Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 May 1925

Vol. 11 No. 13

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 60—LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

60.—Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £4,824 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1926, chun Deontas i gCabhair do Chostaisí Chumann na Náisiún agus chun Chostaisí eile mar gheall air sin.

60.—That a sum not exceeding £4,824 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for a Grant in Aid of the Expenses of the League of Nations and for other Expenses in connection therewith.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I do not think I need say much on this Vote, as it was actually touched upon in the last Estimate. I had better explain, however, that the decrease is due to a change in the general budget of the League. The desirability of our membership of the League I do not think I need stress. We dealt with the most important aspects of the League's activity during last year on the last Estimate. We also dealt with our representative there. I may say that the last two years, 1923 and 1924, we regard, roughly, as both our first year. In the first year it will be remembered that the General Election was only just over and that the new Dáil was due to meet, when the President and certain other delegates went there. They only remained to be received into the League, and then came back. Last year we also went there. Although the expenditure could not be considered high last year, at the same time, following the reception that we received the first year, and the great hospitality extended to us, a fair amount of last year's expenditure was incurred as an acknowledgment of the reception we had received in the previous year. The most important matter to be considered by the League this year will be the Protocol. I have already, I think, given some indication of that, although I was told it did not convey much as to what our attitude is on that.

Major COOPER

I suppose there is in the Dáil no more convinced believer in the League of Nations than my self. I look upon it as the one hope for the peace of the world. It may be an insecure hope, but it is a hope. I want to again bombard the Minister to give us more information about the League. I can quite well understand any Deputy in this Dáil asking why should we vote this money to the League. We know nothing about it, or what it is doing. We do not know what our delegates do there. I have here the official report of the debates in the Canadian House of Commons for the 17th March last, from which I take the following:—

Right Honourable W.L. Mackenzie King (Prime Minister): I beg to lay on the Table copy of the report of the Canadian delegates to the Fifth Assembly of the League of Nations, and also copy of the journals of the Fifth Assembly of the League of Nations, containing summarised reports of all plenary meetings of the Assembly. I move: "That 800 copies in the English language, and 200 copies in the French language, of the report of the Canadian delegates to the Fifth Assembly of the League of Nations be printed forthwith."

I think that is a Canadian precedent that the Minister might have followed, and I think that there might have been a report from the Irish delegates. I personally have gathered from conversations with some of the delegates very interesting and very important information regarding the various discussions that took place at Geneva last year. Unless one was lucky enough to capture the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or Deputy Heffernan, or Deputy Professor O'Sullivan, or one of the delegates who went to the Assembly, we would know nothing at all except what we might learn from the Press reports. There are many things that might be represented to us from a very different angle in an official report to the reports that appear in the Press, which are generally from agencies like Reuter, that cater for the whole world, and not necessarily for this Assembly or for the people of the Saorstát.

I do suggest that the Minister's policy of waiting to be asked is wrong, and that he ought to lay these things on the Table for us. If it is consistent with the dignity of the Prime Minister in Canada to do that, surely it is not inconsistent with the dignity of the Minister for External Affairs to get these reports for us, so that we may know what is happening, and that we may be able to discuss this Estimate in a more instructive and a more educated manner.

There is a whole side of the work of the League of Nations that we know nothing at all about. There is one matter to which the Minister made no reference at all, and to which the League is devoting itself, and that is the question of health. The League of Nations is trying to stop these great epidemics which spread across Europe in the middle ages—epidemics like the black death which spread across the whole world, and epidemics such as Spanish influenza which, a few years ago, was responsible for so many deaths. The League of Nations is trying, by a combined effort, to stop these great epidemics, and in that respect it is doing a most valuable work, about which we know nothing. We are members of the League, but I suggest we are uninformed and uninstructed members. I do not think the Minister has done anything to encourage the work of the League of Nations' Union, which aims at educating the public. I am not sure that he is even a member of that Union. I suggest he would do well to encourage publicity of this kind, and to create an enlightened public opinion, rather than by coming here once a year, and merely moving the adoption of the Estimate, or merely saying that we went to Geneva last year, and that we intend going again this year. The Minister says the chief work is the Protocol, and his comment on that is, "I have already told you about that." There is a great deal more work in the League of Nations than that. If we had a detailed report showing the subcommittees on which our different representatives sat, showing the work done by them, and giving the sentiments that they expressed, then we should know where we stood, but at present, in regard to this Estimate, as in regard to last year, we are groping in the dark.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would like to support the view taken by Deputy Bryan Cooper regarding the work of the League of Nations, and the necessity for justifying to the public the affiliation, shall I call it, to, or the association of the Saorstát with that League. The contribution of the Saorstát to the League of Nations includes a contribution to the expenses of the International Labour Organisation. On several occasions I have spoken of the work of the International Labour Organisation, and I have referred to the amount of information regarding social conditions in every aspect, in all parts of the world, compiled and circulated by that department of the League of Nations. There is in addition, as I understand, though I am not familiar with it, to the work of the Labour Organisation, a great deal of work of an informative character circulated by the League of Nations which should be available in the reading room for members of the Dáil. I hope, when we find ourselves in the new library, there will be available for Deputies copies of all international matter printed by the League of Nations, and circulated for the information of the nations comprising that League.

I think it is well Deputy Cooper has emphasised the non-political work of the League of Nations. The idea of the League being a clearing house for the nations is one, I think, worth drawing attention to. It is a body which is able to gather information on an extraordinary variety of subjects, from all parts of the world, to relate the reports, one to the other, and to let every country which is affiliated or associated with the League have the benefit of that compilation of information. If we made right use of that information the amount asked for in this Vote is a very small one and the information is obtained at a very low price. Much of it would be impossible to be obtained by the individual efforts of the Minister, much of it would be necessary to be obtained, in any case, by the Minister which was looking after the work of the Government, thoroughly, and if it had to rely upon its own efforts it could not obtain that information at anything like the cost involved in this Vote.

I would like if the Minister would tell us what the position of the Saorstát is in regard to the permanent Court of International Justice. It is noted under sub-head A that the Vote includes our share of the expenses for the Court of International Justice. I think there is some distinction between that Court, or rather adhesion to that Court by the nations separately, and association of membership of the League, but I would like to know what is the actual position of the permanent Court of International Justice, and whether the Saorstát has had any particular relationship to the Court, or whether it is merely a case that being members of the League we are bound by that fact to refer certain matters which may be in dispute to this permanent Court of International Justice. Little is known of it in this country and I hope that the Minister will enlighten us, somewhat, in this matter. There are some people who think that a permanent Court of International Justice is likely to be of more importance in settling disputes between nations than any other function of the League of Nations. Perhaps we could have some information on this point. I am sorry I am not prepared with any special points in respect to it, but in a general way I would like the Minister to explain for the benefit of myself and other Deputies what the relationship of the Saorstát is to this permanent Court of International Justice.

Mr. FITZGERALD

As I said, with regard to the general Conventions that we have been represented at, we will lay the report of the League of Nations on the Table of the House. I will discuss with the Minister for Finance how far it would be possible to publish, and circulate to members, the general League report of the work of the Assembly and other League reports that we get.

I was asked what our attitude in regard to opium and arms was. I think our attitude on opium was fairly public and got a fair amount of publicity in the Press. Roughly speaking, we supported the American attitude for taking the most effective means of suppressing that traffic. It was not entirely successful. There was a certain amount of opposition to the American attitude for the more rigid suppression of the traffic. We approached the matter from a perfectly disinterested point of view as to what was for the good of the people and to our mind the nearest approach to that was the American attitude.

The matter of arms was more complicated, I think. We naturally disapprove of the wholesale distribution of arms. At the same time we think that governments should certainly be able to get the arms they require for the maintenance of order in and for the protection of their own country.

As we all know, there has been a great deal of what is called illegal traffic in arms. Many arms manufacturers are quite ready to supply with arms anybody who is prepared to pay for them. The arms business, as I know from personal experience, has aspects which are very dubious indeed. Our representative is at present there and will take the line of attempting to suppress what one might call illegal, though not codified as illegal, trade, though even this activity has little trade in Ireland. The report of the general conference and the attitude which our representative takes there will be laid on the Table of the House, and, if the Minister for Finance agrees, we will circulate also the reports of all these conferences. In regard to the question which Deputy Johnson raised about the Court of International Justice, that is budgeted for in the general League budget. There is also what is known as the optional clause 26. We are considering adherence to that clause. There is one matter which has delayed our action in that, and that is, we are not quite sure whether we can already be regarded as being bound by the statute which was ratified by Great Britain before our coming into separate existence and before our membership of the League. It is a question of whether or not we have to ratify it on behalf of this country. When that question is cleared up, so far as I have gone into the matter, I would be entirely in favour of adopting that optional clause. Whether we should bring any matters before the Court of International Justice is a question for the future, but, so far, we have had no matter to bring before that Court. I am not sure whether the Deputy asked anything further on that point.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister has touched on a question which is at the back of my mind. I am not quite sure of the provisions of the optional clause in the Covenant, but I was rather anxious to know whether the Ministry had come to a decision as to its position in respect to this International Court. Apparently, from the Minister's statement, it has not come to a separate decision. It is doubtful whether a decision, come to before the Saorstát was established, is binding on the Saorstát. In any case I think it is desirable that the Ministry should come to a decision on its own account.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Possibly the Deputy misunderstood me. First of all, it is a question whether we are parties to the statute. That is not quite clear. If we are parties to the statute well and good, and if not we will probably become parties. After that, once the matter is cleared up, my own point of view is that it is in our interests, and that we would be justified in adhering to the optional clause. That has nothing whatever to do with whatever anybody else may think or do in regard to that clause.

Vote put and agreed to.