Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Jul 1946

Vol. 102 No. 11

Membership of the United Nations Organisation—Motion.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That Dáil Eireann, being willing to assent to acceptance of the obligations contained in the Charter signed at San Francisco on the 26th June, 1945, recommends the Government to take steps with a view to Ireland's admission to membership of the United Nations Organisation as soon as they consider it opportune to do so.

Mr. McGilligan

Last night I had almost completed what I had to say on this particular motion. I would like to add one or two further remarks. I asked Deputies to accept it, and I notice by to-day's papers that the Taoiseach also asked them to accept it, that the admission of this country to the United Nations Organisation, while it may not do any harm in relation to the Partition problem, is not likely to do anything in the way of good. I asked Deputies to accept this motion, encouraging the Government to take steps to join the United Nations Organisation, while at the same time putting far from their minds any even remote hope that anything raised before whatever United Nations Organisation will meet will have the slightest effect on the matter of Partition. I asked people further to say that it would be an injudicious thing to ask any member of the Government to have that question raised abroad, and I pointed out that if our people were to appear there with the British, and were to have constant wrangles with regard to this matter, it would have two effects: one, it would definitely antagonise the members of the United Nations Organisation against us and, two, it would possibly harden English opinion on a matter which, it is quite obvious, is becoming day by day more flexible.

When I did say that I did not mean —if it is allowable to introduce this matter as an aside—that the question of Partition should be left without notice. When I finished last night I asked that we should, as one way of inducing the people of the North to join us, put our house here in better order and adopt better standards in many respects, certainly with regard to the economics they have there in comparison with ours. I think the coming of this motion and our advent to the United Nations Organisation indicates a new atmosphere in which it is quite possible that this question may be raised with better effect with the British themselves.

I notice in the papers that Deputy Flanagan yesterday suggested that this motion was brought in here because the Government had received instructions from, say, the British. I know nothing of any such instruction. I doubt if, in the ordinary course of diplomatic arrangments as between two friendly peoples such as ourselves and the British, anything in the nature of such instructions would be given. I think the money we spend in diplomatic representation would be badly spent if we had not some touch with the British and the Americans and with other peoples on this question of when would be a proper time to make application for membership of the organisation and what support we would find it possible to get for that application.

I do know well that if the circumstances were changed, if the Taoiseach were here in opposition and another Government made this move, the phrase would come as trippingly from the Taoiseach's tongue as it has come from Deputy Flanagan's tongue, that instructions were given. At least, it would have come as trippingly fifteen years ago. One hopes that the experience the Taoiseach has derived makes him realise that these things were as foully said in the old days as he will repudiate them now as being foully said. But I believe there has been an association, and I even hope there has been collaboration. I would like to believe that we are so close, both to the United Kingdom representatives and the representatives of the United States of America, that we will be able to make soundings to find out from them what would be the most appropriate time for us to make this application and when it is likely to meet with success. I shall be surprised if hereafter it is not discovered that such diplomatic approaches were made —I hope they were made—by us, and that the initiative came from our side.

If that be the situation, and I hope it is, I think we are in a better position to urge the settlement of the Partition problem with more chance of success than there ever was. We have been lucky in our history in one respect, that we swung out into independence here at a time when the old greed of British Imperialism had weakened. We developed along friendly relations with them, while that old-time mood was fast slipping from them. We now see a further development along these lines. We see the British getting ready to remove themselves from Egypt and offering to the peoples of India the freest possible settlement they can make for themselves, even if that means immediate secession from the British Commonwealth of Nations, or taking a place as an independent State inside it. Nobody, so far as I can see, in the British House of Commons has raised any comment as to whether that secession from the British Commonwealth will take place eventually. The point is made as to whether it should take place sooner, or whether it should come later.

One always thought that the great difficulty in connection with the Partition problem here was not, on the whole, a matter of sentiment but a matter of strategic values. One felt that this island, placed as it was, was unfortunate in this respect, that the British did conceive of this island and its geographical position as something of importance to them as guarding the western approaches to their own country. One also thought of the Mediterranean, and particularly of the Suez canal, in the same context. One now sees that whatever may be, to the amateur eye, the still continued value of these two places, the British are ready to leave Egypt and to hand over control of the Suez Canal and of the approaches, top and bottom, from and to the Mediterranean, to the Egyptians themselves. If that be the situation, there has been some profound change with regard to strategy, something which no longer imposes on the British in their own defence the necessity of keeping these particular outposts.

It is possible that the same considerations apply here. In any event, there is a new mood and it is possible that that new mood, joined with the new weapons, may put the British into a better mind to see that right should be done here and the two portions of the country joined together. In any event our joining the United Nations Organisation, our entering into these friendly relations with other people and entering into them particularly in close collaboration, as I hope, with the United Kingdom and with the United States of America, the United Kingdom being the party, in the main, responsible for the origin of Partition—whether they are responsible for its continuance or not is a matter about which they can argue—and the United States, a country where so many of our people are and in which we can hope we shall be able to arouse some feeling favourable to us in connection with this matter, may provide a better chance of success. Joining this new organisation, in conjuction with these two countries, whom we know so well, whom fate has made us know so well, there is at least a better chance that, by a friendly approach to the British, and not by any snarling, in public at meetings of the United Nations Organisation, we shall be able to get this problem resolved. But before we try to get that done, I suggest that minds should be made clear here and we should ask ourselves if we are going to adopt the not-an-inch attitude adopted in the North. Are we going to say: "We insist on the fullest possible meeting of our demands"? Are we going to insist that these people, some of whom we must recognise as not having the same ideals nationally, or any other way, as ourselves——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy might realise that this is not a debate on Partition.

Mr. McGilligan

Partition has been debated in my hearing almost exhaustively.

An Ceann Comhairle

I heard a reference to its being settled by this organisation but not Partition per se.

Mr. McGilligan

Deputy Corish made a very interesting and very entertaining speech, from my angle, almost entirely about Partition. However, I am almost finished with it. I say that we ought to set our house in order and ought to see to what extent we intend to abate our full nationalist demand in the interest of bringing together the two portions of the country. Until we make up our minds what we are prepared to accept as some diminution of these full demands, we are going to be met with the completely cold and unresponsive attitude which the Northerns have so far given to us.

I should like to summarise what I have said by repeating to this degree, that I see value in this United Nations Organisation. I think that, so far, the debate has paid too little attention to the value of a public opinion when it is mobilised and has, because of recent experience become too much focused on attention to the mobilisation of physical powers. Any debate about this matter of the United Nations Organisation is apt to be lop-sided, if it considers merely the question of war and any future threat to peace. I think we should look at the United Nations Organisation from the other angles which I have tried to stress, one of these being the matters of the Economic and Social Council. It is a matter of the highest importance that so many governments, at the fullest height of international politics, have devoted themselves, so far as signing a charter can make them devote themselves, to the realisation of higher standards of living and conditions of full employment. If we can meet the people inspired by these particular views and aiming at these objectives, we will benefit this country by being in that organisation and signifying with them that we have these objectives ahead of us.

I think we will find the biggest conflict—because I do not think nations are going to turn their thoughts to war, at least for a while—not over war or the preparations for war, but over all these various economic matters, and, as I said last night, we will probably find a great divergence of opinion as between two schools of thought— the people thinking in terms of what has been aptly described as plantation politics, the type of full-time dependency, allied with what is called social security, which will give the security of the plantation and the dependence of the old plantation.

At the time of the quarrel in the United States of America over the question of the abolition of slavery, in his Gettysburg oration, the then President of the United States talked about the nation which had been brought forth on that Continent, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men were created equal. The United Nations Organisation has been allowed to come into being by the efforts, first, of the British in resisting other movements and, secondly, by the tremendously formidable power of the United States of America in bringing these earlier efforts of the British to success. If we can go to the United Nations Organisation, hoping to meet people dedicated to the same proposition, and if we go there ourselves dedicated to that proposition, that all men are created equal and ought to have equal chances, we may, as I said last night, benefit other people by our company, but we shall be very vastly educated ourselves. It is in the hope that we will get that education which will accrue to the benefit of our people that I ask that assent be given to the resolution before the House.

Mr. Byrne

There was an atmosphere of intensity in this House yesterday greater than ever prevailed in it before, as if there was some threat hanging over our heads. I wish to ask the Taoiseach what the position will be if the Communist element get the upper hand in this Security Council. If Communists desire to attack another small nation, that may not think in every way as we do, will our soliders be called upon to get into a fight to crush that small nation that the Communist element may wish to destroy? It is stated that every member State must pledge itself in advance to carry out destruction at the bidding of the Big Five. What would our position be if we did not wish to fight against a small nation? Have we power to refuse to do so, or to get out with honour? Have we power to refuse to contribute in any way to any section of the forces that might be called upon to crush that small nation? The happenings of other days appear to be forgotten. I remember the days when citizens of this country, including members of the Front Bench, held up their hands in horror when they heard that the Red Flag was being hoisted, or was likely to be hoisted in any part of Ireland. Is the Red Flag tendency gone out of this council that is going to give instructions to the small nations who accept membership of the United Nations Organisation?

Having pledged ourselves to the Big Five, will we have any opportunity beforehand of approaching our own people to get their views as to whether this country or its Army should join in any way against the oppression of a small country, that might feel it had a grievance. I ask the Taoiseach to deal with these points. This country has, up to the present, been able to maintain its neutrality and has been able to keep out of war. Its people have been able of their own free will to decide not to share in wars. During the recent war, although our Government and the conscience of the people approved of neutrality for the whole country, that did not in any way debar our men and women from joining other forces and doing great work. One point should be cleared up, about an approach to our own people to ask them to come to a decision, whether they thought it desirable to act, once we were pledged. The charter before us states that we are pledged in advance to carry out and to obey the orders of the Security Council. When replying, I ask the Taoiseach to give some information on these points.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Like most Deputies, I want to express my approval of this motion. The debate opened by the Taoiseach circled around and dealt, I might say, almost entirely with the obligations of applying for membership, and very few Deputies have posed the question, as to what would be the risks of not applying and securing membership of the organisation. Let us be clear on this matter. We are certainly going to shoulder very definite obligations if we secure membership of the United Nations Organisation. Does anybody know of any organisation, which either an individual or a nation applied for membership of, in which obligations have not to be undertaken? Is there any working man in this country who applies for and becomes a member of a trade union, who does not shoulder obligations, and who might find himself, because of his membership of an organisation, compelled to do certain things which, perhaps, if he was left to decide for himself he would not undertake? I welcome this motion for another reason. Perhaps, it is the chief reason why I welcome it. In my opinion, it marks the end of the political humbug, and the political make-believe that has been going on in this country for the last quarter of a century. It is realism.

Once we apply for and secure membership of the United Nations Organisation, we will have to realise that neither the Taoiseach nor anybody else can henceforth indulge in political make-believe, political humbug and political confusion of the minds of the people. It is worth taking some risk to get rid once and for all of that curse that has be-devilled politics for the past quarter of a century. What are we asked to do under this motion? We are asked to do what for centuries Irishmen fought and died for, to take our place with the other nations, as an equal. That is what we are asked to do, We are asking to be recognised by every nation on the face of the earth as a completely sovereign nation. Our delegates will go there with as much authority behind them as the delegates of any other country, no matter what form of government that country may be operating under. I welcome this for another reason. It is going to bring us into close personal contact with people from whom we have been estranged— to our detriment, I believe—much longer than we should have been.

Far be it from me to suggest that I have a thousandth part of the knowledge of foreign affairs of either Deputy McGilligan or the Taoiseach, but I believe that this definitely will bring us nearer to the end of Partition. I do not say that we are going to achieve that either through the charter or at any meetings of the United Nations Organisation or any of its subsidiary bodies but it is going to bring us into closer contact on a level with the only people who can put an end to it and it is going to place us in a position that have never occupied before. I want to make it clear—a position that we have never occupied but which, in my opinion, we could have occupied. I welcome it because of this fact, that it is going to bring us into closer contact with those people with whom everything that we stand for demands that we should be in close contact, not only because of the principles that are involved, but because of where our own flesh and blood are and where their interests are concerned. Finally, it is going to wipe out that extraordinary ambiguity that has existed for some time and it is going to make clear where we stand, not only in relation to the United Nations Organisation, but in relation to the Commonwealth of Nations. Some Deputies in the back benches of Fianna Fáil would still like to keep up the old humbug, but they are ending it, whether they realise it or not, once and for all, and it is about time.

Mr. Moran

Resurrecting it.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

We will be the judges of that.

Captain Giles

Elias.

Mr. Dillon

Unlike the bacon, you will not be able to resurrect it; it will smell worse than the bacon.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I do not think we ought to bring either the bacon or Deputy Walsh into this debate.

Mr. Moran

Do not forget the Commonwealth, too.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I am not forgetting it. The difference between the Deputy and his leaders and myself is this: I am in the Commonwealth; so is the Deputy. I am prepared to say I am in it, but the Deputy is not. That is the only difference.

Mr. Moran

The Deputy might read his Constitution.

General Mulcahy

Since when did he get the Constitution?

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not to be examined now.

Mr. D. Morrissey

No, Sir, the Constitution is not to be examined, but I think the Deputy might be, with advantage. Let me say this to the Deputy: I find it very hard to believe that there will be any more meetings of the Dominion Premiers discussing matters of interest to the Commonwealth from which we will be absent.

Mr. Everett

I do not want to remain silent on this very important motion. It is one of the most important that has come before the House. Speaking for the Party I represent, we want to give it our unqualified support, to give full power to the Government to apply for admission as a member of United Nations Organisation when they consider it desirable. I regret some of the speeches that have been made in this House in connection with our responsibilities and obligations. We recognise that United Nations Organisation is a committee for preserving peace, not for creating war and, while some Deputies desire to take advantage of United Nations Organisation to secure the good things that may come out of it, they are threatening us with the obligations and responsibilities that may come afterwards. As far as I am concerned, and I am certain I am speaking for the majority of the Deputies present, once we become members and give our signature, we accept the principle that an Irishman is worth his bond and we are prepared to take the consequences and, should the occasion arise, to do our part to fulfil our obligations.

My desire is that our reason for joining this organisation is to assist, as Irishmen will, in preserving peace and using peaceful ways at the conferences of this organisation and to make it a pact to prevent war. This evening we will be discussing a Bill concerning industrial relations. If it is necessary in the industrial sphere to advocate peaceful settlement of disputes, why not adopt a similar attitude in international affairs? I believe we can play a very important part. I am not afraid of the obligations because I am satisfied that Irishmen, no matter what Government may be in power, will do their best to uphold our signature as a member of this organisation and loyally to carry out the obligations. I do not want to have it said—as may have been suggested in this House—that we are not prepared to carry out our obligations. I fully realise the implications and, speaking for a very large body of organised workers, we recognise the obligations and are prepared, should occasion demand, to give the full force of our organisation in assisting the Government of the day to fulfil their part of the bargain if they are admitted as a member of the United Nations Organisation.

Therefore, I desire to give the motion my wholehearted approval and to assure our people that, should the occasion arise, Irishmen will carry out their part of the bargain so that it may not be said that they wanted to get any dishonourable way out of standing by their signature, no matter what sacrifice may be required on behalf of the people, and, when necessary, vindicate the right of people to look after their own affairs.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

With others who have already spoken I believe that this is one of the most important decisions to be taken by this House since its inception. I join with those who have unhesitatingly welcomed the step we are about to take. We all know the dangers inherent in this matter and it is no use in glossing over or trying to minimise them. The chief danger is that this country may find itself involved in war. That means an abandonment of the policy of neutrality which we followed during the last seven years. We must face that frankly. I think that danger is one we ought to accept with our eyes open, knowing fully to what we are committing ourselves. The United Nations Organisation is, as one Deputy has suggested, an instrument for promoting peace; it is not an instrument to make war. We may find that, by virtue of that membership, we are asked to do certain things, but I take it we will not be asked to do things which lie beyond our power. It is in that spirit I would face the obligations which our membership will impose upon us.

The advantages of membership are very great. We here in Ireland, by virtue of our history and even more by virtue of our geographical position, have always been in danger of suffering from isolation. By that I do not entirely mean political isolation, but isolation from the main streams of European thought and civilisation. That is one of the difficulties which all Irishmen have to face in this country. We are at the edge of Europe and yet we are Europeans. Our joining an international organisation will bring us into the very closest touch with the thoughts and energies which arise from time to time in the European Continent. We may also have a contribution, be it small or large, to make to the United Nations Organisation: that will depend entirely on ourselves and on the way of life we lead under our own Government.

People have referred to the British Commonweath of Nations and there are still some persons who are not prepared to look very sympathetically on that great organisation. I would like to remind them that the chief instrument which governs the relations of that body, namely, the Statute of Westminster, was conceived in the brains of the Irish delegates and was moulded and changed by them into the instrument which it is today.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy does not want to identify the British Commonwealth of Nations with the United Nations Organisation?

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I take it that the contribution which this country made to the British Commonwealth of Nations may be equalled or excelled by the contribution which we might make to the United Nations Organisation and it is in that spirit that this country is taking a big step forward in the main stream of world civilisation. We know that the United Nations Organisation's Charter is not as idealistic as we would wish it to be, but it is realistic and its very realism may save it from the faults which eventually brought down its predecessor, the League of Nations. We all face the world which lies before us with a good deal of trepidation. The world in 1919 faced the future with a great deal of idealism and the reaction to that idealism was complete cynicism when persons found that the idealism was fading and the hopes which it had engendered were not being realised. We are in a different way to-day: we see the difficulties which lie ahead, and once people see difficulties they are somewhat prepared to meet them.

While I unhesitatingly welcome this motion, I would like to ask the Taoiseach why the Government has come to this decision. Other speakers have asked him if he has changed his mind, apparently, since we had debates last month and earlier this month. I would like him to tell this House—and, through this House, the country—as to why this motion is before us on this particular day in July and why we were not prepared for it by the various methods which any Government can employ. As far as the members of this House are aware, a very short time ago the Government had no intention of joining the United Nations Organisation. Now it is apparently anxious to join. I personally have heard no reason why this change has come about. The public are entitled to know and I would ask the Taoiseach to enlighten us on that in his reply. Our joining the United Nations Organisation marks the end of the old isolationism from which we have suffered for a number of years and I hope we will benefit and that we will be of some benefit to the organisation which we propose to join.

Captain Giles

Our decision to-day may be one of the turning points in our history. At any rate, it will end the political and parochial outlook and make us more realists than we are. I do not say that we have something to gain, but we have nothing to gain by staying out. Our contribution to the organisation may be small from a material point of view, but from the spiritual side it can be very great. As a mother-nation with a historic past, we can bring a different slant to things. The organisation at present is one of greed and graft. We want to change that, if it is in our power, and to get the big Powers to realise that there is more in this life than material things, that a spiritual outlook on the world is something worth attaining.

Those things which are of greater value should come first. Our nation is an old historic one with a glorious past which can give a message of hope to the world. If a nation has courage, patience and perseverance it will win in the end. We had 700 years of trials and tribulations and we stuck it out. To-day we have the sunshine of peace in our land. Had it not been for the courage and the tenacity of our people this nation would have been ground under long ago. With that past, we can make a contribution to the European Conference. At the moment there are many nations, some in Eastern Europe, which are being ground down by a ruthless tyranny. Some feel that there is no hope for them because their spirit has been broken. We in this old Irish nation send out a message of hope to them. We will bring that message to the European Peace Conference. It will be that they should hold fast, and that if they do they will win through.

In my opinion, it is right that we should join the European Peace Conference. We are one of the mother-nations of the world. It is our duty to take our place beside all the other nations, no matter what the make-up of some of them may be. I know it is rather hard that we should have to sit side by side with Communist Russia and take decisions with her.

We do not like that, but at the same time we are a Christian people, and if we can do anything to restore real peace to the world it is our duty to shoulder that responsibility like men. Ever since the day that the blessings of Christianity came to our land we have sent out that message of hope to the world. It is more needed to-day than at any time during the last 2,000 years. There is a duty on us to bring that message to the European Peace Conference, and to voice it in the teeth of those who do not believe in the things that we believe in. If we do that, it may have the effect of bringing about a change of heart among some of the mighty tyrants in the world to-day who are holding a ferocious grip not only on many of the small nations but one may say over the whole world. I am glad to know that the decision to be represented at this peace conference will be an unanimous one. In my opinion it is a wise decision, especially at this time when one may say that the whole fabric of Christianity in many parts of the world is almost on the point of breaking up and disappearing. While that is the position I, at the same time, do not feel that there is the slightest need for despair. I think that if the peoples of the world show a spirit of courage and perseverance there is a great future in front of the world. There is no need for cowardice. We have nothing to be afraid or ashamed of in making our contribution to the peace of the world. We are all aware that there are millions of defenceless Christians suffering under the most galling tyranny behind an iron curtain at the present moment. We are a free people, and it is our duty to raise our voice on behalf of them. The delegates that we will send to that peace conference will be men of strong will and of a Christian outlook. They will bring to it the message that I speak of, and that message will give hope to the small nations that are being downtrodden at the moment. It will give them hope to strive to shake off their shackles and to resume their rightful places in the world.

It is right, too, that we should join the United Nations Organisation. We are a free people and we can make our voice heard there too. We are as free to say our own say as the biggest empires in the world. We can do that regardless of what others may think. There is no need for us to tie ourselves either to the right or to the left. We are one of the few countries in the world that can make their voices heard at the peace conference without any desire to gain anything from it.

I believe that we can do an immense amount of good by being represented at it. We are not out to gain anything from it, and do not want to gain anything. We are the friends of all free and civilised peoples, and we want to see the small nations of the world as free as we are ourselves. We are their friends. I believe that some of the big nations are anxious to have a small nation like ours represented at that peace conference. We are not tied by any commitments and we can speak freely there. I believe that if we do so civilisation, which is almost at the point of crumbling, will be put on a firm foundation again. We will have there the Americans, the British, the French, the Poles and the Spaniards who, like us, believe in the Word of Christ. All these nations will represent a mighty force against the eastern hordes who are holding so many of the small nations behind an iron curtain at the moment and grinding civilisation in the dust. Those forces will be able to lift that curtain and unfold to the world what is being done behind it. For that reason a decision should be taken at once to have the country represented at the peace conference. It would be fatal if we were to wait for four or five years before doing so. If there was to be any delay, Communist Russia would then be free to do what she liked.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is now discussing international politics.

Captain Giles

I bow to the ruling of the Chair. As I have said, I welcome the decision of the Government to join the United Nations Organisation. I particularly welcome the decision of the Taoiseach to have a full debate on this question in the Dáil. It is right that we should have such a debate in this Assembly. It will be welcomed throughout the country. It will show that we are going to the peace conference as a united nation. I do not think there is any group of men in the country who do not wish well to that peace conference. If there should be such a group then, in my opinion, they are not people of Irish character and are not entitled to the respect of the Irish people. I am glad that we have decided to give what help we can at this peace conference.

Mr. O'Leary

There was a statement made by a Deputy yesterday that there was a secret meeting here. I belong to a small Party. I understand that the Taoiseach took the Leaders of the Parties into his confidence and that they reported back to their colleagues. We are now discussing a motion that this country should join the United Nations Organisation as soon as the Government consider it is convenient to do so. I cannot see any great hope for peace in the future for this reason, that when three of the Big Powers decided to meet they met in Moscow on Christmas Day. On that day all workers in that country were engaged in carrying out their ordinary day's work. For that reason I think that any peace made will not be a lasting peace because the foundation stone for it was laid on the Lord's Day which we here respect. We all know that the world to-day is threatened by one great dictator. Germany was and Russia is. There is no doubt but that America and Britain as well as many of the smaller States are shivering before this great military power which is engaged in building navies and making more powerful armaments. Many millions are being spent on the building of ships and now we see that they are being blown up. This small nation could be blown up from any part of the coast or from the air. It may be that one of the first demands that will be made on us by some of the big Powers when we join the United Nations Organisation will be that they want our ports.

That was the first big snag in connection with the last war. If those people had had our ports, we should have been invaded. We realise that a future generation may be called upon to take part in the next war. Even to-day, the world is not at peace. According to Press reports, hundreds of people are being shot down in the streets of Jerusalem. The Taoiseach has not given a good reason in connection with the future maintenance of neutrality. I do not believe that we propose to join this organisation on the spur of the moment. The matter will be examined by the Government and let us hope and pray that their decision will be for the betterment of this small island of ours.

Mr. Cosgrave

I should like to learn from the Taoiseach why this motion has been brought in in such a hurry. When the Dáil met last week, we had no indication that this motion was to be introduced. It was only at the end of the week that the motion was placed on the Order Paper and that information was received that it was to be discussed. I ask for information as to the reasons which prompted the Taoiseach to bring in this motion, not out of mere curiosity, but because I consider it desirable that, in a matter of this kind, public opinion should be fully informed of the magnitude of the step about to be taken. The fullest possible information should be made available to the public in connection with the proposal. Speaking in this House on the Vote for the League of Nations on the 26th June, the Taoiseach said: "Therefore, as I have 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 until then." Later, he dwelt on the obligations involved and said: "If we propose it, that will be considered by the Dáil in due course. The arguments pro and con will, no doubt, be put forward here, but the time for doing that has not come just yet." The fact that the country has been presented with this motion after the statement by the Taoiseach on the Vote for the League of Nations prompts one to think that something must have taken place between the 26th June and the end of last week which either forced or induced the Government to place this motion on the Order Paper. It is significant that as recently as the 26th June the Taoiseach said the time had not come yet for entry. He supported that remark by the statement that, until the peace treaties were signed, the time would not be opportune. Having regard to that statement less than a month ago, it may be reasonably supposed that the majority of the people were under the impression that the Government and the Department. of External Affairs, with sources of information not available to the rest of the community, considered that the time had not come for joining the United Nations Organisation. If that is the case, I think that we are entitled to an explanation for the rushing of this motion on the very eve of the summer adjournment.

The introduction of this motion and the diverse speeches we have had upon it demonstrate that the general body of public opinion is uneducated as regards what is involved in our applying now or in the near future for membership of the United Nations Organisation. Many people, owing to their preoccupation with their own affairs, have been unable to study carefully and assimilate the proposals contained in the charter of the United Nations Organisation which was presented to this House last year. The fact that people are uninformed as to the matters contained in that charter forces them to regard with certain misgivings and with considerable restraint a motion of this kind. It is because of that, I think, that before a motion of this kind is introduced, there should be a preparatory course of public education either orally or by the dissemination of printed information which would enable the public to come to a proper conclusion. However, we have not had such a course. We are presented with this motion and we have heard the Taoiseach's introductory remarks which consisted mainly of a reading of the various clauses in the United Nations Charter. That many people who have had the advantage of reading the charter are nervous regarding membership of the United Nations Organisation is, in my view, due to the fact that they have not had an opportunity of clearly understanding the significance of a step of this kind. Serious obligations are, undoubtedly, imposed on members of the United Nations Organisation. The fact that we shall involve ourselves in future commitments of one kind or another should not prevent us from realising that many advantages will accrue to this country, both politically and materially, from membership of that organisation. By "materially" I mean that we shall be in a position to collaborate with other nations and possibly get reciprocal arrangements with them which will accrue to our advantage.

We have had for a number of years now a closing down on matters, so far as external affairs are concerned. The fact that we were neutral during the war forced this country into a position of restraint so far as foreign affairs were concerned. With occasional exceptions, we postponed discussion on external matters and the entire attention of the country was devoted to strengthening our defences and maintaining neutrality.

The fact that now, at the close of that situation, we are forced to consider a matter of this kind puts many people in the difficulty that they imagine we are still neutral or that, so far as this country is concerned, there is still a conflict. Whilst that is so, we must realise that at the present time many nations are gathered together and have been associated for some time in endeavouring to frame proposals for peace. The fact that many nations have been so gathered is of interest to this country because of our historic position, because of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people are of the Catholic faith and because of the fact that we realise that, as an independent State, we have certain obligations and that we are prepared to shoulder our responsibilities, so far as our contribution can assist or promote more harmonious relations either between ourselves and other nations or between other nations in the world. In doing so, we must consider for a moment one grave factor concerning the United Nations Organisation. That is the fact that up to the present the Vatican has not been invited to participate in the framing of the charter or in any of the conferences dealing with the proposed peace negotiations.

It is a matter for regret for this country, particularly in view of our Catholic heritage and in view of the fact that we have in this country so many people who look to the Vatican for spiritual guidance, that the Vatican has not been invited to participate in these matters. While that is so, we at any rate can look with consolation, with pride and with confidence to the various messages which our present Holy Father has throughout the war, and in fact since the cessation of hostilities, given to his flock scattered all over the world. We have looked with considerable satisfaction and with a firm faith in their soundness to the many statements which the Vatican has made on the whole world position. In view of that, I think that our biggest contribution and our largest interest in future world affairs must depend on our ability to contribute to the spiritual, rather than to the material side of these affairs. We have had much evidence in recent years of the rise of the forces of materialism, of power and wealth, but we have had little evidence, and there is little evidence at the present time, that, among any of the participating nations, there is a return to an appreciation of those things which, so far as we are concerned, make life worth living.

If there is any return to a more peaceful approach to and a more harmonious deliberation on all the matters concerned in world affairs, if we cannot look with the satisfaction which we might on the various meetings, the various negotiations and the various conferences that have have taken place, we at any rate can hope that if, in future, this country takes its place within the United Nations Organisation, we shall contribute, so far as in our power lies, to the preservation of the sanctity of human life, that we shall contribute our Christian approach, that we can say to the United Nations that we are a small country which for centuries suffered under a grievous subjugation, that we were suppressed by a foreign Power and that if many countries on the Continent are now battened down by external superior forces, we in this country were in a similar position for many centuries. We can say that despite that aggression which held us in bondage we, throughout all these centuries, had a firm faith that in the end our Christian tradition, our Christian fortitude, our hope in everything that we value as part of the Christian faith and the Catholic religion would triumph over all the forces of materialism. That being so, we can hold out a message of faith to those other unfortunate nations and to those other peoples who are not in as fortunate position as we are at the moment.

My mind at this moment recalls a cartoon published in Punch many years ago when Bismarck was attempting to impose the German authority on other countries. There was a representation of the Vatican and Bismarck was shown holding on to a chain. In another corner of the cartoon there was a drawing of the devil and he was represented as saying: “Prince, you can give that up. For two thousand years I have been trying and I have not shaken it yet.” The fact is that however strong material forces may be at the present time, the voice of the Vatican and the voice of the Christian world must be, and will be, heard. We want this nation to take its part in making that voice. However small or insignificant we may seem to other nations, we have at any rate that noble heritage and it is our responsibility and duty to make the fruits of that heritage available to other nations.

I should like for a moment to dwell on the fact that so far as this country is concerned the one major political problem is Partition. What the future of Partition may be in our acceptance of membership of the United Nations I cannot attempt to forecast; but I think that it should never be absent from the minds or from the consideration of the representatives of this country, either in the United Nations or elsewhere, that so long as Partition continues harmonious, cordial and friendly relations between this country and Great Britain can never be established on the basis on which they might rest if Partition ceased to exist. So far as our contribution to world affairs is concerned, our effective voice, our strength, our force, and our unity in contributing to these matters would be all the greater if the problem of Partition were solved. A consideration of that factor must weigh with both Britain and America, and particularly with America in view of the fact that so many of our kinsmen have for so long sought a livelihood in America when they were unable to secure one at home.

We hope that those people in their present frame of mind and in the light of the fact that they realise that every country has a right to its independence will appreciate to the full that this country could contribute in many ways and could contribute effectively to a better understanding of world affairs so far as Western Europe and America are concerned if this country could speak with a united voice. I trust that as soon as the opportunity presents itself this country will raise the matter of Partition. Whether it is considered by the United Nations as a whole, or by some committee of it, our contribution to world affairs and to a full participation in our obligations in such an organisation would be far greater, far more effective and far more encouraging to the people of this country in making them participate in a fuller measure if the problem of Partition were solved.

The Taoiseach

There has been a degree of acceptance of this motion far beyond anything that I had reasonable grounds to anticipate. I attempted to set the debate along certain lines, namely the lines of the obligations to which we would be committed were we to enter this organisation. I did that with a deliberate purpose because it is the duties, rather than the advantages, which in the end will really matter.

It would be a very serious thing for our people, if we entered into an organisation of this kind and if we were at any time called upon to fulfil our obligations, it was found that our people were unaware of the nature of the commitments into which they had entered. It has been suggested that we should have had this matter discussed up and down the country before it was discussed here in this House. I do not think that would really have been possible. It would have been possible for organisations, if there were such, to have gone out and debated this particular question had they so desired. But it would have been very, very difficult, in advance of a motion here in the Dáil, for members of the Government, or members of our Party, or members of any political Party to go out beforehand and try to inform public opinion prior to a decision. I am sure there would have been a great deal of objection raised here had I, for instance, gone down the country and spoken on this question of our possible entry into the United Nations Organisation, discussing and weighing the advantages and disadvantages in advance. I think the inherent difficulty in that ought to be a sufficient answer to Deputy Cosgrave who has more or less put forward the suggestion that there should have been a wider discussion. That does not mean at all, of course, that these remarks are also directed against the observations of the Leader of the principal Opposition Party who suggested that it is our duty to go out now and acquaint our people of the obligations that we propose to take upon ourselves. That is quite a different matter.

In the first instance, I merely want to say that I am fully in agreement with the principle that it is now our duty, having taken our decision, to inform the public of what the obligations are. I think it is very, very necessary that our people should thoroughly understand what obligations they will assume if, when we make application, we are accepted as members of this organisation. The more realistic we are about that the better. Some of the other speakers on this motion stressed the advantages. To my mind the decision as to whether we should or should not enter into this organisation ultimately resolves itself into the one question: In what way, either by joining or not joining, are we most likely to preserve the independence of this country? That is really the net question. Is the independence and freedom which we have achieved and the independence and freedom to which we aspire for the whole country likely to be better guaranteed by our being a member of this organisation or by our not being a member of it? If we believe that it is, whatever doubts we may have with regard to the obligations, we shall resolve these doubts in only one way. There is no doubt that we, like every other nation in the world, wish to keep out of war. I think that if the peoples of the world were consulted there are very few of the ordinary people and very few of the small nations who would deliberately go into war. They prefer to avoid war.

I know that for great causes one may feel there is a moral obligation upon one to go to war, but these causes are not so numerous and, when it comes to the point and they are examined home, it will be found that there are very often other motives for entering into war which are anything but worthy of admiration. There are very mixed motives at times. Consequently, it is not at all easy for a nation to satisfy itself that it is going to war solely on a moral issue. It is for that reason generally that people endeavour to avoid war, and also because of its disastrous consequences in many other ways. Our people sincerely desire to remain out of war. I am perfectly convinced of that. The question they have to ask themselves now and the question we here have to ask ourselves is are we more likely to keep out of war by joining an organisation of this sort or are we more likely to keep out of war by remaining outside such an organisation? Probably no Governhas had such an experience as we have had in recent times. Some people think that all that is necessary in order to keep out of war is to declare that one is neutral. That is not sufficient. I would like our people and the members of this House to bear in mind that for six years of war the question as to whether our neutrality would be respected or not depended ultimately upon the will of, perhaps, two men. It was on that slender thread that our preservation here during the emergency period really depended. That was a very serious and a very anxious situation in which to have this country.

General Mulcahy

And these two men were not in this country?

The Taoiseach

No, they were not in this country.

Mr. Dillon

Does that answer mean the late President Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill?

The Taoiseach

Yes. Ultimately, in my opinion, the question whether our neutrality was going to be accepted depended upon the concurrence of wills of two individuals. That was a desperate position for our nation to be in. Those who have passed through that anxious period have no illusions about the value of a declaration of neutrality in preserving a nation from attack. When, therefore, we come to consider matters of this sort we should bear in mind that it is not sufficient for a nation to wish to remain out of a war, that, even though they may wish it sincerely and though they may declare their neutrality and do everything in their power to maintain that neutrality, yet that does not prevent them from being attacked.

I said in my opening speech, and I have said it on many occasions in the past, that it is the small nations particularly that should welcome an organisation which is intended to give collective security. No nations ought to be more loyal to such an organisation than the small nations. But the small nations, just like the big ones, will, if they become members of such an organisation, have to be really loyal members of it. They will have to make up their minds that the obligations which are necessary, if the organisation is to be successful, will be fulfilled and carried out. It would be fatal for the small nations, including ourselves, who have any hope of collective security, to think that they can in the end dodge their obligations.

If they attempt to do so, they are going to bring the whole edifice down and they might as well never have had anything to do with an organisation of this sort. Therefore our people should realise that when we enter into an organisation of this sort we are committing ourselves to take collective action with other people. The difference between a war such as may arise under the obligations of the charter and other wars is this: that that type of war would be a war of enforcement, enforcement of obligations, and also enforcement of rights. If there is ever to be a rule of law, nations must make up their minds that they will take part in such enforcement, because, if there is not enforcement, then, of course, the duties and the rights that are guaranteed will be all thrown aside.

I think I pointed out on another occasion that the difficulty in the old League of Nations, and the difficulties generally in building up an organisation of this sort, lie in the fact that there seems to be a kind of dilemma involved. You have to face the waging of war in order to prevent war. It seems a strange thing; but there is no way of enforcement against large nations, particularly enforcement of the rule of law, except by military action, which means war. Therefore, when you enter into an organisation of this sort, if you enter into it with any hope that it will be successful, you must enter into it with the firm conviction that, if enforcement is to be effective, it has to be achieved by the loyal co-operation of all the members and by you also doing your part.

I think Deputies who imagine that the country does not realise this are wrong. They seem to think that we are very far ahead of public opinion in this country. I doubt it. I think our people are as wise, politically, whether on national or international questions, as most people are. I would say on the whole that they are wiser. I do believe that our people realise that there is a better chance of maintaining the independence and the liberty we have got in this country by joining an organisation of this kind than by staying outside it, particularly when you remember that, when you are outside, this organisation will treat you exactly as if you were a member so far as obligations are concerned. They will simply say to you: "We represent a world organisation; you are simply a small nation. World peace demands that this thing be done," and there will be an end to it. The representations which you might have been able to make successfully within will not be at all possible without. Therefore, if you have a world organisation of this magnitude, you have hardly a choice in the matter.

There has been a suggestion of a change of mind so far as I am concerned. I do not really mind people saying that I changed my mind. I try to deal with situations as I find them. I am not conscious of any change of mind with regard to this matter of whether we should or should not join a world organisation designed to maintain peace. I have always stood for that. I have stated and I still hold that this organisation is not as valuable an organisation as it could be made.

I have to admit that possibly it is as good as can be got at the moment. If one of the great Powers says: "We will not enter this organisation unless on condition that we have a right of veto," what can you do? You start with the best you can get. You may be fully conscious, as I am, of its defects and wish that it could be changed and say that, if you had anything to do with it, you would try to bring about this change. Nobody, I think, can say with truth that I have changed my attitude with regard to this organisation, or with regard to the desirability of our entering it or not. I do not think any statement I have made since this matter was raised over a year ago can be interpreted as saying that we would ask the nation to keep out of it. The only thing which, I admit, requires explanation so far as change of attitude is concerned—I tried to give the explanation, but it was so simple, apparently, that people will not believe it—is the fact that some time ago when dealing with the League of Nations Estimate I said that we were losing nothing by delay. That was the position at the time. I did not think we should be in a great hurry about joining the organisation. I thought there were very great reasons why we should not.

This organisation was built up by a number of victor States, fresh from war, with all the passions that are aroused in belligerent nations. Their main purpose was to try to make sure that the sacrifices they had made in the war would not be lost and that they would redound to the benefit of their own particular peoples. Anybody who read the papers could see that there were contests going on between the victors to make sure, so far as they could, that their own particular nation would derive the best possible results from the victory which had been achieved. I do not think that we were losing anything by being out of that particular type of conflict.

As time went on, however, the situation was getting a little bit clearer. Already it had become somewhat clearer owing to the fact that draft peace treaties had been more or less agreed upon. But even so, on the 15th July, which was given as the last date, I felt there was no particular urge to get in at that time. If I were choosing a time for bringing this matter before the Dáil and the country for consideration, it would be a time when a peace situation had really been achieved, when the peace treaties had been signed, and when you were looking on a new world where everybody's interest would be to try to maintain peace for the future.

Why was there a change then— roughly, about the 15th July? What brought about the change was this. The view that I took of the situation, and the view taken by the Government, was one which was shared by most of the small neutral nations in Europe. None of them appeared to be about to apply until, roughly, the approach of that date. That was the final date for application. There was a special provision by which, under certain circumstances, applications could be considered after that date, but you would have had to look for special treatment if you were to depend upon that. It appeared to me that some nations were beginning to change their attitude and it was quite possible that at the eleventh hour, say on the 14th July or whatever was the last moment at which they could make application, they would have changed their minds. It was possible that the small nations in Europe which most corresponded to ours in the general situation might have applied—I knew a number of other nations were applying because that appeared in the public Press about the 9th or 10th July.

The situation might very well have come about in which we would be the only neutral nation not applying. Perhaps I should not say the only one; there would probably be two others. I do not know what is the position of Switzerland and I do not know either what is the position of Spain. It was indicated at the Potsdam Conference that three of the five Powers whose assent must be got would not be willing to assent to the membership of Spain. We might very well have found ourselves by ourselves. As regards the other nations which, up to that time, had been in the same position as ourselves, there was this difference. They could have taken action on the 14th July; they could have taken action at the eleventh hour, because they had already got the necessary power from their Parliaments and from the other groups who were with them, but our Government could not. We made a promise here and it would have been unseemly that a step of this magnitude would be taken without consulting the people's representatives in Parliament.

I discovered at that time that there were certain powers which we should have if we were to keep step with other nations and I felt it was desirable we should keep step with them. The last day for application passed and, if there was no question of postponement, these nations would be more or less in the same position. But it appeared that the last day for application was likely to be changed; it was going to be postponed to a later date and this later date might occur in a week's time or in two weeks' time. We could not take action if, at the eleventh hour before the new date, there were to be a change of attitude on the part of the other nations, so I felt that we could delay no longer. I said we could not delay the matter any longer without injury to the nation's interests. That is the simple explanation and I think I already indicated that, without, perhaps, going as fully into the matter as I am now doing.

The position is that the period when one could say that delay no longer carried evil consequences as far as this country is concerned has passed, and, therefore, as I said yesterday, the interests of this country demand that this question be settled now. As regards giving liberty to the Government, I could not come in here and ask the Dáil to give us liberty to adopt any attitude we pleased. I am sure members of the Dáil have very definite views as to whether we should or should not apply and as to the direct advantages or disadvantages of applying. If I had asked that the Government should be permitted to do as it pleased, I am sure there would have been a great deal of opposition. The members of the different Parties hold the views that they have already expressed here, and we have our own views on the matter. I hope I have made the matter clear and that I have satisfied Deputy Cosgrave's curiosity. He said it was not altogether his curiosity, but he felt that there was some explanation due to the country and to Parliament as to the reason for the change. It is quite simple.

With regard to the suggestions made by Deputy Flanagan and some others, I can only say that there is nothing whatever to them. I can say that the attitude of Britain towards us during the whole period has been a strictly correct one—strictly correct. There has been no attempt on the part of Britain either to urge us, much less to force us, or to encourage us to enter or not to enter. Britain, with the United States and with Russia, made a declaration at Potsdam on, I think, 2nd August, 1945, that they would support the application for admission of the neutral nations, mentioning one exception. The only communication we have had from Britain was a friendly intimation that that declaration applied to us and that in line with that declaration they would naturally support our application.

Mr. Flanagan

Was that a recent communication?

The Taoiseach

That was a communication of about three weeks ago.

Mr. Flanagan

That was the one I was referring to.

The Taoiseach

That has nothing whatever to do with the situation which arose on the 15th July and anybody who tries to pretend it has is simply telling an untruth.

Mr. Flanagan

Will the Taoiseach read the communication?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must keep order and allow the Taoiseach to conclude.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy will have to take my word on certain things.

Mr. Flanagan

Will the Taoiseach read the document?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must not ask questions while the Taoiseach is speaking.

The Taoiseach

I have, on behalf of this country, to conduct the affairs of the country. There are communications between ourselves and different States. Britain is not the only State with which we are dealing; we have communications with different States and without their permission, or without asking it—and I do not propose in this case to ask it—I am not going to read that correspondence. If that rule were to be adopted, no nation would communicate with you. There have necessarily to be private communications from time to time.

Deputy McGilligan hoped that we have not representatives in various countries doing nothing. The fact is that the things he thought might have been done could have been done with propriety. It did not happen to be necessary to do them, but if it were necessary to find out if there had not been statements and declarations such as the Potsdam Declaration, it would have been our business to try to find out, but, of course, I could not say, and I do not know yet, what would be the fate of our application. I have seen some reports in the newspapers to-day which Deputies and the public have also seen, but I do not know what would be the result of our application. I do, however, know one thing, that is, that the British will support it, because it has been intimated to me directly in a friendly note indicating that their attitude was in accordance with the Potsdam Agreement. But, again, I say that the Potsdam Declaration was made a year ago. The moment it was made, I had no doubt that the nations which made it would stand by it. I did not assume for a moment that they would not, but it did not change our attitude as to whether we should apply then or not.

What has changed that attitude is this, that if other neutral States apply for membership we do not want to apply at a later period alone. We have been neutrals as they have been and our position has been very much alike in a number of ways, and we think it right that, if they should apply, we should apply, too. That does not mean that if they did not apply, we might not apply. We can take our own independent action, but we want to be in a position to take whatever action we might consider best. On the whole, the chances are that we will apply, and if our doing that should influence the action of other small States, we are content that it should be so. We hope to keep in reasonable touch with them, and, with the power and authority which we shall get here as a result of the vote, I hope we will be in a position to take action before whatever date is fixed as the latest date for application.

On the other hand, something may happen, even before then, which may change our attitude and which may cause us to say: "This is not the appropriate time for applying." and we may not actually apply at that particular time. As I have said, the ideal time, from our point of view, for applying, for entering into this organisation—if we could fix the time; if it could be fixed by our will—is when the peace treaties have been concluded, when the contests which are obviously taking place, or which have been taking place up to the present, with regard to the ending of the war and the terms on which it should end have been brought to a finish, and when the minds of the people in various States have turned to building up and constructing the foundation for the future peace.

The next meeting of the Assembly may coincide with such a time, because it would appear now—the indications are—that the peace conference may be shorter than people were inclined to believe some time ago. The draft treaties having been largely agreed upon by the principal belligerents, the actual fixing of the treaties may not take a very long time, and the peace treaties may be concluded and the peace situation arrived at before the meeting of this Assembly. It is also possible that, under the special arrangement which is available to them, the Security Council may, in that event, invite some of the other States in Europe who were belligerent States on the other side—belligerent against their will, as they would probably be regarded—to become members, too.

My own hope is that this organisation will ultimately embrace all the nations, both those who were on one side and those who were on the other, and that we will really have a world organisation of the large States and the small States, with no discrimination against peoples, because, if there is such discrimination, it is a violation of the fundamental principles that must lie at the base of any organisation which is to last and to be effective. I hope that will be done, and, if it be done, I certainly think that, once we were prepared to accept these obligations, it would be our duty to be there.

I have not spoken at all of the advantages of joining this organisation, other than the fundamental advantage with regard to the way in which we would best secure our freedom. I am not talking of the advantages that could be found in membership, or the part that our country might play, through its representatives, in such an assembly. I have deliberately kept off that, because I think it very much better that this matter should be decided by us and by our people on the net question as to the method by which we are best able to preserve the freedom we have and to achieve the freedom we aspire to. I call that the net test. It may be regarded as a lower test than that which other people might apply, but I think it is a realistic test which, if applied now, accepted and a decision taken in accordance with it, is one which will not fail us later, if we have to fulfil our obligations.

There is one fear which I would have, one danger which I would see, in regard to this. I had an experience of it here and I think I indicated it already. At the time of the attack on Abyssinia, against the clear obligations of the States in the old League, there was a question of whether military action would be taken or not. It might have happened that the League at that time would have decided on military action, and if military action had been decided on—I admit it would have been difficult within the organisation—it would have been our duty to play our part in that action. That was going to be a very serious matter here, because of the fact that, in the one case, the nation against which action had to be taken was a nation which was culturally associated with ours over a long period, and the nation on whose behalf we would have had to take action was a nation which was unknown to us.

That matter was going to be extremely difficult here, but, if we were to play our part as a nation, it would have been our duty to participate in that action. I do not know whether I would have been able to get a majority in the House in favour of it, and what I am trying to do now is to ensure that, whoever may be in this seat, if ever an occasion arises involving the question of the fulfilment of our obligation under that charter, it ever such a day comes, that, in advance, our people will be fortified by the knowledge that it is their duty to fulfil them and that they will not be taken by surprise in having to deal with a situation of that sort.

With regard to one or two matters which were raised, there seemed to be a little confusion on the part of some of the speakers, and, curiously enough, they were speakers who probably had studied the charter more closely than others, or who were in a position to study it with previous training. There seemed to be some suggestion that two of the great Powers could decide in the Security Council—as if it were a majority of two out of three or something of the sort—what action would have to be taken under the charter. That is not so at all. The point is that, under the charter, action by the Security Council must be taken with the full concurrence of the whole five. That is the organisation as it is at the moment. If there is a falling out between these five, if they go different roads and do not concur, there can be no question of members having any obligations, because there will have been no decision.

If there were to be war against one of them then, legally at any rate, it seems to me the whole organisation falls to pieces. It is defective to that extent. It is not designed to do the very things that such an organisation should do. It is not designed to restrain any of the five great Powers, except in so far as they might be restrained by consultation. All the great wars have come about because of differences between the great Powers. This organisation, as it is under the present form of charter, does not guarantee the world against another great war, because it simply falls to pieces at once if action should have to be taken against any one of these five powers. In such a case action could not be taken legally under the charter, and the whole thing would go to bits. It is all right for taking action against others when the whole five agree. But I expect they will not agree if action falls to be taken against any one of themselves. What would happen is, that the whole thing would go tottering down, just like the League of Nations. It is not an effective method from that point of view for guaranteeing the peace of the world. There is no means in it of compelling the big Powers to obey the law. It does not allow the big Powers to be coerced into obeying the law. Until the big Powers like the others, submit themselves, and bow their heads to the fact, that they, too, will be ruled by law, then no method like this will preserve peace. I am very far from wishing to deny the big States their proper weight and proper influence. They deserve that in view of their size, their power and their influence. They are entitled to a proper weight of representation of some kind. At the moment they have not admitted that they will be subject to the law. But, like the old League of Nations, this organisation might be a step on the road and a good deal might be done by it towards bringing about a state of affairs in which large as well as small nations would accept the rule of law. We may be heading towards that, but we are very far from the end of the road in the charter. I do not think our people or Deputies have any illusions about it. It is quite wrong to argue that a majority of, say, three of the great Powers could decide that one was an aggressor and take action against that one in accordance with the terms of the charter. They cannot because, as I say, the league would be dissolved the moment one of these great Powers is an aggressor. That is the legal position it seems to me. What the moral position would be is another matter.

What would be the end? In the old League of Nations, there was a disposition on the part of some States to get together in different camps. I think that is a misfortune. It is a terrible thing that an organisation, when the real test comes, is not able to meet it and either dissolves or splits up into new ad hoc combinations for the time.

All people who genuinely wish to have a world organisation that will be effective must, in the first instance, try to get the big nations—if it can be done by any method—to submit to the rule of law, like the others. That does not mean that they should not get their full influence in such an organisation. I think they deserve that. It is their right. If a world authority could only be got in defence of the position that the law is there and that if any State has been found to have broken the law—that State being bound to obey like everybody else— the law is enforced and the power to enforce it is sufficient to compel obedience, if necessary—that is the objective in view.

However imperfect this charter, I think it is our duty to play our part in this organisation. I have not the slightest doubt about the way mankind should try to work in the direction of a world organisation. At the League of Nations on one occasion I expressed a view which would be extremely difficult to get accepted, but which I think is true in the end, that the only way in which we can get in that direction really, is by something like a world conferderation, in which there will be justice, such as we have by our municipal constitutions and courts and so on and which will be able to exercise a sovereign authority which is generally accepted. You would have States confederated in such a way that there is authority, a law-making authority, an executive for seeing that the law is carried out, and a court to determine what is the law at a particular time and to apply it to a particular instance. I think we are very far from that. I see what difficulties there would be in trying to bring about such a condition. Sometimes it is the small nations which are more difficult. My recollection is that it was one small State in the American Union that stood out longest against entering the United States.

Mr. Dillon

It did not discourage the founder.

The Taoiseach

No, that is so. I am simply talking of human nature and how it reacts. There is no doubt that the small nations are probably more attached to what they regard as their sovereign rights than the large ones. On the question of sovereignty we have to realise that whenever you enter into any combination and accept the rules then to that extent you deny the right to decide for yourself. To that extent you surrender your sovereignty. That is inevitable in all organisations.

Deputy Morrissey spoke of trade unions. When a man enters a trade union he gives up the right in certain circumstances to do what he pleases. He guarantees in advance that he will do a certain thing in accordance with whatever rules are laid down for the organisation as a whole. If he is a loyal member and wants to work with them he will keep to the rules and will fetter his own will, once he has joined the organisation.

I am very glad that the members of the Dáil have viewed this matter in the way they have viewed it. I am very glad that they have seen fully the implications and I have no doubt that, notwithstanding the seriousness of the obligations, our people are prepared to assume them. I do agree that it would be desirable that it should be fully explained to them and that opportunity should be taken to do it. It has been suggested that on one occasion we issued cheap copies of the Constitution so that it might be available for our people. I will consult to see whether we could not have cheap copies available for our people so that they may study this charter and understand it. If we are accepted, of course, we will have to come back to the Dáil. In the first instance, being an international agreement, it has to be laid before Parliament and there will be an opportunity given to anybody who wishes to discuss it then. There will also be a question later. There are charges. We will have to accept our proportionate share, I suppose, of the expenses. It will be our duty as a member to try to keep these expenses down but we will have to bear our share of them. That being a charge on public funds, an agreement involving such a charge will have to come here. Again, assuming that we are a member, there will be a question of these agreements about the facilities which we should afford to the Security Council, and so on. These matters will be matters of negotiation in the first instance but they are matters which will naturally have to come here for acceptance and for ratification. So that, from time to time, the Dáil will be in a position to consider, and to hear about, the obligations that are being accepted under this charter, and I have no doubt that our people, now that this matter has come to a head, will take a very much closer interest in this organisation than they have done before.

I do again express the view that our people are not so far behind in this matter as might be suggested by some of the speakers. I think our people generally have been following international affairs. I do not believe that during the war it was right to say we were cut off and did not know what was happening. I think we had probably a more accurate general view than most of the nations in Europe had. That is my own view. In this case, also, I believe our people are likely to take a well-balanced view of the whole situation.

Mr. Dillon

There is one matter of substance which the Taoiseach has not touched upon that was raised in the course of the debate. In the Constitution of the League of Nations there was an express provision that, if the constitution should be changed in any material detail, there was machinery for a nation withdrawing. In the charter of this body there appears to be no positive or negative provision in regard to withdrawal. Are we, therefore, to assume that our acceptance of membership is irrevocable on our part or do we reserve the right to withdraw? Is there any legal method envisaged by the charter for withdrawing in the event of the charter being radically altered, bearing in mind, of course, that in the last analysis we can walk out and take the consequences, but is there a legal procedure provided?

The Taoiseach

I do not think there is any in the charter. This charter has been drawn up, in a certain sense, in a hurry, and not every contingency was foreseen and it probably may have been completely forgotten. That is one of the advantages of coming in fairly early in these things, that you are in at the formative stage and matters of this sort can be brought up. But at the moment there does not seem to be any provision for that.

Mr. Flanagan

Since Partition was raised in this debate, has the Taoiseach any statement to make on it?

The Taoiseach

I was the first to mention it and I have said all I want to say on it.

Question put and agreed to.