Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Jun 1930

Vol. 13 No. 26

Public Business. - Approval of Conventions and Protocols.

Mr. Milroy

I move:—

That the Seanad approves of the Protocol for the Prohibition of the use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological methods of Warfare (1925), a copy of which was laid on the Table of the Seanad on the 19th day of February, 1930, and recommends the Executive Council to take the necessary steps to accede to the said Protocol subject to the following reservations, viz.:—

(1) That Saorstát Eireann is bound by the Protocol only vis-a-vis those other States which have signed and ratified the Protocol or acceded thereto;

(2) That, in the event of the armed forces of any enemy State or of any ally of such State failing to respect the Protocol, Saorstát Eireann shall cease to be bound by the Protocol vis-a-vis such State.

The Minister was to have been here to deal with these matters, and I presume he will be here. In any case I assume that members of the Seanad have read copies of the Conventions that were circulated. As they more or less explain themselves and are non-controversial it is only necessary for me formally to move their adoption.

Sir Thomas H. Grattan Esmonde

I second.

Mr. Johnson

I was hopeful that the Minister would be here to explain the reason for these reservations. This document is dated 1925. I thought the Minister would be able to tell us whether there has been any general acceptance and ratification of this Protocol by the Powers that signed in the first instance, and why it comes about that the practice, shall I say, of experimenting in the use of asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases is still going on. If one gathers the truth from newspapers, and from journals of various kinds, it appears that there is a very considerable amount of experimentation in the use of these gases, all on the pretext that they are only defensive gases, and one would like to have some little explanation, if possible, as to whether any of these preparations for carrying on war by gases or by bacteriological methods have been tried in this country, or is going on here.

In any case, I would like to know what is the meaning of this particular reservation, and what other States have ratified, subject to this reservation. It may be said that the reservations are obviously necessary, but I am not quite so sure. It seems to me the reservations are justifying preparation for carrying on war by poisonous gases, or by bacteriological methods, owing to the fear that one of the contracting parties may break away, and that, therefore, they would be all free to carry on. These reservations suggest that that is going to be the mind of the States which are ratifying the Protocol. There are other reasons why one would like to know what other States have ratified this Protocol, and I hope before the discussion concludes, if there is to be discussion, that the Minister will inform us on that matter, or if the Minister is not present that we might postpone discussion until we get some information on these points.

Mr. Milroy

The matter would undoubtedly be interesting if the Minister were here to elucidate these points, but I am not certain that it is of such grave moment as to warrant adjournment of the discussion. The discussion in the Dáil was brief, but similar questions to those asked by Senator Johnson were put by one of the Deputies. The Minister replied fully. What he said appears in the Official Debates. He stated that twenty-nine States had signed the conventions at the beginning, but that only seventeen had ratified them up to date. As to the point raised by Senator Johnson that these reservations seemed to indicate a kind of qualified justification for the use of such methods, I think that is hardly a justifiable inference to draw from the reservation. Obviously it would be only fair to expect when an agreement such as this is entered into between States that when one party to the agreement either breaks away or withdraws from it, the other parties cannot be expected to be bound by it. Of course, it is regrettable that this kind of warfare should be at any time possible. It is regrettable that any kind of warfare should be at any time possible, but it does not follow because war is sometimes adopted that the use of these gases could be justified. I think that was the point Senator Johnson wanted to clear up, whether the State by this reservation wished to declare a certain measure of justification. I only wish to point out that if the Senator will read the report of the Minister's speech in the Dáil he will find explicitly set out why these reservations have been put in. Certainly they are not in any degree to give countenance to this particular method of warfare as being justifiable.

Mr. Johnson

Can the Senator give the date of the discussion in the Dáil?

Mr. Milroy

May 29th.

Mr. Comyn

It is a most unusual practice that members of the Seanad should be referred to the Report of the Parliamentary Debates in another House for the purpose of having explained the meaning and effect of an international agreement of this description. In my judgment the Seanad, owing to its calmer atmosphere, the mature years and the long experience of many of its members, is an assembly in which matters of this kind should be fully and freely discussed. It has occurred to me that perhaps the Minister for Justice, who is in the House, might be able to give us some explanation of this Convention and of the reservations. Looking at the reservations, they seem to be reasonable. It is reasonable enough to avoid the use of these methods of warfare against countries who have pledged themselves not to use such methods of warfare, and it is also reasonable not to preclude ourselves from defending ourselves against nations that do use them. I think that is the meaning of the first reservation. As regards the second reservation, providing for the case of a country, that itself denounces the agreement. It would be unfair if we were bound by it in any conflict with such a country. It has been proved that the use of asphyxiating gas is most inhuman. We ought to have in the Seanad an explanation from the Minister. If the Minister cannot be in attendance perhaps the question could be adjourned, or perhaps the Minister for Justice, who is in the House, might be able to give the Seanad such an explanation as would be satisfactory.

Mr. Douglas

That takes away from Senator Milroy's estimate of Senator Comyn's ministerial ability. I agree it is a bit of a slur that when international agreements come up for debate there is practically no interest in them. Many of us complain of the want of interest in our international position and commitments, but we have very little right to complain if, when questions of the kind come up, even in the House, they are not to be answered authoritatively. With regard to this resolution, I have read the documents and I have no doubt that this House ought to pass this motion. As things stand, nations suffer from one another. I wish that nations would pass Protocols of such a kind that there would be no reservations, but I am sufficiently a cynic to believe that nations would not feel themselves bound if they believed other nations had broken a particular agreement. The observance of the Protocol would depend largely on the growth of international opinion and good will. As it stands, I think it is of real value, and we ought to welcome it.

Debate adjourned for the attendance of the Minister.