asked the Minister for External Affairs if he can give any information to the Dáil as to the number and names of the States which have already signified their adherence to the Geneva Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, and as to the attitude taken up by the Executive Council in regard to the Protocol and the reasons therefor.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - THE GENEVA PROTOCOL.
TOMAS MAC EOIN
The Geneva Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes has been signed by the 17 following countries:—Albania, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Czecho-Slovakia, Chile, Esthonia, Finland, France, Greece, Latvia, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Uruguay, Yugo-Slavia. Only one State, Czecho-Slovakia, has ratified the Protocol. In reply to the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to my answer to question No. 10 on the Order Paper for Friday, 20th March.
Does that mean that the Minister will consult the Dáil, or that the Ministry will intimate to the Dáil its decision before conveying that decision to the League of Nations?
Yes. Before any action is taken in this matter the Dáil will be consulted.
But a negative attitude might be considered to be an action. If you do not approve, no action whatever would be taken as a turning down. Are we to have some information, and the possibility of a discussion, before any decision is taken, whether it be yea or nay?
Naturally, we will make up our own minds on the matter first. When we have done that, and before we take any action as a result of making up our minds on the matter, the Dáil will be notified.
May I also ask whether the Minister has had its attention drawn to a communication sent by the Canadian Government to the League of Nations in regard to this matter? Will the Ministry give consideration to the attitude of the Canadian Government?
I am aware that two countries have notified the League of Nations of their non-acceptance of the Protocol, one being Canada.
Will the decision that the Dáil will be asked to take be one that will concern the respective merits of the Protocol and any subsequent pact that might be proposed by any other member of the Commonwealth of Nations in substitution for the Protocol?
I do not quite understand the Deputy's question. I believe the question of the Protocol is actually referred to the next assembly of the League of Nations. Any decision that may be come to by the League of Nations, or that we may agree to at the next Session of the Assembly, will naturally have to be referred to this House before we can ratify it.
Will the Minister give any explanation of the fact that on the 2nd October last the delegation, representing the Irish Council, of which the Minister was at one time the head, although he was not there at the time, publicly welcomed the Protocol and agreed publicly to recommend the acceptance of the draft Protocol and agreed publicly to open immediately the said Protocol for signature? Furthermore, will he explain if he agreed publicly to recommend that all States should accede at the earliest possible date to the special Protocol with reference to the courts of international justice? In view of that, can the Minister explain the length of time it has taken for the Executive Council to make up its mind?
It is mainly a question that justifies taking almost an unlimited amount of time for one to make up one's mind on. As far as I am personally concerned, I did not recommend the taking of any steps towards the approval of the Protocol. It must be remembered the representatives who go to Geneva are not plenipotentiaries. They can only say what comes into their mind on the subject at the time. They may alter their minds very considerably when they come back.
Have they recommended its acceptance to the Government, as they undertook to do on the 2nd October?
We have arrived at no decision to sign or ratify, and are not therefore committed to the Protocol. As far as I am concerned, I do not think I could recommend its acceptance.
The Minister can answer this question if he will. He said that Canada had intimated to the League of Nations its non-acceptance of the Protocol. I desire to ask whether his attention has been drawn to the counter-proposition or suggestion that was made by the Canadian Government to the League of Nations. Has that had the attention of the Ministry here?
Yes, I have seen the document that the Deputy speaks of. As far as the counter-proposition is concerned, we ourselves could not put forward a counter-proposition inasmuch as we are a country which has practically disarmed itself and which, by its Constitution, cannot go to war without the sanction of the Legislative Assembly.
The Minister said he was not quite sure that he understood the previous question of mine. May I put it this way:—The Protocol has been injuriously affected by the decision taken by Great Britain in the substitution of an alternative to it. Will this House, when it comes to consider the matter, have both alternatives before it, and be in the position to advance and support either of them independently at the Assembly?
I am afraid the question is even less understandable than it was before. The Deputy refers to the Protocol and to the counter-proposition made by Great Britain. If we propose accepting either the Protocol or the counter-proposition by Great Britain—possibly the case might arise of the necessity for deciding for or against the proposition or some formal proposition that the Deputy refers to as being made by Great Britain—that would be referred here before we could be committed to it.