Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Mar 1962

Vol. 193 No. 8

Adjournment Debate. - Partition and Membership of NATO.

Deputy McQuillan has given notice that he wishes to raise on the adjournment Question No. 17 of the 14th February, 1962.

The question I have been given permission to raise deals with the conflicting interpretations of the Articles of NATO in relation to Partition. Conflicting statements have been made by the Taoiseach both inside and outside the House. In view of the paramount importance of giving the Irish people a clear understanding of what the implications of joining NATO are, it is essential that the Taoiseach should clarify the position at this stage. First and foremost, let us be clear on the situation with regard to the Articles of NATO itself. In reply to a Dáil question yesterday it was made clear that there has been no change of any importance in the Articles of the NATO Treaty since its establishment. Having accepted that, we go on to examine the views of the Taoiseach on these Articles as expressed in his remarks here on the 14th February and remarks made outside the House on the same issue.

It is important that we get a clear answer from the Taoiseach on this question, especially in view of the fact that he has stated clearly we are prepared to accept fully the political and other commitments of membership of EEC. Of course, when the Taoiseach said that he had to admit he was in the dark in regard to what those commitments would be. However, I hope he will resolve that problem as far as NATO and Partition are concerned when replying to this debate.

On the 14th February Deputy Corish asked the Taoiseach if the Government would now be prepared to give the undertaking required of all prospective members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to accept the territorial integrity of all other members, which includes the acceptance of the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Taoiseach's reply was:

There is no provision in the North Atlantic Treaty which would require any member or prospective member of NATO to give an undertaking of the character suggested in the question.

At that stage I asked a supplementary question:

Is it not a fact that one of the reasons put forward by the Taoiseach's predecessor against joining NATO was that if we did, we would have to respect the so-called territorial rights of Britain in the Six Counties and that his predecessor was not prepared to do that?

The Taoiseach's reply was:

I shall quote from the relevant Article of the North Atlantic Treaty:

The Parties will consult together when, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

The Taoiseach then went on to say, and this is very important to emphasise:

In my view, it is not in the national interest to represent that as implying an undertaking to preserve the Partition situation, having regard to a corresponding phrase in the Charter of the United Nations, and indeed of the old League of Nations, which we have accepted.

In another supplementary I asked him:

Is it not a fact that the former leader of the Fianna Fáil Party was specific in his reason for our not joining NATO, the ground being that our rights in the Six Counties would be damaged...?

The Taoiseach replied:

I have no recollection of any such statement. I have read the complete article of the Treaty which deals with this matter.

To my mind there are three points which emerge from the replies to those questions. First, according to the Taoiseach, there is no provision in the NATO Treaty which would require any member to give an undertaking of the character suggested in the question to respect the rights of Britain in the Six Counties. Secondly, the Taoiseach says that in his view it is not in the national interest to represent that as implying an undertaking to preserve the Partition situation. The third important point is the Taoiseach's remark: "I have no recollection of any such statement being made." I think it only fair for me to refresh the Taoiseach's memory, if he has lost it to the extent to which it would appear he has from these remarks on February 14th.

When I listened to the Taoiseach's reply here a fortnight ago, I could hardly credit that he would suggest there was nothing in the Articles of NATO which would imply a recognition of the existing situation here. Neither could I credit that he would suggest it was not in the national interest to make any such implication. Those remarks of the Taoiseach must be borne in mind when we consider his remarks made in Ottawa in 1953 and reported in the Irish Press of Saturday, 26th September, 1953. He was on a tour of Canada at the time and he spoke to the Ottawa Canadian Club. The report of his speech appeared in the Irish Press and I should like to quote from it to the House.

He was referring to the part Ireland would play in the building-up of organisations for international co-operation and security and he went on:

Irish partition is often a real barrier for many reasons. In international organisations such as the Council of Europe and the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, Ireland plays an active part but when the North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation was proposed and when we found that membership implied acceptance of the existing territorial boundaries of other member States, then it was clear that with Britain claiming as an integral part of her territory six of the counties of Ireland, a claim which no Irish Government could accept or appear to accept, we are not free to consider it. However willing the Irish people may be to see the free world strengthen its arrangements to resist aggression Irish public opinion would not assent to the giving of any international pledge that might be regarded as an abandonment to our claim to the unity of Irish territory.

There we have the Taoiseach quite clearly stating that when we found membership of NATO implied recognition of Britain's territorial claims to six of our counties, we could not consider joining it—that we were not free to join it.

Let us now come back to his remarks here a fortnight ago. According to him, there is no provision in the Articles of NATO that would suggest that the existing boundaries and territorial rights claimed by Britain in the north would have to be recognised by Ireland, if we joined NATO. But, in 1953, he said we could not join NATO because Britain had six of our counties. In case members of the House should believe or think for a moment that the Taoiseach was speaking off the record or off his own bat in Ottawa, I should like to make it quite clear that the Taoiseach, then Tánaiste, was speaking with the full knowledge and approval of the Government of the day —the Fianna Fáil Party—because a week after that speech was published, I put down a Question and that Question, with the replies given, is reported in volume 142, column 3 of the Official Report which I shall quote:

Mr. McQuillan asked the Taoiseach whether his attention has been directed to a report in a daily newspaper of a speech made by the Tánaiste advancing reasons for this country's not joining NATO; and, if so, if he will state whether the statements made represent Government policy in the matter.

Donnchadh Ó Briain: I am aware of the report referred to by the Deputy. The arguments and statements therein are in accord with Government policy.

Deputy McQuillan: Is the Taoiseach aware that in the Irish Press of September 26th the Tánaiste is reported as saying to the Ottawa Canadian Club that we were not free to consider joining the NATO on account of Partition, and is it not fair to deduce from that that if Partition were removed tomorrow morning this country would then consider joining NATO?

The Taoiseach: It would certainly be free to consider it.

It is quite clear from that that if Partition were gone, we would be free to consider it. In other words, the then Taoiseach approved of the Tánaiste's statement that we could not possibly consider joining NATO while Partition was there, but if it were gone, we might be in a position to join NATO. The present Taoiseach at that time said that we would have to recognise the existing boundaries of existing nations. He had the approval of his leader, who said that he approved the statements made by the then Tánaiste.

Now let me come to the second point, where the Taoiseach said it was not in the national interest—that membership of NATO would be a barrier in the Partition problem. He suggests brazenly in this House that we are doing a disservice to the country by making the suggestion that membership of NATO implies recognition of the Border. What has he been doing, and what was the former Taoiseach doing from 1953 up to a fortnight ago, except suggesting that in the national interest, we must make it clear that we could not consider membership of NATO until the Border went? If there is anything weighing against the national interest, it is the utterances of the Taoiseach and his former leader, Mr. de Valera.

The third point I would make to show how short is the memory of the Taoiseach is to refer to his statement that he had no recollection of certain things. In case there is any Deputy who is of the opinion that the views expressed by the Taoiseach were not agreed upon fully by the Opposition at all times, let me make it clear that the former inter-Party Government, with the support of Fianna Fáil, said that the position was that Ireland could not possibly consider joining NATO until Partition went.

Some years ago, the late Deputy Sir John Esmonde asked the Minister for External Affairs whether Article 4 of the proposed NATO treaty, from the point of view of accepting the provisions of this Article, would imply the recognition of the division of our country. Deputy MacBride, then Minister for External Affairs, pointed out that the provisions of that Article might well, under existing circumstances in respect to the six north-eastern counties, imply an acceptance that the territorial integrity and the political allegiance of these counties lay with Britain.

On that basis, there is not the slightest doubt the implication is there in the Minister's reply; membership of NATO would mean the recognition of Partition. I have a number of other quotations here from former Taoisigh and former Ministers for External Affairs. I do not propose to give them to the House. Another occasion will arise, if it is necessary to deal with these.

I have taken this opportunity to ask the Taoiseach as bluntly as possible which interpretation are we to take of the Articles of the NATO Treaty— the one he put on it in Ottawa in 1953 when it was found membership implied acceptance of the territorial boundaries of other member states, in which case the Six Counties would have to be recognised as part of Britain and we could not join NATO; or the interpretation last week that it is not in the national interest to represent that as implying an undertaking to preserve the Partition situation?

The Taoiseach should climb down from the fence and tell the public now that he and his Government have reconsidered the position. The people have no other way of finding out what the situation is. I should like to make it clear to the House that there has been a change. I should like the Taoiseach to make it clear when that dramatic and important change took place and the reason for it. Would he make it clear also that, if that change has taken place and recent statements represent Government policy, that has been done with a view to preparing the ground for bringing this country gradually into NATO, without giving the public an inkling of what lies ahead?

I do not quite understand why Deputy McQuillan, and some other Deputies, keep harping on this question of NATO. Only a few weeks ago, and again yesterday, I informed the House in the clearest terms I could devise that we have not received any invitation or proposal that we should join NATO and the matter has not, therefore, been considered by the Government. I suppose Deputy McQuillan, and his associate, Deputy Dr. Browne, have got some idea in their heads that, if they persist in these tactics, they may cause some embarrassment for us with those countries which are members of the European Community and, in that way, help to defeat our application for membership of the Community. If that is their idea, then they should make it clear.

Deputy McQuillan has drawn attention to a conflict of interpretation of the North Atlantic Treaty in a statement I made in 1953 and one which I made last month. I confess I never read the text of the North Atlantic Treaty until it became necessary for me to do so when certain questions were addressed to me in the Dáil relating to its provisions. I had no occasion to study it earlier. When I did read it, however, and came across this Article which had been interpreted over the years as implying that accession to the Treaty would involve some implication in relation to Partition, some undertaking to do nothing about Partition, I began to ask myself was it wise in the national interest that we should persist in forcing that interpretation on the Treaty Article.

Article 4 is as follows:

The parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any of the parties is threatened.

Many many years ago this country joined the League of Nations. When we did so we signed the Covenant of the League. Article 10 reads as follows:

The members of the League undertake to resist and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and political independence of all members of the League.

Later we joined the United Nations. When we did so we signed the Charter. It is not so definite as the Covenant of the League of Nations, but it nevertheless involved an undertaking to do nothing against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

I feel, as I think others who have studied these documents must feel, and as I suggested to Deputy Corish, that, if we keep on insisting that Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty bears the interpretation we have put on it over the years, that it involves an undertaking to do nothing about Partition, to abandon our aims in respect of Partition, we can well be met with the argument that, in so far as we signed the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Charter of the United Nations, we have already abandoned our position on Partition. That would be manifestly absurd. Indeed, as Deputies know, our membership of the League of Nations, and of the United Nations, our signing the Covenant of the one and the Charter of the other, have never been held to mean that we have in any way abandoned the position we have taken in relation to the reunification of our country.

Does that mean that successive Taoisigh and responsible Ministers were all talking through their hats?

I will not say anything more than to inform the House that I began to doubt the wisdom of our straining the meaning of that Article of the Treaty——

It is an empty formula, then.

——having regard to the more specific commitments we have already entered into in other documents. It is merely a matter of opinion and I am not going to ask anyone to share my opinion. What have we here, after all, but a very academic type of discussion?

Joining NATO is not very academic.

On 14th February, I said in reply to a Question by Deputy Corish:

It should hardly be necessary for me to say that there is no possibility that this or any other Irish Government would give an undertaking, in any circumstances, which would impede in any degree the fulfilment of the national will to restore the territorial unity of Ireland.

I drafted that reply in a manner which I thought would leave no possibility for ambiguity or room for misunderstanding. It is as clear and specific an undertaking as anybody could give. I do not think there is any need to add another word to it.

The Dáil adjourned at 4.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 13th March, 1962

Top
Share