I was hoping once more, Sir, that the Taoiseach, having broached the general question, might have indicated on what lines his mind was travelling. He spoke in reference to a reform of the League, that it would be useful and commendable we should be there to take our part in the remodelling of the League along the lines that we desire and which were best to forward the interest of our own country and also best to improve the international relations. I thought that was an introductory sentence and that he was going to tell us along what lines he wanted the League to reform, because I think it is of supreme importance. At the very close he referred to the fact that the League was not now in the position that it was six years ago—I think that was the term he mentioned. That is quite true, and for that I do not know whether to blame the enemies of the League or the friends of the League. I can never make up my mind which of them was the more responsible—those who are continually carping at the League and its failure to carry through certain things, to live up to the highest possible ideals, carping at the League because it was not perfect, and those who wanted the League to be about 100 years ahead of the time. It is extremely difficult to know which of those two sets of opinion was the more responsible for the League not now being in the healthy position it was six years ago. It was for that reason that I was hoping the Taoiseach would indicate along what lines his mind was travelling when he spoke of the reform of the League.
There is a strong demand in certain quarters for reform of the League in the sense of strengthening the powers that the League already has and the using of such powers, undeterred by the fact that it is really the exercise or the attempted exercise of powers of that kind that is largely responsible for the position in which the League finds itself at the moment. I know it is easy to condemn the League at the present moment because of its powerlessness. But such condemnation of the League does not improve the international situation. Because the League is not able to do everything that its admirers would like it to do, and that it is far from perfect, that does not mean that it is useless. The Minister referred to the useful social work—when he says social matters I presume he is not referring to the social in another sense of the words—and also the valuable health work that is being done. That alone would almost justify the existence of the League. As I mentioned, I think, on a previous occasion, even the fact of bringing a number of Powers together to discuss matters is useful. It is quite true that the League was not able to enforce sanctions, but the fact that there was even that discussion at Geneva and that there was division of opinion there —I am not speaking of the formal Vote —and the recognition that certain things could be attempted, but beyond that it was dangerous to go—some people forget that that itself may have stopped a European war on that particular occasion. Therefore, although the League and its recent history has been disappointing, I should be very sorry if we left it. It is not perfect. It is not at the moment growing in strength or respect. There are certain dangers, grave dangers, I will admit, there at the present moment; but we do not make these dangers any smaller or we should not make them any smaller by withdrawing from the League. There are certain dangers. There is the danger undoubtedly that the League may become not a League of Nations but a coalition of certain Powers. I can say that the friends of the League in certain countries in Europe, and not so very far away from this country either, are doing a great deal to damage the League in that sense. They are trying to turn the League into a combination of Powers against certain other Powers. About these certain other Powers I have no delusions whatsoever, and about one or two of them I have had occasion on an entirely different situation from this to speak about 12 months ago. There are certain big Powers in Europe, in the centre and the east of Europe, between which I see very little difference. Yet I think it is a wrong thing—this aligning and this effort to align the League on the side of one set of Powers. I raise that because I think it is a very practical question. I think it is a matter to which our representative at Geneva might have his attention especially called. Our representative at the assembly might dwell on that point, that there is that danger. I think the Taoiseach will agree with me that there is that particular danger that the League is now almost formally and officially becoming an alliance of certain Powers against certain other Powers. That is not its function, and, as I say, the people that are doing most damage to the League in that respect are those that put themselves up as being the greatest advocate of the principle of the League of Nations. They are making it exceedingly difficult for those who believe in the League to continue in their belief in the League because they are using the League either for an idealism that fails to take account of facts or else they are using the League for what I might call Party politics, using the word in the biggest possible sense, or, as the phrase is now, for or against a certain ideology. It is a danger, and I think it is useful that we should be there, small as we are, to try to help, because sometimes small nations find by experience that by a lead of theirs they can stir up the others—especially if they repeat the attack one or two years. I found that myself in dealing with the question of economic control. The first year I do not think I had a single supporter. The next year I had half the League with me. Hence I think it useful to stress this danger as one to which I would like our representative's attention specially directed.
The other thing I am afraid of is that some people are much too anxious to pull the League into everything. It is desirable that the League would be strong enough to enforce international obligations. But it is not strong enough. It has neither the moral authority nor the physical authority to do that. And do not blame the League for that. Blame us here, and Great Britain and France and Germany and Russia, and every other nation, for it. It is no good pretending that the League has all the original sin. It is because we and every other one of us uses the League for his own ends. Every nation there looks after its own interest first and foremost, even in the League of Nations. There was a time when the League of Nations was obviously run by one Power, but even so, it was doing useful work. That control was not too blatant. I am afraid it has now become just a little too blatant, and if the friends of the League have their way, will become more blatant still, so that any chance of a real League will be out of the question.
Take, for instance, a couple of the questions in which the League—failed, shall I say? On the Abyssinian question it failed, because public European opinion was not ripe enough. The League and the friends of the League wanted the League to do things, and there was no real international moral sense behind them. That moral sense does not exist in Europe, and speaking of Europe I mean the world. It does not exist in the world at the present time, and you have to rely on force alone. That is a weakness. That makes the danger of going too quickly all the greater. And if the League on that occasion did what some people thought the League ought to have done—went to the length of war—let us clearly see what that meant. It meant that a League of Nations founded for the express purpose of preventing European war could not carry through that purpose without causing European war! Its very raison d'être was gone in the attempt to assert it.
Therefore, a great deal of the criticism of the League is due to the people who expect too much from it —and I am speaking now my personal opinion merely. If there is to be a reform I should prefer that we should advance slowly rather than try to advance ahead of international public opinion which I am convinced hardly exists. As I pointed out before, it has taken centuries to get respect for the ordinary law within any country, hard work, hard hitting on the part of Governments; centuries with colossal failure time after time and yet the thing has been done. But behind that use of force there was always a sense of moral obligation, the condition that the Government had a definite moral authority. Let us remember that does not exist where the League is concerned. All we are anxious, therefore, to get is a working instrument which at the beginning may be able to do very little. I am convinced that a portion of its failure is due to the fact that they are attempting too much.
Take the other instance that happened the other day. Technically, I suppose, the League could get out of it. There was the invasion of Austria. We all have our views, some very strong and very definite, on that particular piece of policy. Austria was a member of the League of Nations. Technically, of course, there was nobody there to appeal to the League. Technically, the Schusnigg Government had resigned and handed over its authority to somebody else, and, therefore, there could be no appeal. Again, surely it was quite clear there could not be an appeal because things internationally had come to such a pitch that an appeal was out of the question and would have been useless. Austria had to stand alone. The League could be appealed to, but what could or would the League do? Again, it is not the League that is to blame, but the individual Powers.
I personally approve of the waiting attitude. I do not know that there is anything to be done at the moment, but I should like that we should have a definite line as to the developments we should like to see occurring there, and I should like our representative to be made aware of the dangers that undoubtedly are there at the moment of developing along lines that can only lead to the final damnation of the League. There are withdrawals from the League, but I do not think we ought to follow that line.
It is an attempt to preserve European peace. You may say it has three-quarters failed. Well, for the remaining quarter I still hold we ought to back it up. There is useful work to be done, and there is useful work being done by the League. If our representative is not there, the League might do certain work of which we might not approve. The Taoiseach referred to health work and social work. It is easy to get international conventions there to which we might have strong moral objections, and in that sense it is useful to have an individual there to represent our point of view. Our delegation from the very start has always taken up a very definite line on these matters. We should not let these things go by default by coming out of the League. That is my attitude towards the League itself.
There is one other question which perhaps the Taoiseach might answer. I saw that our representative at Geneva was present, across the lake, at Evian at a conference. What line are we taking up at that International Conference meeting at Evian? I see that it has now adjourned to London. Have we a policy on the matter at all, or were our people there simply in the capacity of observers?