Vol. 23 No. 10
I move:—
That Seanad Eireann hereby resolves, pursuant to sub-section 3º of Section 3 of Article 28 of the Constitution, that, arising out of the armed conflict now taking place in Europe, a national emergency exists affecting the vital interests of the State.
Having passed the Second Reading of the Bill and discussed on the Second Reading not only the Bill but a number of other general matters, I think we ought to have no difficulty in accepting this resolution which is implicit in the Bill itself. I do not know that it requires any debate. Personally, I think it does not.
One or two aspects of the general question have not, I think, been adverted to yet. I refer to them with considerable diffidence because the last thing I should desire would be to start any kind of acrimonious debate in this critical hour of the nation's and the world's fate. I, personally, regard the policy of neutrality as the only one possible for us in present circumstances and, therefore, one on which we can unite in supporting the Government. At the same time, there are some aspects of the problem of neutrality of which it would be well to remind ourselves, not so much with reference to the present as with reference to the lessons of the past ten years of European history and in the hope that when a saner world arises—which may happen in six months or a year's time —we may learn something from the lessons of the past.
Under present conditions, neutrality is the only possible policy one could recommend to a country situated as we are or as Holland is or as the Scandinavian countries are. But let me remind the House that, if the covenant of the League of Nations had been effectively respected by these nations, big and small, that were members of it and if the terms of that covenant had been lived up to in connection first, with China, later with Abyssinia, later with reference to Spain and Czechoslovakia—in other words, if the principle of collective security which is part and parcel of the doctrine of the League of Nations was a reality—neutrality, so far from being an honourable and desirable policy for any nation, big or small, would be the height of dishonour. The individual, when the public peace is at stake, cannot be neutral when it is a question of helping the forces of law and order to keep the peace. The individual citizen is bound to use his force on the side of law. To be neutral in the face of aggression is bad citizenship in the individual. Similarly, if proper relations existed between States, members of the League of Nations, then neutrality would be a policy which would not be honourable even for the smallest of nations. It is precisely because that world order, which was attempted to be established at Geneva ten or 15 years ago has been broken up or destroyed, that we are faced with this world conflict. Because that world order has been broken up or destroyed, it is not possible for us to maintain, under present circumstances, any other policy than a policy of rigid neutrality. That does not mean that our sympathies are not deeply engaged on the side of the democratic nations of the west which are now fighting for their own lives because some years ago they were unwilling to put into force the principles of the League of Nations which would have preserved the law of Europe against the beginnings of aggression. They are now fighting for their own lives and, as a matter of fact, they are fighting for our lives and our interests. Nevertheless, under present circumstances, neutrality is the only policy we can advocate and recommend. But the time may come when the question of erecting a new world order will arise. Then, we should bear in mind the lessons of the past ten years. One of these lessons seems to me to be that you cannot have the principle of collective security and, at the same time, have the principle of unlimited sovereignty of the nations of the world, big or small. It is precisely because none of the nations of the world, particularly the big nations, was willing to surrender one jot or tittle of its own unlimited sovereignty to a common international Government of any kind that the League of Nations became a thing of no account and unable to function effectively.
In future if any kind of world order is to be built up, and there must be such an order, there must be a willing surrender on the part of big nations as well as on the part of small nations of some of their sovereignty. If in the future any kind of world order is to emerge it will have to be regarded as just as irrational and as immoral for a single nation, big or small, to maintain a private army for its own private quarrels as it would now be regarded for an individual citizen in any State to maintain a private army for his own purposes. In other words, armed forces in the future will have to be at the disposition not of national law but of international law. To give effect to that it would be necessary to bring into the comity of European nations that great Republic of the West, the American Republic, whose failure to co-operate in the work of the League of Nations was, in the first place, one of the reasons why that League was not able to be an effective success. I do not in the least know how to go about bringing that result about, but in the new social order, in the new world order, American co-operation will be absolutely necessary if any kind of world order is to be maintained or established. I do think that Ireland, small as she is, does occupy a big position in the spheres of spiritual and moral values and we will be making a large contribution to the world if we throw our weight in the direction of promoting world order, a work in which we and America will play an honourable part.
