Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Dec 1958

Vol. 171 No. 10

Adjournment Debate. - Trust Territories: Irish Delegate's U.N.O. Speech.

On to-day's Order Paper, Deputy McGilligan asked the Minister for External Affairs to give his view and the view of the Government on a speech made by one of this country's representatives at the U.N.O. The full question was:—

"To ask the Minister for External Affairs if he has seen a report of a speech made by an Irish delegate at the U.N. urging that adequate standards of literacy be attained by Trust Territories before considering them for independence, cautioning against cutting a territory loose to shift for itself as a new nation before it is prepared to do so and, in using Ireland as an illustration, stating that the responsibilities of independence threatened the foundation of the new State."

The question further asked:

"...if this speech represents the policy of the Government towards Trust Territories and reflects the mind of the Government as to the ability of this country to endure the responsibilities of independence."

That question referred to a report which appeared in the Evening Press of 6th November, a report which is headed “Irish Appeal for Literacy at U.N.” It refers to the speech made by our delegate and then has a paragraph headed “Ireland.” The report referred to the trend towards independence for dependent areas, and said that the delegate cautioned against cutting a territory loose to shift for itself as a new nation. Then comes the paragraph headed “Ireland” in which it states that the delegate used Ireland as an illustration and said that the responsibilities of independence threatened the new State.

That report in the Evening Press seems to imply that our delegate, speaking abroad and representing this country, was using the type of argument used by the British in relation to this country prior to 1920, when they were prone to say that we could not govern ourselves, that we were not fit for self-Government and that if Ireland achieved its freedom, we would not be able to measure up to the task involved. In any event, the question on to-day's Order Paper was tabled by Deputy McGilligan, as he was fully entitled to do, and I should have expected that the Minister in reply would deal with the question in an orderly and responsible manner. Instead, the Minister read out a long prepared reply, a reply in which he took the opportunity of referring to live political issues in this country and giving a Party political slant to events which occurred here over the decade after we had achieved our freedom. The Minister at the end of his reply said:—

"However, as we successfully surmounted the efforts that were made to establish authoritarian régimes here, and as our Constitution is now generally accepted by all Parties in the Dáil, I feel confident that the democratic independence of the Twenty-Six Counties is reasonably assured and that we will ultimately extend that independence to the whole of Ireland."

I should like to know from the Minister why he said that. Who asked him for that view? I should like to know in what way does that sentiment bear any relation to the question tabled by Deputy McGilligan.

Deputy McGilligan asked a question and received an answer.

The Minister will have an opportunity of replying and I should be glad if he would just keep quiet.

Deputy McGilligan asked me that question and I answered him.

The Minister should behave himself.

I will, if the Deputy will.

The Minister's conduct this afternoon has, I regret to say, been typical of many of the Minister's performances in this House. He appears incapable of discussing a matter in an objective manner. He always appears anxious to impute motives, generally of an unseemly kind, when any Deputy exercises his privileges as a Deputy in this House.

I think it was pertinent for Deputy McGilligan, in face of the manner in which this speech was reported in the Evening Press, to ask the Minister was the delegate, 3,000 miles away, saying of Ireland that 36 years ago we were not in a state to receive independence. It is true that 36 years ago the very foundations of this State were threatened. It is true that persons, including the Minister, sought at that time to endanger the new freedom we had found, but it is equally true that the Irish State was able to face up to its responsibilities and was able to establish, just after its foundation, the rule of law and order here.

I feel that it looks poorly that anyone speaking on behalf of this country abroad should speak of Ireland—an ancient country, with a civilisation far older than many other countries now in the United Nations—in a speech referring to illiterate nations. It speaks ill that a report should have appeared which gives that impression. I must say that I have read the speech made by our delegate and I would agree with the Minister's description of it. It is an excellent speech and a speech in which our representative states what I think would be the national view in relation to self-Government for dependent countries and countries under trusteeship to the United Nations. I feel that the paragraph which is the subject matter of this question, paragraph 9 of the speech, is unhappily worded. Our delegate, in speaking as he did according to Page 5 of his manuscript, unfortunately fell into the error of repeating the type of British cant used in relation to this country over 36 years ago.

I do not in any way blame the Evening Press for its report of that speech. I merely say that the question that was tabled to-day was a pertinent question on a matter of national prestige and had it been dealt with by the Minister this afternoon in an orderly manner without the type of imputation which he used in his reply, I certainly would not have raised this matter on the Adjournment. I hope in future we shall get from the Minister in replying to questions a little bit of good taste and less of the kind of accusation made across the House this afternoon. We are all here to try to serve the country and if we in Fine Gael see something said or done which we believe to be harmful to the cause of the country we shall raise it in the Dáil and we shall expect from the Minister or from any of his colleagues that they will deal with the question or whatever matter is concerned in a proper manner.

To have the Blueshirts dragged into this question this afternoon was, in my view, a disgrace to the Minister. If that kind of ministerial antic continues this Parliament will become a farce. The Minister was also pleased to say that this question was based on a report in some other newspaper. I do not know to what the Minister was referring. Attached to the parliamentary question tabled in the Dáil Office was this cutting from the Evening Press. I am sure the Minister was aware that it was the report in the Evening Press that was referred to in that question and why the Minister should avail of the question to suggest that some other newspaper report was being inquired into, I do not know.

I do not intend to say anything more. The matter would not have been raised by me or by Deputy McGilligan—if he had been here—if the matter had been met by the Minister in a more constructive manner. It was not. The Minister was pleased to refer to matters which had no relevance and no relation to this question merely for the purpose of having a crack at somebody else.

Deputy McGilligan's question wound up by asking me if the speech in the United Nations "reflected the mind of the Government as to the ability of this country to endure the responsibilities of independence". Deputy McGilligan is a man accustomed to considering the meaning of words before using them. The imputation in the question—and running all through Deputy O'Higgins's speech— was that our representative at the United Nations had called into question or cast doubts upon our ability as a nation to survive. I resented that imputation because neither the Evening Press report, nor the speech itself, bore any such connotation. The Evening Press report quite clearly showed what our representative at the United Nations was trying to do.

The report shows that he was first of all warning the United Nations that certain of these territories suffered from great illiteracy, from a great number of disadvantages which Ireland had not suffered when we got the partial independence secured for this part of the country 36 years ago. Just as we have here, there are in the United Nations certain people who want to make political play with the lives and fortunes of other peoples. Certain delegations there are more interested in playing politics with the lives of the people living in these trustee territories than in helping to bring them towards independence as quickly as possible.

Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy McGilligan are quite well aware of the attitude of our representative in the United Nations. I myself sent him a copy of the speeches that outlined our policy. I quoted them in the reply to-day. I did not drag in the Blueshirts. I was asked about a dozen supplementary questions before General Mulcahy dragged out of me what I had in mind in replying to Deputy McGilligan's imputation that we thought this country could not survive as an independent nation.

I do not want to go into this, matter at any great length. I regret the fact that there are certain members of the Opposition who are always looking for division on matters of foreign policy, upon matters on which there is no division. They play politics with foreign affairs and it is not right for them to do that. They should know better; they know exactly the damage they are doing when they play politics in this way with such matters. There is no secret about this speech. I challenge anybody in the country to read the speech our delegate made on this occasion. It was a brilliant speech and was recognised as such by those really interested in bringing these people forward to freedom. It was recognised as the very best speech ever made in the United Nations on the subject of trustee territories. I cannot read it here at any great length. It is in the Dáil Library and it is there for anybody to see. It is open to the newspapers and particularly to those newspapers which completely misrepresented it.

I am in the difficulty that I cannot read all this speech in the debate— something I would be very proud to do. But I want to assure the country and our people that our delegation in the United Nations has reached the stage that when one of our representatives speaks in the Assembly or in one of the committees, he or she commands immediate attention. When certain other delegates are speaking the headphones are down; what they will say is already known. But when our delegates ask for the floor, as they say, when the Chairman asks one of them to speak, immediately the earphones are up and other representatives are listening, knowing that what is said is coming from the heart and is the truth as we know it.

It is recognised that we speak in the interests of all the people of the world and particularly in the interests of those countries least able to look after themselves. Among them are certain of the trustee territories. Deputies O'Higgins and McGilligan know, as I do, that a number of countries got independence in recent years and that at least ten of them, are now under authoritarian or dictatorial forms of government. There are more than that, because if you read the London Times of yesterday there is an article entitled “Armies in Power” which tells of many countries which have lost their freedom in recent years and which I did not include in the list of ten countries where democracy is out and the armies are in.

I did not want to draw in the question as to whether we were capable of surviving or not. It was Deputy McGilligan who raised the question, and I think it was legitimate to hint that I thought democracy could survive here because the Opposition that had formerly asked the people to reject the Constitution were now in favour of it. It was only after several supplementary questions, many of which were in very bad taste, that I made a reference to a certain historical event which nobody can deny.

If the Minister apologises, I accept the apology.

Why should I apologise for telling the truth when it was dragged out of me? I do not want to go into some of the allegations the Deputy made here about what happened, but it is a fact that the Dáil was suppressed on 30th of June, 1922, and that it was not allowed to meet until three or four months later.

What was the Minister doing at the time?

I was trying to make peace. I was one of those people with the Labour Party who demanded, asked and craved that the Dáil should be brought together, that this suppression which occurred on 30th June should not continue and that, instead of having a civil war with no benefit to this country, the Dáil should be brought together to see if we could make peace. That is what I was doing.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 3rd December, 1958.

Top
Share