I move:—
That the Dáil approves of the Statute of the Council of Europe signed at London on the 5th May, 1949, a copy of which was laid on the Table of the Dáil on the 23rd June, 1949.
The statute which is being presented to the House for ratification in effect constitutes the first attempt of the closer degree of co-operation between the various nations of Europe. True, at this stage unfortunately, it only includes ten European nations. It is sincerely to be hoped that it will, with the passage of time, gradually come to include many of the European nations that are not now included.
I will not conceal from the House that the statute is largely a compromise between a number of different views, ranging from very loose contact at Governmental and Parliamentary levels to a closely-knit federation of States akin to the United States of America. In some respects it is bound to be disappointing, but at least it is a beginning which is capable of considerable enlargement. The closer the contact that can be established between the Governments and Parliaments of Europe, at this stage, the more likely is the idea of a closer federation to develop. I hope that we in Ireland will give the whole of this concept much more consideration than we have in the past. It is an issue that deserves full discussion on a non-Party basis.
Before dealing with the direct issues raised, it might be well to give the House a brief outline of the growth of the concept of European unity. This may be of assistance to the members of the House in considering the proposal and particularly to those members of the House who will ultimately represent Ireland at the Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Historically, the ideal of European unity is not new. Ever since the break-up of the Roman Empire, the conception of European unity has continued to haunt the minds of philosophers and statesmen.
The names of great writers and thinkers who have advocated the idea make a formidable list. They include, at the beginning, the Duc de Sully, chief adviser to Henry IV of France, whose "Grand Design" was published in 1638; William Penn, whose "European Parliament" was published in 1693; and the Abbe de Sainte Pierre, who, in his "Perpetual Peace", written about the same time, said that "great institutions are only gradually made", but that the sooner the idea of European unity was propagated, the sooner it would be attained. Bentham, Kant and Rousseau were others who advocated European political unity, putting forward concrete proposals in elaborate and carefully argued treatises. Rousseau said that the realisation of the ideal was purely a question of whether the States of Europe had "understanding enough to see their own interest and courage enough to act for their own happiness". It was in connection with his discussion of European unity that Rousseau used the phrase which has since become famous:—
"If, in spite of all this, the project remains unrealised, that is not because it is Utopian; it is because men are crazy and because to be sane in a world of madmen is in itself a kind of madness."
These arguments, however, had little effect on the current of European political development. None of the moves towards unity in Europe since the 15th century was really anything more than a temporary league or alliance created in the face of a common enemy. All of them collapsed when the threat was removed. On the other hand, the process of regional federation in Europe made considerable progress in the 19th century. In Germany, Switzerland and Italy the movement towards union successfully overcame difficulties presented by historical tradition, social custom and even language and culture.
The first concrete step in the present century was taken in 1922, when Count Coudenhove-Kalergi founded the Pan Europa movement. He believed that the unity of Europe was essential to combat the danger of war and the menace of Communism. The first congress of the union was held in Vienna in October, 1926, and was attended by delegates from 23 European countries —many of them public men of high standing and authority. Monsieur Aristide Briand became honorary president of the union in 1927.
The annual congresses of the Pan Europa Union resulted in gradually forcing the question of European unity into the forefront of discussion in the various national Parliaments. Monsieur Herriot was an outstanding advocate of the idea in the French Parliament; Dr. Stresemann championed it in Germany; Dr. Schuschnigg supported it in Austria; and so on. Finally, on the 5th September, 1929, Aristide Briand, 12 times premier of France and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, raised the question officially at the Assembly of the League of Nations. In doing so, he said, inter alia:—
"I think that among people constituting geographical groups, like the peoples of Europe, there should be some kind of federal bond; it should be possible for them to get into touch at any time, to confer about their interests, to agree on joint resolutions and to establish among themselves a bond of solidarity which will enable them, if need be, to meet any grave emergency that may arise."
M. Briand's proposal was supported at once by Dr. Stresemann, Dr. Benes and M. Hymans, the Belgian Premier. M. Briand then undertook to put his proposal in the form of a detailed memorandum for the consideration of European Governments.
The Briand memorandum subsequently circulated made it clear that the organisation which M. Briand had in mind was little more that a European conference representing all the European members of the League of Nations. The conference would set up a permanent political committee, composed only of a certain number of members of the conference, and would have a small secretariat. The whole thing was to be "on the plane of absolute sovereignty and of entire political independence". It was merely a "grouping of the material and moral forces of Europe" and was not a European federation or union in any sense. As the memorandum itself put it, the new organisation was to be a "federation based on the idea of union and not of unity", that is to say, a federation elastic enough to respect the independence and national sovereignty of each State while guaranteeing to all the benefits of collective solidarity.
All the 26 European Governments to which the memorandum was sent gave the proposal their blessing in principle, but there was no marked enthusiasm. In many cases, doubts were expressed as to the desirability of creating a new organisation which might weaken the authority of the League of Nations, and most of the replies indicated an unwillingness to accept any limitation whatever of sovereign rights. When the League Assembly met in September, 1930, the memorandum and the replies were sent to a special commission for study, and soon the original idea was lost in a mass of sub-committees and technical reports. The Japanese conquest of Manchuria, the economic depression, the rise of Hitlerism, the Italian invasion of Abyssinia and the civil war in Spain gradually diverted the minds of European Governments into other channels, and the idea of European unity was quietly dropped from the international agenda.
As the Second World War drew to a close, planning for peace became the fashion and the idea of European unity emerged again. People remembered a speech made by Field-Marshal Smuts in November, 1943, in which he said that Britain would come out of the war a pauper but that she could strengthen her position by working more closely with the small democracies of Western Europe, some of which might well enter the British Commonwealth. Mr. Attlee, who had said in November, 1939, that "Europe must federate or perish", found a rival in his advocacy of European unity in Mr. Churchill, who, in the winter of 1946-47, took the initiative of forming a provisional British Committee to advocate the idea of a united Europe.
In 1947 a Joint International Committee was formed, embracing an international organisations interested in the question of European unity. This committee organised the Congress of Europe at The Hague in May, 1948, and was itself succeeded by the European Movement, which represents the five organisations working for a united Europe and has for its Honorary Presidents Messrs. Spaak, Churchill, de Gaspari and Leon Blum.
The resolutions of The Hague Congress were submitted by M. Bidault to the Consultative Council of the Brussels Treaty Powers in July, 1948. They were approved by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the French Assembly later that month. In response to an invitation from M. Spaak, the Joint International Committee drew up proposals in August, 1948, suggesting that there should be a European assembly which should be purely advisory in character, and that its constitution should be drawn up by a preparatory conference of representatives selected by the Parliaments of the five Brussels Treaty Powers. The French Government announced its approval of these proposals, but, in correspondence with Mr. Churchill, Mr. Attlee stated on the 26th August, 1948, that he
"did not think the time was opportune for a major initiative of this kind when Governments were already so fully occupied with urgent problems".
Although a spokesman of the United States State Department expressed approval of the French Government's attitude in a public statement, Mr. Bevin, in the course of a debate on the subject in September, 1948, took the same line as Mr. Attlee. The French and Belgian Governments continued their pressure, however, and, in October, 1948, the Brussels Treaty Consultative Group set up a committee to consider the matter. This committee began its meetings in Paris on the 26th November, and, early in February, an announcement was issued that agreement had been reached on a general scheme which would be discussed at a conference at which other European countries would be invited to be represented.
Throughout, our Government kept in close and sympathetic touch with the developments that were taking place. I took the opportunity at other conferences to discuss, informally, with individual Foreign Ministers, the possibility of making further progress. Finally, in the early part of this year, through the good offices of Monsieur Schuman, the foreign Minister of France, I was given an opportunity of indicating that we would be glad to participate and co-operate in the formation of the Council of Europe.
Subsequently, on the 7th March of this year, a formal invitation was received from the British Foreign Secretary, inviting the Government of Ireland to attend a conference of Foreign Ministers. This invitation was accepted. For one reason or another, it was not possible for this conference to meet until the 3rd May, but, in the meanwhile, representatives of the different Governments met to prepare this draft statute. As it was to be expected, a great many divergences of opinion became apparent in the course of the preliminary discussions. These divergences of views were considered at the meeting of Foreign Ministers that took place on the 3rd and 4th of May. The draft statute was finally approved in its present form and signed on the 5th of May of this year. It was also decided that the Consultative Assembly should meet in Strasbourg on the 11th August next. The meeting of the Consultative Assembly will be preceded by a meeting of the Committee of Ministers on the 8th August.
I should next like to deal with what I hope the Council of Europe will achieve, and the reasons why I recommend it to the House.
At the outset, I should emphasise that there is no desire in this statute to interfere in any way with the independence and sovereignty of the participating nations. European nations are not new nations that can be detached from their traditions and culture. They are all old nations which are largely the main-spring of a civilisation and culture which now spreads far beyond Europe into most parts of the world. There is no wish—even if it were possible—to in any way alter or interfere with the tradition, culture or individual characteristics of the different European nations that will compose the Council of Europe. This would be both impossible and undesirable.
While, as I have said, Europe has been the main-spring of the civilisation and culture which now spans the world, she has also been the storm centre and the origin of the wars which have caused so much destruction to the social structure of Europe. This may be due to the fact that so many nationalities are encompassed in such a proportionately small area of the world and are dependent for their existence on limited resources. However, that is immaterial to this discussion.
The one thing that is all-important is the elimination of the causes of war. Destructive as the last two wars have been, it is now abundantly clear that another war must lead to the complete material destruction of the countries through which the war passes. The development of atom bombs and new weapons can leave no doubt as to the utter destructiveness which another war must cause to Europe.
The material destruction caused by war is only part of the damage which war causes to the structure of our civilisation and society. It destroys and distorts moral values that have taken centuries to build. The extent to which the last war destroyed the moral concepts which we had complacently come to accept as safely entrenched in our civilisation is frightening to contemplate.
There is always a tendency in human beings to avoid facing those things that are horrible and unpleasant and that are an indication of our own weaknesses. So, within just a few years of the end of the most terrible war in the history of the world, we are again inclined to forget its terrible lesson. The last war proved how weak and ineffectual our man-made civilisation in reality was.
Few of us would have thought, even in our most horrible nightmares, that planned extermination of racial groups, or wholesale destruction of civilian populations would have come to be regarded as part of civilised planning. Yet, these things happened, practically in our midst. It would be dangerous self-deception to imagine that these things happened because of the vice or weakness of any particular nation or group. Those who were responsible for these ghastly deeds were highly civilised—just as civilised as we claim to be.
The lesson of the last two wars, with the methods of destruction used, should teach us that the veneer of our civilisation is very thin and has not hitherto been able to withstand the impact of the immense scientific developments that have taken place in this century.
In the past, wars were localised, by reason of transport difficulties and by the restricted range of weapons. Because wars were localised and because weapons of destruction were not as effective as they are now, it was possible to enforce certain rules. Now, because of scientific advances, wars have come to be what we euphemistically call "total warfare". It is no longer a question of two armies fighting in a field. In order to win a war you must aim at destroying the productive capacity and social organisation of your opponents. In order to do this you aim at the destruction and extermination of your opponents by every means at your disposal. Unfortunately science has placed at the disposal of mankind weapons that will enable mankind to hurl itself to self-destruction. The mass air-raids, the atom bombs and the extermination camps of the last war will pale into insignificance, should another war take place.
The social and economic destruction caused by modern warfare leave their imprint, not merely in the countries through which the war has passed, but on the rest of the world as well.
Communism, in the main, was built out of the wreckage of the last two wars. World War I, in effect, created a situation in Central Europe which caused World War II. The last war has created a situation which at present disrupts Europe. There is no longer a victor in a war—there are but sufferers when it is over.
I have dealt with these matters because I think it is essential, no matter how unpleasant, that we should face these realities frankly and search for remedies. I know that wars have been the rule rather than the exception and that, therefore, it may sound Utopian and unrealistic to think that it is possible to avoid wars. The truth of the matter is, however, that another world war is likely to entail the complete destruction of this civilisation.
The advance of scientific development is largely the cause of the peril which faces the world. Or, rather, I should say, the advance of scientific development without a proportionate advance in the moral and ethical outlook of mankind. Full of our own material achievements, we have been complacent and apathetic in relation to the moral and ethical basis of human society.
In a way, the Council of Europe is a recognition of the dangers and of the remedy for these dangers to which I have just referred. In the first paragraph of the preamble—for which we, incidentally, were largely responsible— it is recognised that the pursuit of peace is vital to the preservation of human society and civilisation. The preamble also recognises that spiritual and moral values form the basis of our civilisation. While these declarations may not go as far as some of us would like them to go, and while they are but words, they nevertheless indicate at least a realisation of the dangers we are facing and of the necessary remedies, if we are to survive.
In broad outline the statute seeks to provide for closer co-operation and contact between European States. It provides machinery for this purpose at Governmental level and at Parliamentary or representative levels. Its success will depend on the degree of understanding and co-operation it can bring about, not merely between Governments and representatives of different countries, but between the peoples of the different countries themselves. It cannot, however, in any way replace the functions of religion or education. It can, however, help in both spheres by creating a public opinion that will emphasise the ethical and moral basis which must govern human action and relationship. The statute provides for two bodies, one a Committee of Foreign Ministers representing the Governments of the participating countries and the other a Consultative Assembly.
The powers of the Committee of Ministers are defined in Articles 15 to 19 of the Convention. It is really the executive body and can do most things that are within the objects of the Council of Europe and that it is not specifically excluded from doing by the statute.
Considerable difficulty was found in relation to the method of reaching decisions by the Committee of Ministers and a rather elaborate procedure for providing for a unanimous decision of the Ministers voting and a majority of the Ministers entitled to vote is provided in some cases. In other cases, a two-thirds majority is to apply, and in yet another set of cases a simple majority may suffice. That matter is dealt with in Article 20 of the statute.
The powers of the Consultative Assembly are very limited indeed. It cannot initiate proposals, save with the consent of the Committee of Ministers, and can only make recommendations to the Committee of Ministers. However, in practice, I have a feeling that the assembly will rapidly succeed in loosening many of the bonds and fetters which the statute seeks to impose upon it. For instance, while the assembly has no power to include items for discussion on its own agenda, it may recommend to the Committee of Ministers the inclusion of items on the agenda. I think it would be hard for the Committee of Ministers to resist recommendations made by the assembly if it carries sufficient support in the assembly.
As to the representation, France, Italy and Britain will each be entitled to 18 delegates and 18 substitutes. Sweden, the Netherlands and Belgium will be entitled to six delegates and six substitutes. Ireland, Norway and Denmark will be entitled to four delegates and four substitutes each. Luxembourg will be entitled to three delegates and three substitutes. There will, accordingly, on present membership of the Council of Europe be a total of 87 delegates and 87 substitutes at first. That is on the present representation of the council, which is composed of ten nations.
One matter which caused a great deal of difficulty, and which, indeed, is not resolved yet, is the exact relationship which is to prevail between the Committee of Ministers and the Consultative Assembly. That was dealt with in Article 27 of the statute and was largely sidestepped and referred to a committee which rules to govern that position. In our view, individual members of the Committee of Ministers should be free to participate in the deliberations of the assembly without voting, while, in the view of some other States, members of the Committee of Ministers should only address the assembly when they are deputed to do so by the Committee of Ministers itself.
We felt that this latter course was open to a number of grave objections—
Firstly, a Minister who has a minority point of view in relation to the Committee of Ministers as a whole should not, we felt, be precluded from addressing the assembly and putting forward his point of view.
Secondly, we felt that there could be no collective responsibility in the Ministerial Committee in the sense that we know it here, because, in the final analysis, each Foreign Minister is responsible to his Government and to his own Parliament, and not to the Consultative Assembly.
Thirdly, we felt that if Foreign Ministers are themselves precluded from addressing the assembly, Foreign Ministers will take good care to ensure that another Minister from their country will be chosen as a delegate who can then express freely the same viewpoint. We felt this would be a drawback as it would tend to change the texture of the various national delegations attending the assembly. There would be a tendency to write-off with Government members to make up for the fact that the Government representatives on the Committee of Ministers were not allowed to participate in or to express a viewpoint in the assembly itself and, also, we felt generally that the Foreign Ministers of various countries should have an opportunity of giving their viewpoint there as, in many cases, they include people of standing in Europe whose viewpoint would be helpful to the assembly. To a certain extent, they are the experts in matters of foreign policy.
Article 40 provides for the granting of privileges and immunities to members of the council, freedom from arrest and legal proceedings in the territories of all member nations in respect of utterances made at the assembly.
I think I have covered most of the main provisions. The method of selection of the delegation is left to the Government of each participating country.
As I said at the beginning, this statute may be full of infirmities and may be largely the result of compromise between different viewpoints. Nevertheless, it is, in my view, one of the most important and constructive developments that have taken place in Europe. Speaking personally, I hope that it will evolve rapidly into a more closely-knit body that may lead us to a Federated States of Europe. Paradoxically enough, one of the features of the statute which, in the long run, will give strength and reality to the Council of Europe is that it excludes from its ambit all questions of military measures. Unlike many other attempts at world organisation, it relies rather on moral, ethical, social and economic forces than upon military measures.
I have pleasure in asking the House to ratify the statute.
