Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 May 1944

Vol. 93 No. 12

Ceisteanna.—Questions. Oral Answers. - The Vatican State.

asked the Minister for External Affairs if he has made further representations to the belligerent Powers concerning the Vatican State; and, if so, with what result; and, if not, if it is the intention of the Government to make any further representations on the matter.

asked the Minister for External Affairs whether, in view of the replies received to the Irish Government's Note concerning the safety of the City of Rome, he will consider communicating further with the Governments concerned with the object of having joint agreement arrived at whereby the City of Rome might be occupied by troops of a neutral State or States in the role of a military police force as a means of giving world-wide assurance that the City of Rome was strictly an open city; if he will further consider that during such neutral occupancy the City of Rome might be utilised as a hospitalisation and relief base under the direction of the International Red Cross; and, finally, as a gesture of the earnest desires of the Irish people in this matter he will indicate that the Government would make available for such military police duties a division of Oglaigh-na-hEireann to be transported and maintained at the sole expense of the Irish Government and to undertake such duties jointly with a similar body of troops from Switzerland and other neutral States, and all such neutral troops to be withdrawn on an agreed date following a general armistice.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together. I can only say, in answer to these two Questions, that representations are being made and will continue to be made. I cannot foresee what the result will be, but I think it would be better, for the present at any rate, to restrict our representations to securing agreement on the principle of sparing the City of Rome, and not to enter more than is immediately necessary into the details of how it is to be done. Given a firm desire on both sides to save the City, the details should not present difficulty.

I shall be glad to make a statement when I consider that I can make one of value or one which would be helpful towards the purpose we all desire to achieve.

Could the Minister give any indication as to the text of the further representations? So far as one can read, the indications of the replies from both sets of belligerents were, to put it in a descriptive phrase, that one of them passed the buck to the other. Could the Minister say if any more satisfactory explanation, either verbally or otherwise, has been received up to the present?

I am afraid that I will have to maintain the silence that, as I have indicated in my previous-reply, is wisest at the moment.

Mr. Larkin

I would like to add to what Deputy Cosgrave has said—why should not the Minister submit suggestions to the belligerents to by-pass the City of Rome? Is there anything wrong in diplomatic usage or in ordinary conditions in suggesting the by-passing of Rome and testing the sincerity of both belligerent Powers as to this city being a city of refuge?

Something more than testing sincerity is needed—it is to get the thing done, if possible.

Top
Share