a vast amount of peril was present so far as our country was concerned, but I certainly could not advocate such a policy now, when 90 per cent. of that peril has passed. That being no longer available to us and, indeed, being now excluded from us, I appeal to Deputies to try to estimate, so far as they can, the consequences that may arise as a result of the policy of neutrality that we have pursued. I urge on all Deputies in this House the necessity of bringing home to the United States of America and to Great Britain that whatever misunderstandings may have separated us in the last few years, since the war started, there is no use in denying the advantages that we have had as a result of our policy of neutrality— which, doubtlessly, were very good— and that we have got to seek now, for the protection and advantage of our own country, the friendship of peoples, such as those of the United States of America and of the British Commonwealth of Nations who may feel that, in their hour of danger, we betrayed them. We may think that the attitude of these nations is unjust, but that is the attitude that will be taken by the world generally, so far as our policy of neutrality is concerned, and the attitude of the world generally is not so docile as that of the members of the Fianna Fáil Party where their Leader is concerned.

Mr. Looney

I presume that the Deputy does not expect us to take everything that he says as being correct?

Mr. Dillon

No, I am not saying that, but I am urging on Deputies of this House the necessity of securing for our people the friendship of the United States of America and the British Commonwealth of Nations, if we hope to preserve our sovereign independence. I say that with regard to post-war conditions, in order to preserve the sovereign independence of this country, and to secure its ultimate unity, we shall have to secure the friendship of the United States of America and of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I am only trying to show the perils that beset us, and I am urging upon Dáil Eireann the necessity for recovering the friendship and goodwill we have lost, as a result of our attitude in this war, before it is too late. I think that we still have time to remedy those mistakes, and, in that connection, I want to repudiate the suggestion that was made by the Taoiseach, to the effect that anything I have said here to-day has been said with the design of embittering the relations between our people and those of the United States of America. I do not think that the Taoiseach believes that himself. In my opinion, it is just one of those cantankerous, vicious things that he says when he wants to score a point off an opponent.

The Taoiseach

I do not think the Deputy quite understands what I said. Perhaps, if he were to read it, he would realise that he is wrong in his suggestion.

Mr. Dillon

Mr. Cogan

A debate on foreign affairs invariably gives any irresponsible member of the House an opportunity of doing untold harm to this country's position abroad. When we consider how desperately delicate is the international situation at the present time, the many dangers that confront our people as far as external affairs are concerned, we cannot but deplore the speech made by Deputy Dillon. I suggested by way of intervention that it would be better if a debate on foreign affairs did not take place in public session of this House. At various critical junctures in their affairs, the Parliaments of other countries have private sessions for the purpose of dealing with matters, the reports of which, if published abroad, might do injury to these countries. I am rather surprised that such a course of action was not adopted in regard to this debate. Deputy Dillon has in the most vehement manner protested his friendship for the United Nations and his desire to promote goodwill between this country and these nations but does any one dare to think or suggest for one moment that the speech he has delivered to-night is going to promote good relations between this country and the United Nations? Is it not deliberately intended to promote the worst possible relations between this country and America? Is it not deliberately calculated, if you like, to exalt the personality of Deputy Dillon, to show that he is the one man in this country who is right and to denounce the people of the entire nation for the course of action which they have taken in this war?

On the 2nd September, 1939, we met here in this House and we unanimously decided that we were going to pursue a policy of neutrality. We never regretted that course. We believed in taking that action that we were adopting the course that was best designed to promote the interests of this country, and nothing that has happened since can change that view. I believe that, if we take the longest possible view of the situation, we shall be convinced that the action which we have taken was a wise and prudent one. We have escaped the worst consequences of physical involvement in this conflict. We may have to suffer disadvantages after the emergency by reason of the course we have taken, but, in the long run, the independence, the separateness of this country, and the permanent security of this country as an independent nation, will be enhanced by the course of action which we decided to take when the emergency arose. Deputy Dillon, I believe, has managed with his peculiar smartness to impale himself on the horns of a dilemma. He has told us that he desires the destruction of Nazism, and he also desires the destruction of Communism. Yet he is prepared to plunge this country into war on behalf of one side as against the other. If his attitude were hostility both to Communism and Nazism, would not the prudent course that would suggest itself to him be to abstain from intervention at all? I believe it is foolishness for people to talk like Deputy Dillon about intervention. This is a war of great and mighty Powers, and a little nation such as ours has no place in it. We are only a baby Power, and the wise course for a baby Power is to act like a baby and like an innocent, and make no noise.

I am sure the Government have considered the question of going on the air and stating our views. I believe that we would make a very grave mistake in doing so at a time like this. The people who are actually engaged in war have their nerves strained to the one task of prosecuting that war to a successful conclusion. They do not want to hear on the air the viewpoints of neutral States and might resent even more our line of propaganda, no matter how well intended, and it might do more harm to our national interests than our complete silence would. I believe that the only course to adopt is to endeavour to show our goodwill towards the peoples who are actually suffering. There are people in every nation who are suffering intensely and, if we show them our real sympathy and are prepared to help them on any and every occasion the opportunity offers, we will be doing more to promote the welfare of this country than would any attempt at propaganda on the air.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Níl a fhios agam cad é an mac mallachtain a bhí ag séideadh fén Teachta O Diolúin anocht. An dóigh leis gur dhein an óráid a thug sé uaidh anocht aon mhaitheas dá mhuinntir? Dubhairt sé go bhfuil leas na tíre ag déanamh buairimh dó. Má tá, cuimhníodh sé ar an sean-fhocal atá againn: "Is binn béal ina chómhnaidhe".

Mhol sé don Dáil agus don Riaghaltas uair amháin na monarchanna biatais a bhí againn do shéideadh suas san spéir. Mhol sé nár cheart cruithneacht do chur ins an tír seo— nach bhfásfadh sí. Tá sé ag teacht anois le comhairle chogaidh, ag tabhairt comhairle dhúinn cad ba cheart dúinn a dhéanamh le linn an chogaidh seo. Tá a fhios ag an saol agus tá a fhios ag muinntir na hEireann go raibh siad ag déanamh an rud ceart nuair a rinne an Raighaltas agus an Dáil le chéile socrú, i dtosach an chogaidh, fanacht as.

Ba chóir dúinn ár mbuidheachas do ghabháil le Dia go bhfuilimíd saor fós, agus ba chóir dúinn gan an scéal do dhéanamh níos achrannaighe don tír agus don Riaghaltas ná mar atá sé i láthair na huaire. Tá a fhios againn go maith go bhfuil an saol achrannach agus dian agus cruaidh go leor ar an dtír agus ar mhuinntir na hEireann. Fonn mioscaise atá ar an dTeachta O Diolúin anocht. Molaimse dhó, in ainm Dé agus ar son leas na tíre seo, cuimhneamh ar an sean-fhocal a luadhas cheana: "Is binn béal ina chómhnaidhe".

Mr. Anthony

I would like to put one or two matters before the Taoiseach for his serious consideration. I wish to impress on him the evil results that flow from the ignorant and stupid kind of censorship that exists at present in our country. Even uninformed persons and persons with no newspaper or publicity training of any character would not make the blunders that are now having a serious effect on foreign opinion in regard to our own country.

Let us take the case of a Sunday newspaper circulating in this country, to which several publicists were invited to contribute articles regarding our neutrality. I suppose that we take our neutrality for granted and that it is understood. Arrangements had been made for the pros and cons to be published in the journal, but what was the result? We had articles printed in favour of getting into the war and when the time came for a reply an article was almost printed when it was held up by the censor here. Another article, alleged to have been written by a fairly well-known journalist in this country—who, I have good reason to know, did not write the article at all— was published. In other words, the censor allows one side to be published and not the other. I would like the Taoiseach to look into that matter and have it rectified.

Everyone knows that it is a common thing for newspapers to go to press at a certain hour, yet sometimes the censor stops material and then releases it half an hour after the paper has gone to press.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That matter would arise on the Vote for the Minister for Co-ordination of Defensive Measures.

Mr. Anthony

I thought it would be proper to raise it on External Affairs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Another Minister is responsible.

Mr. Anthony

I sincerely hope the Taoiseach will see that we do not further prejudice foreign opinion against this country by refusing to hear both sides of the question.

Mr. Norton

I intervene in this debate only to record my dissent from the views expressed by Deputy Dillon, lest it might be thought, by silence in the House, that this Legislature would be giving approbation to the wild anti-Irish views he has expressed in the course of his speech this evening. Deputy Dillon ought to know, unless he is politically blind, that neutrality is the unanimous policy of the people of this country. The many monster parades which have been held throughout the country, at which the policy of neutrality was affirmed and re-affirmed, ought to convince him that, so far as eudeavouring to involve us in the war is concerned, he is crying in the wilderness and has no moral authority whatever to speak for the overwhelming mass of the Irish people.

I have been a member of the Defence Conference since it was first inaugurated. I disclose no secrets when I say that the three Parties represented on it—Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour—have pursued a most cautious and most prudent policy of neutrality. Every care was exercised by that Defence Conference, in tendering advice to the Government, to be scrupulously fair and honest and to be exactingly impartial in the pursuit of the policy of neutrality in this crisis. It is not unnatural, of course, that as the war progressed, and as the area of belligerency extended, and as new nations were thrown into the vortex of war, realising they have different interests from the interests they had when neutral, they should endeavour to involve us in war. The strange part of the whole thing is that, with the exception of the countries originally involved in the war, most of the others became involved only when their liberties were invaded, when their towns and cities were over-run by armed forces. They went into the maelstrom of war only when it was impossible to maintain their neutrality. We desire, like them, to maintain the neutrality which they once prized and highly valued, and, if the occasion should arise that our country is invaded, then—and only then—like these other countries, ought we to involve ourselves in war.

I think, in view of Deputy Dillon's mischievous speech, that all Parties should avail of this opportunity to reaffirm our adherence to a policy of strict neutrality in the present world conflict. Deputy Dillon ought to know by now that he does not speak for the Irish people. He knows this nation is passing through a crisis such as never beset it before, and, if Deputy Dillon will not give the nation the benefit of his talents in advocating a policy of neutrality, then at least he ought to stay quiet and stop his deliberate efforts to sabotage the external policy of the country. I have listened to speeches by Deputy Dillon on many occasions, here and elsewhere. Such speeches can be designed only to misrepresent our point of view in America, Great Britain, Germany and other countries.

A small country like ours wants friends, not enemies. We will retain friends only to the extent that we act as friends with those who are undergoing the horrors and the pangs of war. So far we have endeavoured, by our policy of neutrality, to maintain our friendships with all those countries with which we were at peace in 1939 and, whether this war be long or short, the obvious policy for the Irish nation to pursue is a policy of friendship with all and enmity with none.

I cannot understand what purpose Deputy Dillon seeks to achieve by his vehement and malicious speeches, all designed, in a passionate and insane way, to involve us in a war in which no Irish interest would be served by our participation. I can only imagine that Deputy Dillon does that to pander to friendships and policies which are neither Irish in conception nor Irish in operation. Ireland did not cause this war; she was not consulted about the commencement of the war, nor about the issues upon which this war is being fought. Ireland's interests do not lie in involvement in war. We are a small, a relatively defenceless people, with no territorial aims, with no Imperial designs on other lands or other peoples, with no aspirations to commercial greatness or economic prowess calculated to injure any other country. Our interests, after long years of bondage, lie in pursuing the paths of peace.

Deputy Dillon ill serves this nation when, following its release after 700 years of bondage, he wants to involve us in a war not calculated to serve Irish interests, but to serve foreign friendships and foreign policies. One would imagine that a gentleman with such heroic and martial views as Deputy Dillon would scarcely be content to waste himself in a country at peace. But, while he is enjoying the benefits of neutrality, while he is missing the air-raid alarms, while he is not listening to the crashing bombs and thundering guns, Deputy Dillon parades himself here in all his martial glory and tells the people that this country ought to involve itself in war. Deputy Dillon is bursting to go to war; he is bursting to suffer the hardships and privations which the soldiers of various nations are suffering. There is nothing to prevent the Deputy going to war; there was nothing to prevent him joining the armed forces of his friends at any time since 1939, but he prefers to be like the little boy who gets behind the half-door and puts out his tongue at the young friend with whom he has just had a quarrel. Deputy Dillon prefers to come here, in a country which enjoys peace and neutrality and the benefits flowing therefrom, to advise everybody else to send their sons or brothers or relatives out to fight battles from which Deputy Dillon is particularly careful to keep a long distance away.

We are probably now at a fairly advanced stage in this war. If we come through it we will do so only because of God's guidance and the prudence and caution of all Parties here. Deputy Dillon's contribution to our escape from this holocaust is one which ought not to be forgotten by the Irish people. They ought to realise that during the years of war, when we were engaged in endeavouring to preserve the hearths of our people from devastation, Deputy Dillon was the one man in this legislative Assembly who stood up and, while preferring comfort and smugness and complacency himself, was willing to endeavour to make this country a shambles and the homes of our people scenes of ruin and devastation—scenes characteristic of those countries which have been visited by Armageddon.

I think this Vote will have served one useful purpose if, through the machinery of the House and the agency of the Press, we avail of this opportunity to reaffirm at the commencement of the fifth year of the war our determination to pursue a policy of neutrality, to emphasise that that determination is as green and vigorous as in the first days of the war, that so long as this awful conflict lasts, we desire to be the friends of all who are engaged in the war and that we hope, when the bells of peace ring again, we will be able to extend the hand of friendship to those suffering nations to whom for so many years we always extended the hand of friendship.

Dr. O'Higgins

In the interest of fair play, in the first place, and, in the second place, in order to demonstrate that this is a deliberative Assembly, where representatives of the people assemble not, as in a ballet, to sing the praises of any particular prima donna, but as representatives of the people charged with the responsibility of expressing their views, I protest most emphatically against the vicious attack that has been made on Deputy James Dillon. He stands alone in this House and he stands alone here because he expressed views which were not in conformity with the views held by any of the Parties in the House. That is the position. That is why he is alone. But, because he expresses those views, that is no justification for any Deputy, particularly the Leader of a Party, to represent his statement as a malicious statement, sabotaging the country, sabotaging the national interests of the people.

There are people in this country who would bravely face machine-guns but are afraid to face facts. That was first pointed out in this debate in the very eloquent address that we had from the inside of the Labour Party. The view expressed was that we are only poltroons if we do not face up to the fact that, in addition to war demanding a price, peace also demands a price; that neutrality also has its price, that we should begin to face up to the fact that there is a price to be paid for neutrality, and that that price need not necessarily be total estrangement from all the nations of the world and absolute isolation. As far as I got the gist of Deputy Dillon's utterances, they were, in the main, in step with that utterance which came from the Labour Benches: that we have got to make our contacts, to endeavour to keep old friends; that in times of trouble friends are valuable, and that no person or no nation could have too many friends: that, whereas, we are a sovereign people this Parliament, as an absolutely free and independent Parliament, had a perfect right to decide on a policy of neutrality.

That was what Deputy Dillon stated: that we could be neutral and still friendly with old friends; that we could be neutral and sympathise with old friends in adversity in the course of a very terrible war. That is the spirit that was advocated to-night by Deputy Dillon: that in our hour of trial and tribulation, that in every struggle this country went through, whether it was war, famine or poverty, the voice of Ireland's leaders went out to the United States of America, that the big-hearted Irish in America never turned the deaf ear, but always came to our aid; that there should not be a rift in the old-time friendships between the little motherland and the great land populated to a great extent by her sons, and that we should begin to explain, as best we could, through all the channels available to our friends out there and our friends elsewhere, that neutrality did not mean that we were not in sympathy with them in their struggle.

Those were the views expressed by Deputy Dillon, Irish views and patriotic views expressed by a man who, by virtue of his own standing and ability, and of the grand traditions that are behind his name, is as much entitled—and more so—to express his views as most of us in this Assembly.

I think it is unfortunate that, without any previous notice, a debate of this kind should have been turned into a wrangle for or against neutrality. I think I am echoing what is in the minds of Deputies in many Parties when I say that if any Deputy stood up here as a public representative to voice the opinions he holds, he would be beneath contempt if he failed to do so. The fact that his views might not coincide with the views of the vast majority either here or outside is no justification for referring to him as a malicious saboteur. That was never his stand in Irish public life. Let us be in agreement or disagreement with him. His public attitude was always dictated by a conscience palpitating in the best interests of this country. We cannot, as Deputy Larkin said, gloss round an awkward corner: that there is a short-term policy and a long-term policy, and that taking the long-term view of the policy of neutrality we will only come up against the awkward reactions at the time when the price will have to be paid.

It should be the interest of all Parties to see that it is not the very biggest but the very smallest price: that through every possible contact we have we will want to let the world know that our policy was directed by our smallness, our weakness and our poverty, by our isolated position and our military helplessness: that when in the interests of our own country we declared for a policy of neutrality it did not mean that we were careless of the sufferings and the sacrifices of our kith and kin, that it did not mean that we had not views of our own as to what was at stake in this mighty contest and gigantic war, and did not mean that we did not sympathise with the side that was in line with the national stand, aspirations and friendly contacts that go right back through the centuries.

Deputy Davin made a statement which I would like to correct, at least from my conception of our joint responsibilities. He said, in the course of his remarks, that the Defence Conference was brought into being for the purpose of supporting and administering the policy of neutrality. According to my conception, the Party originally responsible for the body that is now known as the Defence Conference was this Party here. It will not be contested, I think, that questions of policy were completely ruled out at the Defence Conference. They were not in order at it, and quite properly so. The Defence Conference was instituted for the purpose of getting the joint influence of all Parties in this House, so as to get together the very maximum of strength to defend this country and support whatever policy was decided on by this Parliament, whether it was neutrality or war. The Defence Conference could not presume to lay down or to dictate policy. Neither could it say what the policy of this Assembly should be from month to month or year to year, so that quite properly all questions of policy were ruled out from the duties and responsibilities of the Defence Conference.

Deputy Davin may have a different conception from what I had of what the functions of that body were. I must say that my function as a Deputy inside or outside the Defence Conference was to urge on this Parliament whatever course appeared to be in the national interest from time to time. I may be wrong or I may even have got an incorrect impression of what was contained in the Deputy's remarks. Before I spoke I told Deputy Davin that I would have to correct the statement from my point of view.

I got up in the first place, as one Deputy, to protest against the attack made on an Independent Deputy, because he expressed his views. I want to put it to the Taoiseach, to all Parties, and to every Independent Deputy that if we do not regard this Parliament as a deliberative Assembly. where elected representatives can come together to express their views, and if we condemn a Deputy for expressing views merely because we disagree with them, then we are the people who are engaged in national sabotage, because nothing could do more damage to a State. One of the greatest institutions in this or any other State is the Parliament of the people. Those who went before us, away back through the pages of history, struggled and bled that some day, if not in their time, then in our time, this little country would have a Parliament of its own where elected representatives of the Irish people would assemble and voice their views, no matter who agreed or disagreed. If the day ever dawns when a majority here, even an overwhelming majority, attempts to gag any individual Deputy who for expressing his own views is denounced as a malicious saboteur then the malicious sabotage will be the responsibility of that majority and not of the individual.

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

It is with very great reluctance I intervene in the discussion, having on a former occasion expressed, perhaps rather severely, my views upon the policy of the country, which is still the accepted policy— neutrality. A decision was taken in a solemn hour. It appeared to us at that time to be a policy which would get almost general support. We have had, in our long history, perhaps sufficient examples of our national integrity being weakened and torn asunder by dissension and discrepancies in the hour of peril. During the past four years the Government has certainly no cause of complaint with the manner in which it was treated in the difficult times through which we have passed. It is not because of the Government itself that they got such treatment. It was because of a patriotic conception on the part of the different political units in the State that they got it. It may be that popular opinion was strained to take up the attitude it did take up on neutrality at the time, by reason of the division between North and South, and the fact that, while that was there, no other policy could possibly get, practically, the unanimous support that would be required to have it passed as public policy. It may be, perhaps, wise that we should focus attention upon that, not for the purpose of antagonising opinion inside or outside this country, but merely to state the self-evident fact that, while that boundary line remains, it is a political impossibility to approach the consideration of international affairs with an unbiassed mind. It is regrettable that that is so.

One of the pains of my life is that people and political Parties here find difficulty in approaching any problem, whether national or international, without being obsessed with what is called the past history of this country. What is important for us is present history and the future. That is our responsibility. The past is gone and done with. It is our problem to shape the present, and to map out a broader future for our country than the pages of history disclose. I regret I did not hear the whole of the case that was put by a member of the House. The parts I heard were put in this form, a criticism of the Minister which, I presume, members of the House are still entitled to indulge in, and then the really important point which was explained much more clearly than I could do it, by Deputy O'Higgins. We have to consider what is going to happen when this whole business, this war fever, has left the world, and we have to settle down. If we want friends, it is not unreasonable for a member of this House to get a fair hearing.

The three speeches I heard following that of Deputy Dillon appeared to me to be almost hysterical. Deputy Dillon may have imparted a certain amount of passion into his speech. As far as I could gather, he wanted to have better relations with our friends across the water, if we can call them such, and with those who have been friends of ours for centuries, the Americans. It may have been unwise to criticise one or two of the belligerents. There is a great disparity in years between Deputy Dillon and myself. Perhaps I would not display the same indifference to international affairs or be as candid as he was. But there is no earthly reason why we should not listen in silence to his speech.

We took a decision on neutrality upon a solemn occasion. It was an occasion upon which two great Powers thought it was their duty to intervene on behalf of one of the great Powers of Europe which had been attacked. The slogan at the time, if my recollection is correct, was a declaration of war against aggression. The British people and the British Commonwealth of Nations, apart from ourselves, entered into that war for the purpose of preventing aggression. I am speaking without criticising anybody, but merely stating a fact when I say that from the day that war commenced down to this present hour, no other country entered into the conflict, except when attacked, so that any country which came into the war after that period came in to defend itself. We have very many more contacts with one of the two sides in this war than we have with the other, and it is not without significance that there are perhaps, on one side, at the present moment something like 200,000 of our people, almost 20 divisions. When we consider America—speaking only for myself—I can say that I have more blood relations in the American Army than I have relations of both sexes and all ages in this country. We could not be indifferent in circumstances of that sort.

So far as my observations here on a previous day are concerned, if there was any lack of interest shown in the conflict, I should like to correct it, to that extent, at any rate—that we are not indifferent by any means to our friends, and, so far as I know, have no enmity towards those on the other side. Surely a point of view such as that can be put in this House. It is not unreasonable. It is one of the things which appear to me to be open for the consideration of those who will take part in any peace arrangements when the war comes to an end. Under no conceivable set of circumstances, does it appear to me that we could have entered into this conflict. I think the concluding portions of Deputy Dillon's speech made that perfectly clear, so far as the events of the last few months are concerned. He made no case whatever for entering into the conflict.

Why is it that people, in discussing a matter in the calm atmosphere of this House, cannot at least pay attention to what a Deputy said? It may be that I paid more attention to that particular part of his speech than to any other, but that that statement was made there is no doubt, and that it was a statesmanlike statement, I must admit. He saw no case whatever for our going into this war now, and we are told by certain people that he wanted to sabotage the State and precipitate us into the war. In my view, it would be much better, until this Parliament grows up, until these two Parties disappear out of public life, if international affairs were not discussed here, and, in the interests of the advancement of this country, the sooner that happens, the better. If we have matters to discuss here, the main consideration is the advancement of the country and not the interests of political parties. So far as the events of the last four years are concerned, the Ministerial Bench opposite, the Government, has no cause for complaint regarding any action taken or any statement made from this side. We are all of us in duty bound to seek the best interests of our own country. In my view, for what it is worth, the interests of this country depend more on the work we are going to put into the building up of our country, both now and after the war, than on any friendship we shall get from any country in any part of the world or the combined friendship of the whole lot of them. The sooner we realise that the better—that we have to depend upon ourselves, on our own work and on what we are capable of doing, and that while we wish to live at peace with everybody, we are no greater than any other people. Many of them have far greater achievements to their credit than we have; many of them who have had as short, or almost as short, a period, did better work during their time than we have done. We have to remedy that. That is our problem for the future, and perhaps if we bent our energies towards trying to achieve it and thought less of politics, it might be in the best interests of the country.

Mr. Connolly

There has been quite a considerable volume of opinion expressed here on the question of neutrality, and I think that, despite Deputy Dillon's assurances as to his attitude and his desires in this matter, this country will maintain its present policy of neutrality; but, it may be as well, particularly in view of Deputy Dillon's opinions, to re-examine the question of neutrality and the basis of this policy. As a new member, it may be a little difficult to criticise one of the veterans of the House, but it appeared to me, and I am sure to others, that despite the boisterousness of Deputy Dillon, there was a lack of policy. There were self-contradictions in his statements, and, even if he were, as he boasted he is, a friend of the United Nations, his attitude in the House would certainly ill serve their cause.

On the one hand, Deputy Dillon saw fit to condemn very vigorously, and in fact to damn, not only the Soviet Union, but all nations which were contaminated by contact with it, to use his own words, and, on the other, he prayed for the success of the United Nations, every one of which is contaminated by the same contact with the Soviet Union. Here, then, is a self-contradiction. That is no policy for a State such as Ireland, and little heed, therefore, can be given to the views expressed by Deputy Dillon.

Deputy Dillon thinks that it is too late to get on to the band wagon and therefore he does not now suggest that there should be active participation by this State in the hostilities that are going on in the world. But he did state that, when it was not too late, when there was danger to be faced, and when there were calamities to be endured, it was his policy then to advocate that this country should take steps in alliance with these nations. His main concern appeared to be that we would stand well in the eyes of the American public. He stated that his policy was: "Our hearts beat for you and we are only neutral because we are obliged to do so." If that is an attitude which he thinks will impress the American public, he little knows that public or he is very much deceived. I think it was old Abe Lincoln who first made use in politics of the good old slogan that honesty is the best policy. That is not an honest policy, that is not the reason why we are neutral, that is not a policy which would impress any State or any people in any great nation. Deputy Dillon, I think, will be discovered finally to be the one who is doing the least service to the American cause as well as to the Irish cause, because it appears to me that he understands little about either the American viewpoint on the present conflict, in so far as it relates to Ireland, and less does he understand the Irish viewpoint on this question, no matter how long his family have been established in this country.

It is for this reason I think that we should re-examine the question of neutrality. We should have it clarified in terms that will make it clearly understood, not only in our own country but abroad, where this understanding will be of value when the war is over. We know, we have experience even in this House, that there is a section in this country which is opposed to neutrality. There is another section, on the other hand, who glorify neutrality and swing to the other extreme of the pendulum and make neutrality into a fundamental principle.

It is not a fundamental principle of Irish politics that neutrality is something that must be glorified and must stand above everything else. To give expression to these views, either one or the other, or even to intermediate ones—and there are many views on neutrality—might connote in some minds that the person giving such expression to them stands for these views. But all I want to do here is merely to pose the question, to show what views are in existence, and to ask consideration of them so that we may, in our own minds as well as in the minds of our friends, clarify this whole issue.

It might be as well in fact, particularly as we have had such announcements from Deputy Dillon as to his personal politics, that I shall preface my remarks by saying that I am not pro-German and I am not pro-British. I am still a believer in the sentiments which were so well expressed in the poster displayed by my father over Liberty Hall. I still believe that the correct sentiments for an Irishman are to proclaim that he is pro-Irish and that his first interests are his own country and the well-being of the people of that country. That is the only fundamental principle, and it is only with a recognition of that fundamental principle that we can understand this question of neutrality. It is only because we do understand that fundamental principle that the Labour Party is in favour of neutrality and for no other reason.

The fundamental principle for this country is to obtain the independence of the whole country, to extend the independence that we have, to obtain sovereignty over the whole of this country. Until that is done, until that is completed, there is no possibility that any reasonable man can see of any other attitude on the part of this country but neutrality. That is why I said that neutrality is not a fundamental principle. It is a policy that has arisen out of the present set of circumstances. Given an independent country and a set of circumstances different from the present circumstances, there is no reason to imagine that an Irish Government could not quite correctly depart from any question of neutrality. They would certainly, with every mark of correctitude, take up a policy different from neutrality. But we are not neutral because we are in dread of aerial bombardment or because we fear the terrors of an invasion or any such reason as that.

We can point to the fact, as has often been stated, that 100,000 of our people have engaged in the war industries of Great Britain; not to make political capital out of it, but just as a statement of fact that shows quite definitely and distinctly that the Irish people, even though we may not wish them to do so, even though we deplore and regret that they do so, are not afraid of the terrors of war. I think, too, just as a mere statement of fact— not to boast of it, but rather, perhaps, to decry it—that we could show that there is a greater percentage of Irishmen from the South of Ireland enrolled in the army of Britain, one of the belligerent Powers, than from the loyal North of this country. That shows that Irishmen have not yet lost their militancy, that they are not afraid to engage in war. It is merely a statement of fact. It is a statement made just to bring back to our minds the fact that cowardice is no ingredient of neutrality—an allegation often levelled at the Irish, particularly at the present time, which, I think, is well worth refuting.

On this point I would certainly in every way second the remarks of Deputy Larkin in reference to the question of propaganda; propaganda by every possible means, propaganda for a proper understanding of the question of neutrality in foreign countries, particularly in Great Britain. Not that we want to curry favour with any of them. We want friends, undoubtedly; everyone wants friends, every nation wants friends. The basis of friendship is understanding, and most of the anti-Irish propaganda, most of the anti-Irish feeling and lack of sympathy with us, particularly in Great Britain, is due very largely to a lack of understanding. We require patience and perseverance to remove this, and the only way it can be removed is by an honest delineation and explanation of the whole question of neutrality, and not by any dishonest subterfuge such as has been suggested by Deputy Dillon as a means, perhaps, of obtaining for us friends and sympathy in America. I think that in America amongst the Irish and amongst the Irish-Americans, particularly in the political Parties and labour unions, there are quite powerful people and personalities who understand more clearly the reasons for Irish neutrality than does Deputy Dillon, and who support the Irish attitude on neutrality for the very good grounds on which it is supported by reasonable people in every country —and for no other reason.

We have heard about Portugal, and we have been told that, after four years, Portuguese neutrality was suddenly modified, and, as a result of representations made by Great Britain, that Portugal gave Great Britain access to some islands in the Azores to protect her Atlantic fleet. Deputy Dillon, in making this statement, did not stress the fact that it took Portugal four years to remember that clause in the treaty which was 150 years old, and to come to the assistance of its old friend. It never, perhaps, struck him, in arguing from that, that he wished Ireland to take up a similar type of neutrality, that by no conceivable amount of imagination could he designate Ireland as Great Britain's old friend. This was, I think, one of the main weaknesses in that portion of Deputy Dillon's argument. Realising, as he did, that there were serious differences, historical, traditional and otherwise, between these countries, on the basis of his own argument, on the basis of the facts as they were outlined, there could be no analogy whatsoever between the question of our attitude to neutrality and our type of neutrality and the Portuguese type of neutrality.

Of course, this war has shown that neutrality is a very flexible term. There are different types of neutrality. There is the Portuguese type which we have mentioned. There is the Swedish type, which bowed before what was considered the invincible might of an empire, and gave passage through that country where that invincibility was considered to be a fact, but when that invincibility declined, the Swedes took care to modify once more their neutrality, and refused to accede to the continuation of that facility for that power.

The Irish, probably, have their own type of neutrality. It has been considered here to-day, and it has been termed "indifferent" neutrality and "friendly" neutrality. A famous Irish writer in London alleged that when this question of neutrality was being discussed in this House, one of the members asked the question, in what he said was the real Irish fashion: "Against whom are we to be neutral?" That, of course, may be considered jocose by the writer, but, as things are at the present time in the world, considering the importance and the preponderance of the big Powers and the ruthlessness of the machinery which they put into force, and the little regard there is for small nations, their attitude, their culture and everything else, it certainly has some point. It has some question of policy involved in it, to consider against whom you might be neutral.

I think that, despite the criticism there has been of neutrality, there has not been shown any alternative. We need to understand how best to utilise this policy of neutrality, not by getting on the band wagon, not by in any way falsifying the question of neutrality, but by utilising whatever forces we have, in this country or elsewhere, to soften any rigours which, in the minds of some people, may threaten us in a post-war period. For myself, and I think many others agree, I think the enemies that we have, if we have any—which is doubtful—will have so many problems of their own to face that they may not have time to indulge in animosity and to take the economic measures which were suggested against us.

I think, as far as can be gauged, the Department of External Affairs has, in many respects, done fairly noteworthy work in getting in many places sympathy for the Irish cause, for the Irish State and for the Irish attitude, that did not exist before. I think it is barely due to the Department of External Affairs to say so. I think that as a result of the attitude which they have adopted, the careful attitude of explaining this whole question of neutrality, very few really responsible correspondents of papers, even from Great Britain, have left this country without a better view of Ireland and a better understanding of Ireland than they had when they came to it. That, I think, will certainly stand to our credit in the very serious times that are to come.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 11 Nov 1943

Committee on Finance. - Vote 65—External Affairs.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Nov 1943