I move:
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £6,355 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íochtha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Deontas i gCabhair do Chostaisí Chumann na Náisiún agus chun Costaisí eile mar gheall air sin.
That a sum not exceeding £6,355 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, 1932, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the League of Nations and for other Expenses in connection therewith.
This Vote shows a certain increase, part of which is under sub-head A— Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the League of Nations. This comes under a particular basis. We pay our share of whatever the increase in any year may be. In addition there is an increase in Sub-head B—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—due to the fact of our being elected on the Council and in consequence of many more visits having to be paid to Geneva. The Budget of the League on which the Vote depends is subject to a very elaborate procedure of examination each year at the Assembly. Attempts have been made from time to time to get that very narrowly confined, and they have succeeded in the main in having the Vote kept reasonably low. Suggestions have been made from time to time that a particular sum should be set out, and that no increase on that should be allowed. On that point we have, as members of the delegation, not ever accepted that particular suggestion, because we think that the activities of the League should be judged according as they are brought forward and according as any new suggestion is made.
If the suggestion is a tolerable one we think the money required should be voted. We have an easier task in that matter, because we pay only 1 per cent. of the entire budget. It is much easier for us to bear an increase than some of the larger countries upon whom the extra amount would weigh much more heavily.
The work of the League is laid before the Deputies each year by reason of the report issued after the annual delegation of the Assembly in the autumn of each year. A very full report was published last year summarising the whole work of the Assembly and of the various technical and finance committees. There are two or three important points which call for consideration just at this time in connection with the League of Nations Vote. There has been a considerable misunderstanding for a great number of years apparently in this House with regard to the economic policy of the League and considerable criticism has been directed at the Irish Free State delegation from time to time for their appearance at certain meetings called for certain purposes and at what they say and do at these meetings.
The economic policy of the League has in the last two years centred almost entirely on Europe. In 1927 an Economic World Conference was called, and that, as its title indicated, had a scope definitely outside Europe. Even while it was being discussed it was clear that it was the European economic system, and the other economic systems that had failed everywhere, that were discussed and that adjustments were under consideration. The World Conference of that year was not in the main made up of representatives of Governments. In fact, it was clear before the Conference started, and from speakers in introducing resolutions from the World Conference afterwards to the respective Parliaments, that the Conference did not in any way bind Governments. The people who voted did not vote as representing countries. It was more to be regarded as a collection of experts in various matters who met together to take into consideration certain governmental and national difficulties that there might be about the solution of different problems. These experts met in order to put their heads together to see if there was any solution possible at that time for the difficulties into which the world was drifting.
The recommendation of that Conference has been always carelessly described as being anti-tariff—anti-excess tariff. That specially-set-out phrase showed that on one occasion, when a particular resolution was being passed, one of the delegates objected to the phrase because it was too general of application. It referred to the movement against tariffs. Our delegate called attention to what he thought was the unfortunate wording, and it was explained to him by a number of delegates who had gone through the sub-committees that that particular phrase was the result of a compromise. It became clear that the phrase was intended to cover bargaining and excess tariffs, but not ordinary tariffs which any country would bring in for the protection of industries which it thought fit. A certain direction was given to European economics by that Conference. The various impediments to trade were brought under review, prohibitions, export bounties, troublesome customs formalities, and a definite view was expressed by a majority of financial and business people who had a special interest in shipping and wanted to see the greatest movement in trade activity. At any rate the suggestion of these people was towards simplifying trade relations in Europe. Special attention was called to the position of economically backward countries or to new countries which had hitherto been dependent on agriculture. Special reservations were made with regard to them. Because of that, a number of European States who were agricultural States but had ambitions otherwise, decided to accept the report, and on this basis our delegates accepted it. As I say, they explained their position in speeches that were made at one of the committees dealing with industry and commerce, and finally in the Assembly.
The 1927 Conference had, in fact, very little effect. From that until the autumn of 1929 the tendency of Europe was distinctly in favour of tariffs, rather than against them, and tariffs tended to increase rather than to go down. That being the case in 1929 when the question was beginning to be felt the Assembly of the League decided to make a collective effort to bring down the level of tariffs, aiming mainly at the high and extravagant tariffs in some countries of Europe, and they decided that a special Conference should be called. That Conference is generally referred to as the Tariff Truce Conference and it had three meetings since. The third meeting took place last year and it definitely showed that there was not any very strong support for the proposals put forward under the description of "concerted economic action," which was generally against tariffs, aimed at stabilising tariffs for a particular period, and they went on to suggest that action should be taken by way of bi-lateral agreement between countries to see that tariff barriers were further lowered.
While that Conference was having these operative meetings special emphasis had been laid on the European situation by the action taken by the French Foreign Minister who, in 1929, during the course of the Assembly, convened a meeting of representatives of European States and put before them proposals for what he described as an Economic Federation of Europe. That Commission afterwards became bound up as part of the League, tied on to the ordinary economic organisations, and meets under the auspices of the League round about the time when Council meetings or meetings of the Assembly are being held. It has had a variety of meetings and, on the whole, has been barren of results. It is too early yet to say that there will not be results from it, even on the side of tariff adjustments, but so far very few have taken place. Any that have taken place have taken place either as a result of the Tariffs Truce Conference or as a result of the meeting of the Council for the European Union. People who have been disappointed with the results of these meetings can form small groups of their own, but there is a philosophy behind the European Union which might preserve it and give its activities in future a great deal more importance than they have secured in the past. The difficulty of Europe, as seen from Geneva, comes roughly to this: That the situation in Europe is based upon the Peace Treaties, that there have been certain territorial divisions in relation to these Treaties, and although they are supposed to be sacrosanct, and people are unable to revise them for the time being, they have certainly demonstrated, in more ways than one, that they are economically unsound divisions.
The purpose then at Geneva is how to get over the worst features of the bad division of Europe from the economic aspect while keeping political divisions as they are. There are two schools of thought. One is definitely for revision of the whole peace arrangement, the rearrangement of boundaries, the better dispositions of people and so on. The other hangs on to the present distribution of peoples and territories in Europe and seeks to mitigate the worst effects of it by lowering all the barriers which nations erect, one against the other. So you have proposals for freer movement of goods, and freer movement of peoples and for the better treatment of foreigners by the different States of Europe. It is quite possible that the philosophy which lies behind these European proposals may lead to success in the end, because undoubtedly as Europe is at the moment the limitation of armaments would probably prevent new alliances leading to new barriers. Any attempt to secure readjustment would provoke new alliances, whereas if territorial adjustments in Europe can be softened by doing away with these national barriers which people erect against one another the difficulties of the geographical situation may not be so keenly felt. That is a point of view which certain people hold. They definitely urge along the line of European solidarity as opposed to the original activities of other peoples. Most European nations have decided on forming regional groups. There has been one group amongst Scandanavian countries in Northern Europe. There were unsuccessful attempts between Germany and Roumania and arrangements between Jugo-Slavia and Roumania. Then there was a special treaty adopted to which so much attention was directed in the Spring. That was the arrangement between Germany and Austria. Those who urge European solidarity believe that these small groupings make more effective barriers against people outside, and if there is to be any lowering of barriers it must be done by a general movement throughout Europe and not solidarity in certain areas. That struggle still goes on. Meantime the economic depression goes on. Ministers of different countries abroad who look back to their own countries think of the difficulties that may be caused by a reduction in tariffs. A little bit of sacrifice here and there from the standpoint of national industry might be worth having in the long run and might lead to the better distribution of goods. Finance and agriculture have both had a certain importance attached to them from the European standpoint. In fact, the only positive thing that has proceeded from any of these various groupings recently has been the movement to set up the International Credit Corporation in order to assist certain of the more depressed countries in Europe to get into a better condition. As far as we were concerned, the International Credit Corporation held out no prospect of advantage because although it was signed and signed solidly and with obvious eagerness, by some fourteen countries, the view expressed at Geneva was that nations would not succeed in getting money from this International Credit Corporation at any less percentage than eight or nine, and for some countries it was in fact five points higher. Our own Agricultural Credit Corporation would provide money at a much less percentage and consequently there was no advantage in our joining from that point of view, but there was advantage from the point of view of the benefit it would do and the sum of money which we would be called on to contribute was infinitesimal in comparison to the total.
Further there was clear evidence that it was the wish of a number of States to make the Corporation function at once. One of the activities that was advertised as amongst those which the Corporation would have to attend to right away was that of lending money to Austria, so that Austria might change over from her particular type of agriculture to the livestock business, and it was clearly obnoxious for this country to be lending money for the purpose of engineering rivals to herself hereafter. There have been quite a variety of activities in connection with these Conferences. The economic situation is, as I say, recognised by those who meet at Geneva from the point of view of Europe to be very bad. Yet, all these financial and business people and statesmen, meeting together, find themselves unable to get any agreement for alleviating the distress of those who are suffering depression most acutely, or for getting Europe into a better state. The views generally expressed at Geneva, in the Spring of this year were of the most pessimistic type. It looked as if all the sympathy for certain countries was going to be of little effect in face of the distress which was settling down in certain of the countries of Europe. At the moment, Tariff Conferences have come to an end. The Committee for European Union has one positive thing to its credit, that is the International Credit Corporation, and it is proceeding with an examination of a variety of other things, but anything that emerged as late as the Spring promised no hope of early readjustment of economic conditions in Europe.
That is the situation that will have to be faced in the Autumn.
[An Ceann Comhairle took the Chair.]
While this is going on in the matter of the economic state of things represented at Geneva there has been an endeavour to make some definite progress in the matter of disarmament. A draft convention in regard to disarmament was drawn up and the date of the general disarmament conference fixed for February next. The draft convention is a disappointing document in some ways. It is drawn up with certain schedules, and there are certain figures which will be filled in. The fact that there was not an approach to finality on some figures would augur that there was not a likelihood of success. The fact that there are certain things omitted— trained reserves and war material— would argue very little in the way of success next February. But some progress has been made. There was a definite reluctance for years to approach the question of trained reserves or war material in the circumstances of almost completely mechanised war. The things that were vital and proper for a discussion and solution were being avoided, and so clearly avoided that it would have been worse than useless to call the disarmament conference while these things were avoided. There are certain gaps in the document, and blanks where figures should be. Still it is to the good that people have clarified all these points on which there is likely to be disagreement, and are preparing their own arguments as to what figures, if any, should be put in, and what amounts, if any, should be put down to trained reserves or war material, and the things to be faced up to in the general conference for disarmament purposes next February. If one is to judge by the speeches made by the Foreign Ministers at Geneva from time to time, it is apparent that the acuteness of the economic depression has driven them to realise that expenditure on armies and war material is so much waste, that the money could be better used, and that these things are extravagances of a harmful type which should be definitely got rid of. The document is a disappointment from the point of view of the small nations, who hoped to see a very big advance, or at any rate a definite reduction of armaments, if not complete disarmament. Delegates from this country will be instructed to support everything that has for its object disarmament and to make everything proposed for that purpose or end as comprehensive as possible.
While an approach has been made in this way by getting nations to meet in a friendly humour for this purpose, other things had to be attended to in order to induce that humour. Security has been sought by certain countries and sometimes by what appears to be improper avenues. There was one Convention in the way of an approach to security. In addition there were also things I have spoken of here in the General Acts where nations have bound themselves and subjected themselves to the criticism of public opinion if they do not act by their guarantees in such things as the Kellogg Pact and the Optional Clause of the General Act which we had here some time ago. It is quite impossible, of course, to say what changes may come before February and whether the fact that depression is still growing in Europe may have brought about such national changes that the Disarmament Conference may meet in an atmosphere that could not lead to proper results at all. Provided that could be done, there was apparent a disposition to get down to facts and to the discussion of vital details of this whole matter of armaments.
Various countries have complained that certain types of armament are things which do not matter. Other countries feel that their special type has been singled out for publicity and attack. On the whole there is a good disposition. There was one phrase used by one delegate. It was not controverted and it seemed to be accepted as one point of view with regard to the Conference. This delegate referred to a certain disposition going on and said he did not attach so much importance to the publicity that was going to be given of the detailed information that was going to be laid before the Conference by certain Governments who made this clear that they were going to suffer only a certain percentage of deductions in their disarmaments.
He said it was his opinion that any nation which came to the Conference in regard to disarmament by Europe comes there for disarmament. That was a movement that seemed to lead further on. That statement was not controverted. I would not like to say that it was accepted.
