Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Jun 1946

Vol. 101 No. 18

Committee on Finance. - Vote 66—League of Nations.

The Taoiseach

Tairgim:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £20,220 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfas chun bheith infoctha í rith na bliana dar crioch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1947, chun Rannioca i leith Costas Chumann na Náisiún.

The sum of £20,220 provided in this Vote represents two years' contributions to the League of Nations—£8,726 in respect of the year 1945 and £11,494 for the year 1946. As I pointed out last year, this is the last time the Dáil will be asked to vote moneys in respect of our membership of the League of Nations. As Deputies probably know, negotiations have been going on for some time between the League of Nations and the United Nations Organisation with a view to the transfer to the latter of the remaining assets, functions and activities of the former. The assembly of the League of Nations was called at Geneva last April to discuss the proposals resulting from the negotiations, and, on 19th April, the League Assembly passed a resolution approving of the proposals made and bringing the existence of the league itself to an end. The League Assembly set up a board of liquidation to carry out the transfer arrangements. The contribution which the Dáil is now being asked to vote in respect of the year 1946 covers, therefore, the expenses of the League itself up to 19th April and the expenses of this board and of the remaining machinery of the league up to 1st August, 1946, or such other date as may be decided upon for the definite transfer to the United Nations Organisation.

I do not think I need go into the details of the arrangements made between the League and the United Nations Organisation. The relevant documents have been placed in the Library for the convenience of Deputies who wish to consult them. Briefly, the position is that the assets of the League, including the buildings at Geneva, furniture, office equipment and so on, to a total value of some 45,000,000 Swiss francs, or £2,500,000, at the time of the meeting in April, will be taken over by the United Nations Organisation. Each of the members of the League, to the number of 43 in all at the time of the meeting in April, will be credited with a share of the transfer value of the assets proportionate to the amount paid by that member in contributions to the League during the period of its membership. In other words, we would be entitled to an amount which will bear the same relation to the sum of £2,500,000 which I have just mentioned as the amount we have paid in contributions to the League since 1923 bears to the total of the contributions paid to the League by the 43 States who still remained members of that body at the time of the meeting in April. The amounts due to be refunded to individual members have not yet been determined by the board of liquidation and cannot be determined until all outstanding contributions and arrears due up to the end of 1946 have been paid. In the event of the board of liquidation not having completed its work by the end of the present year, its continued existence will be provided for out of the various League funds which it has to dispose of, the credits of the surviving members of the League being abated pro rata.

The disappearance of the League of Nations brings to an end one of the or, perhaps, the greatest, experiment in international co-operation the world has ever known. I think it may fairly be described as that. It is rather the fashion nowadays to decry the League of Nations and to speak as if at no moment of its existence had it any hope of success. I do not quite agree with that view. I think that, up to 1931, the League might be said, on the whole, to have justified the hopes of its founders. At that time, its prestige was still intact and its influence was, I think, considerable. The League Covenant was still regarded as affording, or as capable of affording, a substantial guarantee of security to its members.

The failure of the League to cope with the attack on China, however, dealt a fatal blow to the authority of the Covenant and to the general confidence of the nations in League methods and machinery. It lessened whatever hopes of success the Disarmament Conference may otherwise have had and it encouraged other States in the belief that they could proceed without fear of having to reckon with the League as a serious factor. The attack on Abyssinia showed that the belief was only too well-founded. When all 50, or so, members of the League, led by three of the most powerful countries in the world, failed to protect the freedom and independence of one of the weakest of their members, it was clear that the guarantees contained in the League Covenant were a dead letter. The guarantees contained in the League Covenant and in the system of collective security, upon which the smaller States particularly had to rely, were at an end. In this series of tragic events, which one after another followed the League, the League as such was unable to play any important part at all. It was reduced to the role of a mere spectator of the terrible drama gradually unfolding itself around it. There would be no point in instituting an inquest on the League of Nations now that it has gone. It would be well, however, that the lessons of the failure of the League should not be lost and the same mistakes repeated. There were great weaknesses and defects in the structure of the League and in the provisions of the League Covenant. There were, for example, the association of the League with the 1919 Peace Treaties; the fact that membership of the League did not include all the great Powers; and there were significant gaps in the all-important security provisions of the Covenant. It was not primarily by reason of these weaknesses and defects that the League of Nations failed.

In spite of the unanimity rule, the non-membership of some of the great Powers and the serious defects in applying the security provisions of the Convenant it should have been quite possible, to my mind, to check the aggression in Manchuria and the later aggression in Abyssinia if only all the members of the League had a uniform resolution to put the machinery of collective security, which was available, in full operation. It was because of that lack of resolution on the part of the individual members of the organisation and not primarily because of the weaknesses in the structure of the League itself, that the experiment made at Geneva failed. It is, perhaps, easier for small countries, especially if they are not close to the likely theatres of action, to be bold in such a case than it is for the great Powers on whom, if military action results, the brunt of the struggle will fall. Making all due allowances for that, both as regards Manchuria and Abyssinia, it was the hesitant action of the great Powers that was directly responsible for the League's failure.

It is of the utmost importance that we should realise the implications of this experience. It would be a tragic mistake to think that, whatever was wrong with the League, could be set right merely by setting up now a new international organisation with a somewhat different drafting of the provisions of its fundamental charters. There is something far deeper than that involved. The League failed because the individuals and the Governments who were members of it were not prepared to fulfil the fundamental obligation, which any system of world organisation for peace and security must involve. They were not ready to face war and to wage war in order to prevent war. They did not accept in their own minds the essential idea that, if one of their members became a victim of armed aggression, then each of the others, even if their own national territory were untouched and even if the aggressive State was a friend, must be prepared to go to war in defence of the State attacked with the same energy as if they themselves were invaded. Unless that fundamental idea is grasped and accepted as a principle by every nation, big and small, no international security organisation, whatever its structure and covenant, will succeed. If that principle is fully grasped, however, a true foundation is laid and success is possible. I am afraid we are still far removed from that desirable position.

General Mulcahy

The Taoiseach in his statement suggests—and I am sure we all agree with him—that there are some things which we can learn from the history of the passing of the League of Nations. At the same time I cannot hear his review on his Estimate, particularly upon the lines on which he has gone, without looking a bit into the future as well as to the past. Looking to the past, in the first instance, and recalling the position which this country occupied in the League of Nations, and the weaknesses which the country showed in serving the League, induces me now to make a few comments for the purpose of referring specifically to the future. When we look back to the position in which this State stood in the Council of the League of Nations and when we remember the men whom we sent there-Kevin O'Higgins, Deputy John A. Costello, Deputy Patrick McGilligan, Doctor John Marcus O'Sullivan and Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald—we find men who made their mark in the international councils in which it was their privilege to take part as representatives of this country. Looking back we see the contacts that they made, particularly with the smaller nations like ourselves, and the impression that they made upon them and the position which their work there gave to this country—a position whereby the Taoiseach, when he became head of the Government here, was enabled to preside over the Council of the League of Nations in his first year of office. I cannot help feeling that if we had sat in the Council of the League of Nations under better home auspices, even though a small country, we might have served the world through the medium of the League of Nations in a more effective way than the way in which we did serve it. We entered the League of Nations at a time when a very considerable section of our people, through a political voice, were calling on the League of Nations not to recognise the puppet State that was then the Irish Free State.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is rather a long way from this Vote.

General Mulcahy

We are discussing the failure of the League of Nations and I feel at liberty to mention the facts for the purpose of discussing and reviewing the past in order that we may thereby avoid in the future the mistakes that were made. If we are going to review the failures of other countries in the past, to try to learn something from them and thereby screw up our courage and our convictions to face the future with resolution, with confidence, and with strength I do not think we should be afraid to look at our own mistakes or examine into our own weaknesses. I merely stated facts. If we had had our representatives-either the men I have mentioned, or others—sitting in the League of Nations and representative of a young, unified and vigorous new State, with a fresh outlook on the world and without the weaknesses which we then had at home, our eyes would have been clearer and our voices would have been heard to better advantage; and we would have been in a much stronger position to take advantage of the contacts we made with older nations. We might in our contacts with them, and with our own clearer eyes and our own fresh enthusiasm, speaking out into the world, have given to the people a clearer vision and a greater heart to face the difficulties of which the Taoiseach has spoken and which when they arose, were not properly dealt with. A clear eye and a clear voice among the unified small nations in the League of Nations might have caused the League of Nations as a whole to take sharper and clearer decisions than were taken. We can blame ourselves too much. When we look around the world and see what older and bigger States have been led to by their mistakes we cannot blame ourselves for any weaknesses that might have been brought into the League of Nations through differences or disruptions at home. When we look to countries like the United States that stood aside from the troubles of those particular times and which could have brought much more influence to bear upon the avoidance of these mistakes, I say we have nothing very much to blame ourselves about. But I think we could prepare ourselves a bit for the future by looking back and contemplating in a very detached way how better we could be and how stronger we could be abroad and how much more useful we might have been in the counsels in the past if on external matters we had been unified and strong and frank in our discussions with one another here at home.

The Taoiseach indicated that one of the reasons why the League of Nations failed was that the statesmen from the various countries were not prepared to discuss openly and accept frankly the obligations that international co-operation dictated. If we could learn from their mistakes to discuss openly and frankly the problems and the difficulties and the advantages that are involved for us in partaking in international affairs, and if we could have a single outlook on foreign policy both in relation to economics and politics, then we, at any rate, would face the future without some of the weaknesses that we had in the past.

Whether we like it or not, or whether there are divisions here about it or not, we are going to take our place in the counsels of the nations abroad. We are going to have our responsibilities and our opportunities. I think it would strengthen us if, presuming we do not want to look to our own mistakes and differences in the past, we would look at the weaknesses and difficulties of the other nations in the League of Nations, because they did not face things frankly and openly with a clear open discussion. If we could learn from their mistakes without minding about our own, we would get an acceptance of the fact in this House that there ought to be a clear and unified outlook in foreign policy in this country both with regard to our political relations with the countries outside and our economic connections with them. I just plead in passing this Vote for a full and frank and open discussion in this House on every matter concerned with the political and economic side of our external affairs.

An Ceann Comhairle

We had a debate on External Affairs and the Deputy had an opportunity of discussing all these things.

General Mulcahy

Then the Taoiseach might have treated this Vote in the way in which the Minister for Finance treated his Vote last night. I thought at first he was going to do that, but I am very glad that he did not. I do not think that it would outrage the rules of order or do this institution or country any harm if in passing the final Vote for the League of Nations we could discuss why it failed, see in what way it failed, and whether we have any lesson to learn both from the workings of the various countries which have been involved and from the institution itself and whether we can get any advantage at this late hour of the day for the money we spent on it willingly and generously and in direct faith. We are now passing what will be the last moneys we will grant for this body. While we are saying good-bye to the League of Nations, surely we are not facing the new world with the feeling that nothing is going to take its place. Institutions are being built up with toil and tribulation at the present time; institutions to replace it are going to arise with greater courage and greater clearness of vision than was shown by the League of Nations because of its particular circumstances. To-day we see the greatest countries in the world working very hard to reconcile their differences or to build up confidence in one another in order to face the future in some kind of organisation such as the League of Nations was, with better machinery, more hope and more courage. We are likely to be in that organisation some day and I, for one, would like to carry to the discussion of our possible entry into that organisation some day some memory of what was wrong with the League of Nations and, particularly, what was wrong with us that we could not influence its proper direction in a greater measure and in a better way than we did. We cannot say that we misled it in any way or withheld any assistance that we could have given, but there was a strength that we could have had that we had not there. I sincerely hope that in some way or another, through discussions in this House and the atmosphere in which the discussions will take place, we will be able to bring to a new international body a strength that, because of internal differences with regard to external policy, we had not in the past.

Mr. Norton

I want to make one comment on this Vote. I am induced to make it by the Taoiseach's references to what he described as the failure of the League of Nations because of its inability to face up to the Japanese aggression in the East and the Italian-Fascist aggression in Abyssinia. It is true, of course, that these two issues undermined the authority of the League of Nations and gave rise to its ineffectiveness. But when we talk about Abyssinia and the League of Nations failure in regard to Abyssinia, we ought to talk about it in sackcloth and ashes. We ought to talk about it with bowed heads, because there was probably no small nation in the world with a history such as ours which displayed such cowardice and such a want of courage and a want of adherence to vital principles as we displayed when that unfortunate nation went down under the military might of a Fascist Italy. That was the time, of course, when the swashbuckling rapscallion, who made the world richer by his enforced and inglorious exit from it, was in command of the forces in Italy and when that gentleman saw fit to divert the Italian military forces into that devastating attack on a helpless and defenceless nation, fighting for its right to live its own life in its own way. When, by the use of the Italian military machine, by bombing planes and poison gas, the dictator of Italy had succeeded in subjecting that small nation with which our sympathies should have abided, the best sympathy that we could display for Abyssinia after it had fought for the maintenance of its independence was to recognise the puppet-controlled King of Italy as the Emperor of Abyssinia. That conquest was made possible only by the use of limitless military power against Abyssinia. It was achieved by the use, for the first time in many years, of poison gas against a people who were not even equipped in small arms. That was the measure of our sympathy with that small and struggling nation. However, thanks to other Powers, Abyssinia to-day enjoys that liberty the subjugation of which we apparently sympathised with when we recognised the King of Italy as Emperor of Abyssinia. Abyssinia has lived in spite of us. Its people now enjoy a measure of liberty in the suppression of which we took an all too-hasty glory. Those who despoiled Abyssinia then have left the world just evil memories. I do not think our contribution to the Italian Aggression in Abyssinia is one of which we can ever be proud. For a nation such as this, which endured such persecution at the hands of a powerful neighbour, it seems to me to have been a shameless performance that we should have recognised, with such indecent haste, the Italian suppression of that independent Ethiopian State. If the authority of the League of Nations was undermined because of its failure to face up to its responsibility when a small and helpless nation had its liberties threatened, let us not forget that we, a small nation and at one time a helpless and defenceless nation, did not display on that occasion the courage which, with our background and traditions, we ought to have displayed when a small sister nation was in difficulties.

It is true that these things have undermined the authority of the League of Nations and we can only hope that in the effort now being made to build a new world organisation the pitfalls into which the league fell, and which ultimately brought about its downfall, will be avoided by those who want to build for the world a comprehensive instrument for the maintenance of peace, free from the machinations and intrigues which unfortunately undermined the League's power and influence. I hope that in that new world organisation small countries at all events will not repeat the miserable performance which they gave in relation to Abyssinia and recognise conquest simply because it is easier to be friendly with a large Power than to be friendly with a beaten small one.

Mr. Blowick

We are at present discussing a sum of money for the League of Nations, the last that we will be called on to vote to this particular body. Looking back over the work it has done and the ground it has covered, we must admit that it has failed as a world organisation to prevent aggression. The reason is obvious. Two instances have been cited by the two previous speakers-the aggression by Japan and Italy. I cannot see that there can be any machinery in peace time, within such a body as the League of Nations, to prevent aggression when the aggressor is one of the first world Powers. As a result of the last world conflict, the world is practically dominated by four Powers—Britain, America, Russia and China. Other nations that were moving into a position of first class importance have vanished. Great nations cannot make war on one another without dragging in the whole world. In the case of Japan against China, what country was prepared to go to war? The members of the League of Nations were prepared to stand idly by and see their authority blasted away. Later there was another bitter test, when Italy invaded Abyssinia. Again the League was prepared to stand idly by.

We, as a small nation, should endeavour to organise the small nations of the world. In that way we would contribute much more benefit to the world. Small nations will stand shoulder to shoulder, even if it were only in the matter of sanctions. When great and small nations are organised in one body I do not see that any useful purpose is served. The League of Nations is being wound up. Another League is taking its place, the United Nations Organisation. I would ask the Taoiseach when he is concluding to let us know is it intended that this country should become a member of that Organisation or what is to be our position.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is External Affairs and I think the same question was asked on that Vote.

Mr. Blowick

I think it would not be out of place on this Vote because the United Nations Organisation is the successor to the League. I could not be present when the Vote for External Affairs was being taken and the official report is not yet available. Therefore, I think it is not out of place to ask the Taoiseach, when replying, to say whether we will become a member of it or intend to stay clear of it. I can not see that the United Nations Organisation can succeed where the League of Nations has failed. Nations will return to their former pitch of enthusiasm and, after they have rested, aggression will once again appear in the world. I do not see that the new organisation, composed of the big and small nations, can do any good. If the small nations banded themselves together they could impose their will on the world to a greater extent than they could in an organisation that is composed of nations great and small.

Mr. D. Morrissey

If I have any objection to find with the speech made by the Taoiseach it is that he thought it desirable to confine himself in the first place to the narrow question of the League of Nations and made no reference whatever to some of the very important subsidiary bodies of that organisation, and also, that the Taoiseach confined his remarks to the past and gave no indication whatever as to the Government's mind, if they have any mind, in relation to future international affairs or in relation to any existing international organisation or organisations that may be set up.

One realises, of course, that at a period like this the head of a Government has to be extremely careful in any utterance he may make in relation to international affairs and one does not expect the Taoiseach at this stage to give a complete outline of what our position will be in the future and what decisions, if any, have been taken by the Government on these matters.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would be a matter for External Affairs. I think some questions regarding it were asked on the Vote for External Affairs.

Mr. D. Morrissey

May I suggest that we are passing over in this Vote a substantial credit for the setting-up of a new organisation, and may I bring myself strictly within the rules of order by asking how we propose to utilise our share of that credit, whether we propose to utilise it at all, whether we propose to do it in the immediate future, or whether it is our intention to wait and allow things to develop in the hope that the international position may become a little clearer?

I should like to hear from the Taoiseach whether we are taking, or propose to take, any steps to continue what I think was valuable work done by a fairly important organisation associated with the League of Nations, namely, the International Labour Office. What machinery, if any, is being set up to replace that organisation? Will we continue our association with whatever has been substituted for the International Labour Office, and will we take as keen an interest in the work of that office as we did in the past? I have always regarded the International Labour Office as a very important organisation. I think its work in the future will be perhaps of greater importance than in the past.

Am I correct in saying that I saw recently in the Press a statement made by the Chairman of the Economic and Social Committee of U.N.O. that all neutral countries had been invited to send representatives to that body? I am sure I saw that some time ago. However, the Taoiseach will tell us whether or not it is true.

General Mulcahy

There was an invitation to attend a meeting.

Mr. D. Morrissey

There was something about it in the Press and I would like to know if this country was invited to send representatives, whether it is proposed to do so, and whether we have been supplied with an agenda or with any particulars as to what the Economic and Social Committee proposes to discuss.

I do not think there is much use nowadays in talking about the past of the League of Nations. I do not subscribe to the view that it was entirely valueless and that it gave no service. I believe the League of Nations, while unfortunately it failed for reasons set forth by various speakers, in its own way did a certain amount of good work. It proved valuable from our point of view in that it provided a platform upon which we were able to establish that we were a free and independent nation and that we were able to take our place on equal terms with the free nations of the earth. If it were only for that, anything we have contributed to the League of Nations over the past 23 years was money well spent.

It is no harm to say, particularly in these days when there is so much confusion, not only in the minds of the people of the country, but even in the minds of members of this House as to our international status, that from the time this House was established, from 1923 onwards, when we were first represented as a free nation at that international assembly of free nations, our status was recognised very fully, without any restriction or reservation. As Deputy Mulcahy has said, we were so effectively represented there over a period of ten years that the first year the Taoiseach attended as head of the Irish Government, there was conferred on him, as a result of the ten years' good work done by his predecessors, the distinction of being made President of the Assembly of the League of Nations. That was something.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

This is a rather difficult debate to speak in—a valedictory debate on the League of Nations. Speaking about the past is rather useless. The Ceann Comhairle does not like us to speak about the future of U.N.O. and the Taoiseach will not speak about the present U.N.O., so I find myself in a bit of a vacuum.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no money asked in this Vote for U.N.O.

Mr. Morrissey

I suggest there is, Sir.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

It is like discussing "Hamlet" without the ghost to discuss the end of the League of Nations without touching somewhat on the organisation which it is hoped will take its place. I do not regard the League of Nations as having been a failure. I think it is a glorious idea and ideal. It is an ideal that has existed in the minds of men for many centuries. It cropped up from time to time during the Middle Ages. I think Alexander of Russia had some idea about a League of Nations after the Napoleonic Wars. It has always been a great ideal, but it failed, as many organisations will fail, because of the jealousy and greed of States. Whilst it is useless to go into the past of Manchuria and Abyssinia, in neither case have we in this country any particular cause for self-congratulation; but still, we did not ally ourselves with any aggressor nations in any shape or form during those days. Whilst we may have played an innocuous part, we did not do any harm, and I think, on occasions, our contribution to the League of Nations was worthy of the best ideals of this country.

One speaker from the Farmers' Party mentioned that the organising of small nations into a band was desirable. I agree if the small nations organised themselves on the moral and spiritual plane, but on any other plane their contribution would seem useless, and possibly harmful, because ten small nations would not equal the productive capacity of one Krupps armament factory and 50 small nations would not equal the production of one atomic bomb. These facts are at the root of small nations organising or not organising, and, in my opinion, their contribution along those lines would be very slight. Where small nations have a contribution to make—and they have proved it again and again in the past—is on the moral and spiritual plane, perhaps, for the reason that owing to the smallness of their area, they can have no territorial ambitions. Perhaps it is because of that, rather than any merit, which may lie in the make-up of small nations, the fact remains that small nations are on occasion in a position to speak from their hearts on international affairs, when bigger nations, actuated by motives of self-interest or tied up in alliances are not, and thereby take up an attitude which is not straightforward or just.

A small nation which is prepared fearlessly to speak out its mind can make a contribution to world affairs far in excess of its importance, judged from the material point of view. For that reason I am very sorry that that great ideal, the League of Nations, and the very fine platform it was on occasions, from which to put forward moral ideas, have disappeared. I hope that mankind will create out of the present difficulties in which the world finds itself a League of Nations. It does not matter what it is called, whether it is U.N.O. or League of Nations. It is what it does, and what it tries to do is of importance.

I should like the Taoiseach to speak about the present, and also in that connection to cast his mind into the future, because the disappearance of the League of Nations has left a vacuum as far as this country is concerned. It is very difficult for an ordinary Deputy or the ordinary man-in-the-street to follow the complicated ramifications of international affairs of to-day. They are extremely tortuous and difficult, and it is hard to know how far this country can ally itself to a world organisation. Personally I should be very happy to see this country going forward to join brother nations, and to make its contribution to a settlement of the terrible difficulty in which the world is. I know that from a certain point of view that may not be very wise, and that the Government has to watch very carefully before it goes into such an organisation. Sometimes matters of national prestige are bound up in such a decision.

Deputy Morrissey referred to a statement made by some member of United Nations Organisation. I think I remember the statement referred to, and that it was made by a chairman or director of the food section of the United Nations Organisation. Personally I would be very happy to see this country going forward and making its contribution in that field. I would join with others in pressing that the Taoiseach would give us some information as to what lies ahead of this country in the realm of international affairs. What place is it prepared to take in the successor to the League of Nations? The League was a failure, but it was a great ideal and mankind will, in its own interest, press again for the establishment of that ideal. I would like to see modern Ireland taking its place in that organisation, doing its part, and living its life in the full stream of world affairs.

Mr. Cogan

This Vote is not so much a contribution towards the League of Nations as to the funeral expenses of that body. It is rather a melancholy task to have to inter the remains of a body that was established with such high hopes, a body in which this nation was permitted to play its part, and did play its part honourably. I am inclined to agree with the Taoiseach that it does not serve any great purpose to-day to hold an inquest upon the late League of Nations. But there were some considerations which were referred to by the Taoiseach which require to be commented upon. The Taoiseach stated that the fundamental failure of the League of Nations was the fact that nations were reluctant to go to war in order to prevent war. There is nobody who will not recognise the natural reluctance of a democratically governed nation to go to war for any purpose, even to prevent war. It was that natural reluctance of nations that are governed by democratic institutions to make the sacrifices required that led to the downfall of the League of Nations. It is, therefore, essential that public opinion in every nation be made aware of the real cause of the downfall of the League of Nations. If we accept the Taoiseach's view, that nations must get over this reluctance to go to war in order to prevent war, we, as a small nation, must accept a tremendous responsibility when we accept a line of policy which may compel us in the future to make terrible decisions, the terrible decision, perhaps, to take part in a world war in which our country is not directly interested but which is being fought by a world organisation in order to prevent aggression. That is a very serious and terrible responsibility for any nation to have to take. It is, perhaps, particularly serious and terrible for a small nation to have to take such a decision, particularly a small nation which has no empire and no big external interests to defend. That remark of the Taoiseach is one upon which the House and the nation will have to reflect very seriously in the future.

Deputy Norton was very strong and very emphatic in denouncing a certain swashbuckling rapscallion who is now deceased. It is easy to be severe and to condemn a swashbuckling rapscallion when he is lying in his grave, or, rather, when he has been laid in his grave, but we must remember that there are swashbuckling rapscallions who are still alive, and very much alive, and it would be interesting to know if Deputy Norton is prepared to stand up to these people and these nations as resolutely as he would apparently have been prepared to stand up to Italy ten years ago.

Deputy Blowick, the leader of this Party, referred to the desirability of a closer union between the small nations and to the desirability of this country promoting that closer union. There is no doubt whatever that world organisation for the preservation of peace is much more important to the small nation than to the great nation. It is the small nations which have most to suffer by aggression. We know how many small nations were wiped out of existence, or had their independence completely destroyed, over the past ten years, and we know how many small nations not only live under the threat of aggression but languish under the jack-boot of complete subjugation, and if our nation, through any world organisation which may be set up to succeed the League of Nations, can contribute towards promoting more effective unity amongst the small nations, it will be a big contribution towards world peace.

We must also bear in mind the fact that our nation occupies a unique position in the world to-day, inasmuch as we can contribute very greatly towards a better understanding between the great English-speaking nations of the earth, particularly the British Commonwealth of Nations and the United States.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy not now discussing external affairs?

Mr. Cogan

Yes, but I was just getting back to the League of Nations. The late lamented League of Nations owes a large portion of its failure to the fact that the United States found themselves unable to take part in that world organisation, and I think that, indirectly, our little country contributed something to the position which arose at that time. It was the failure of Great Britain to do immediate justice to our country, after the 1914-1918 war, which contributed in a large measure to the misunderstanding and disunity which arose between Great Britain and America and thus contributed to the failure of the League of Nations. It is possible that in the future our little nation may play an important part in building up a better organisation to succeed the League of Nations which we are now laying to rest.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

When the Taoiseach was making his statement, I gathered from him that this Vote covers a period of two years and that the purpose was to bring the accounts, so far as this country is concerned, up to date, in relation to the liquidation committee in respect of the League's assets. Do I understand that the credits which fall to the member nations are intended to be honoured in the new organisation, and, if this country does not go into the new organisation, what becomes of those credits, so far as this country is concerned? Again, are the amounts either large or small, and when will it be possible to ascertain what they may be? Why do we at this stage feel bound to pay these contributions up to August, 1946, seeing that the League of Nations has served no purpose, so far as this country is concerned, for a considerable time? Is it that we feel we are bound to do so from the point of view of fulfilling an honourable obligation, or is it that we are merely proceeding on the basis of the stipulation that the assets will be divided amongst the member nations in relation to their contributions? Is the Taoiseach in a position to say if all the member nations have brought their contributions up to date in the same way as we now propose to brings ours up to date?

The Taoiseach

Deputy Mulcahy seemed to think that our influence abroad, particularly in the League of Nations, would have been enhanced if there was a greater degree of unity here. In my experience, anyhow, that was not so. All that was required outside was that the Government represented the country,as it did, and that it was clear that, on each question which arose, we were taking an independent attitude, that we were not, so to speak, adopting some "block" idea. Such respect as we were able to acquire in Geneva was largely due to the fact that on every question that arose we were able to express our own views independently, and that it was known that these were our own views. I think it is something of a dream to hope that we will ever have in international, any more than in national, affairs complete unanimity. I do not think it is possible to achieve unanimity anywhere in the world in that way. The old proverb is "many men, many minds" and human beings, for a variety of reasons, do not look upon any particular question in quite the same way. All we can hope for here is that we shall have a Government representative of the nation and that, in so far as that Government speaks, it will be regarded as representing the nation and speaking for the nation. I will admit that it is desirable in domestic, as well as in external affairs, to have as great a degree of unanimity as is possible. As I have pointed out, however, such unanimity is limited. I cannot help thinking now of a criticism which was made recently when it was said that one of the complaints at the present time was that we had a one party Government, or something like that, because there was such a degree of unanimity in certain respects. Now we cannot have it every way. We are organised on a democratic basis here and we will naturally have variations of opinion. All that we can hope for is that when the Government speaks it will speak for the nation and will be recognised as speaking for the nation. Whatever commitments are entered into by the Government as representing the nation, all we can hope for is that such commitments will be honoured.

Deputy Norton spoke about our attitude towards Abyssinia. Anybody listening here this evening would have thought that, in some way or other, we had been guilty of a very grave lapse in regard to Abyssinia. The truth is that, whatever action was proposed by the League in the defence of Abyssinia, we were strongly in favour of it. I remember speaking from this side of the House here and I remember warning the people that, even though we were friendly with the Italians, our commitments under the League might compel us to take very drastic measures, in so far as we were able to take such, against Italy. The matter to which the Deputy referred was the fact that we were sending a representative to Italy at a particular time when a situation had arisen in which there was no question of giving back to Abyssinia its freedom. It was a question of recognising a fact which every other nation recognised. It was a question: Were we to stand out? Were we to refuse to send a representative to Italy? If we sent a representative to Italy we had to recognise and accept the title which had been assumed by the head of the Italian State. Nobody listening to Deputy Norton here this evening would have thought that that was the position. We were perhaps one of the strongest, in so far as we could do anything, to bring about combined action to defend Abyssinia; any action which we could take we did take, and anything which we could do we did. We could not stand aside and say: "We will have no relations whatever with a State that has done wrong." That is a position which no State in the world can take up; de facto recognition of an accomplished fact is the only practical line of conduct for all States.

I remember coming up against that when I was in the United States on one occasion, pleading the cause of this country. A certain line of conduct was recognised there as being the only practical policy and that line of conduct was adopted by successive secretaries of state in the United States. At this particular period we were sending a Minister to Italy. The question was were we to refuse to send a Minister and were we to refuse to adopt a line of policy which was being adopted by every other State?

The important thing in any international organisation is the readiness of the constituent States in that organisation to wage war in order to prevent war. That is the fundamental principle. I saw that in the case of Abyssinia. I saw it happening in the case of the small States bordering on Italy at that time. It is only when the constituent States make up their minds in advance that, come what may, if one of the members breaks the law, the remainder will combine against her. If there is any mental reservation the principle will fail. It must be remembered, as was pointed out by one of the Deputies here to-day, that that is an extremely difficult principle to follow-to undertake in advance that, if a decision is given by the appropriate organisation against a State, the others will combine to wage war against that State. That is an extremely difficult decision for any nation to take in advance and it is particularly difficult in the case of small nations. Suppose that tomorrow Great Britain was held to be an aggressor and that we, as part of a world organisation, were compelled to go to war against her we should find the fundamental application of that principle extremely difficult because of our proximity to Great Britain. That is always the difficulty in the case of small States bordering upon larger ones. I merely take Great Britain as an example to bring the position forcibly before our minds. The same applies to Belgium. At the time of the Italian aggression in Abyssinia you had a number of small States bordering on Italy. Are such small States to be compelled to combine together and go to war, even though they themselves may be overwhelmed immediately and before anybody can come to their assistance? That is the fundamental principle. If the nations of the world really want to enter into a security organisation they must settle that question for themselves at the very outset. Are they prepared to face that situation? The only consideration which will make them face that possibility in the long run is the fact that, by doing so, they will prevent aggression altogether in the future and will bring about a general state of security. Every State naturally wants to be very, very sure that such an organisation is going to work and that they will not be left in the lurch if such a situation arises. They must have full confidence that every State will do its duty in a case like that.

In regard to the League of Nations, we do know that there were States which were more or less left in the lurch. In the new world organisation which will be built up, we would naturally all like to play a part in such a system of collective security, particularly if it promises anything like success. Small States have very much more to get through a security organisation than large ones. The large ones are very often sufficiently strong to be able to protect themselves. It is the small States that run the big risk. Therefore a system of law which would be obeyed is their greatest security and safeguard. They should, therefore, naturally desire to be part of any such security system. I think I have already indicated that that would be our desire. At the same time, I pointed out to those who asked me questions about the matter that I did not think the time had come yet to take the very important decisions that would have to be taken if we were to enter into the new organisation. Very important decisions would have to be taken and could only be taken after a great deal of study and examination and a consideration as to whether in fact we could carry out all the obligations that were involved. However, as I said, we are losing nothing, at the present time anyhow, by the delay which has occurred. This will become a ripe question for us when the peace treaties are signed and not till then. I think that is, in the main, the attitude which has been taken by the other neutral States. I do not think any of the neutral States has applied for membership. As you know, you have to apply for membership, then you have to get the support of the Security Council, and then you have to get, I think it is, a two-thirds majority in the Assembly. Therefore it is not an easy thing. I mean that when you apply you cannot foresee whether you will be accepted or not. But, even if there were no barrier whatsoever to our getting into the organisation at the moment, I think that we ought to take out time about it. There are very serious obligations involved.

My own view is that the present organisation does not appear as satisfactory from the point of view of the small nations as the old League of Nations was. However, we have not had the settling of that. Inasmuch as it is the large Powers which will have, in the main, to supply the force which is necessary to support the rule of law, it is not unnatural that the large nations should claim considerable power in what they regard as certain vital matters, but I think that could be secured by an arrangement somewhat better than the present one. However, I do not think there will be anything gained by my discussing changes and improvements in the existing organisation. I think I have made it clear that our general desire would be to form part of a security organisation and that the very serious question of whether we should or should not apply will come up for consideration probably when the peace treaties have been signed and a peace situation has been reached.

Deputy Morrissey asked about the I.L.O. At the moment it is independent. It used to be attached, in a certain sense, to the League of Nations. Negotiations, however, are taking place with a view to linking it up with the United Nations Organisation.

I was asked by Deputy Dockrell whether we accepted an invitation to the Economic Conference. That invitation was to the health organisation which was a subordinate section of the Economic Conference and we did accept it. We are represented there at the moment, or were recently anyhow.

General Mulcahy

Who is the representative?

The Taoiseach

Dr. McCormack.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Is that the social and economic body?

The Taoiseach

It is regarded as a subordinate section set up under its influence. We have not refused any invitation that I know of. I do not know that we have refused to be present at a meeting of any organisation of that sort to which we have been invited.

Mr. Hughes

What about F.A.O.?

The Taoiseach

Recently the agricultural organisation has been wound up in Italy and there is a certain carry-over to the F.A.O. We probably will apply for membership of that. We have not refused membership of any of these. In fact, our whole disposition naturally is to enter into international combinations of that sort provided the obligations are of a kind to which we can conscientiously subscribe and which we believe we will conscientiously carry out. The danger of all these organisations has been shown by history. You had confederations of various States and they were generally defeated by being attacked in detail. There is a confederation and a strong Power attacks it by getting after one of the members. Those not immediately attacked, fearing they would be attacked, will not rush to the assistance of the one attacked. That is the danger to be apprehended in any such organisation, because human nature in similar cases always shows itself in the same light. Apparently only a fraction of human beings are able to look towards the ultimate good and say: "The ultimate good being such, we will work for that even though there seems to be an evil at the moment which has to be encountered in order to work out to that ultimate good". In the federations which have taken place in history what happened is that one of the group was attacked and the others did not come to its aid when their assistance would be of value, because at the moment they were better off apparently by not doing so. There were risks and hardships which they thought they would avoid by keeping out of it. But their turn ultimately came and the process of defeating them in detail worked out.

Deputy O'Sullivan asked about this money which we are voting. We have been all the time late with our subscriptions. This is for the year 1946. As long as we were members these are honourable payments due. We kept on as a member of the League of Nations to the end. These payments are due as part of the contribution we are obliged to make. We are being credited, however, with a proportion of the remaining assets of £2,500,000 which will be determined by the ratio of our total subscriptions to the total subscriptions of the other 43 nations who were members of the League like ourselves. Therefore, we will be entitled to a certain sum. I could not say what fraction it will be. It would be determined easily enough, I think, because it would be possible to get the total contributions of the others and to determine what fraction ours would be. That fraction will be made available to us in cash if we want it that way or as a contribution, if it is thought desirable, to a new organisation. I cannot say whether the amount we will get will or will not be greater than any of the sums that we are paying here, the £11,000 or the other. But we will have no choice. If we want to pay up as a member of the League to the end we have to make this payment. I do not think there is any other question that I have not answered. I do not want to go into the future further than I have indicated. I hope the Deputies will be satisfied with the general indication that we would like to, but there are very serious obligations to be undertaken. If we do propose it, that will be considered by the Dáil in due course. The arguments pro and con will no doubt all be put forward here and the time for doing that has not just come yet.

Vote put and agreed to.