I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £23,250 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1951, for contributions towards the Expenses of the Council of Europe and of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and for other expenses in connection therewith.
In introducing the resolution for the ratification of the statute creating the Council of Europe on the 12th July last year (Vol. 117, No. 5, cols. 694 and 695), I set out generally the various considerations which made it important that we should participate actively in this new attempt at international co-operation in Europe. I am glad to be able to report to the House that Ireland has played a leading and an important part in the development of the Council of Europe, both at the Assembly and at the Ministerial level, during the last year.
The Irish representatives in the Consultative Assembly played an active role in the Assembly itself and in the work of the various commissions set up by the Assembly. Ireland had four delegates in the Assembly and four substitute delegates. These were:—
Deputy Norton (Tánaiste);
Deputy Everett (Minister for Posts and Telegraphs);
Deputy de Valera (Leader of the Opposition), and Deputy MacEntee.
The substitute delegates were:—
Deputy Aiken,
Deputy Sweetman,
Senator Crosbie, and Senator Finan.
The work of our delegates and substitute delegates was above reproach. From a national point of view, they succeeded in focussing the attention of the leading parliamentarians of the principal countries of Western Europe on the question of the unnatural division of our country, and in making known to them the facts concerning this injustice.
I would like, here, incidentally to deal with some criticism which appeared in the British Press concerning the fact that our delegates had the audacity to mention that the Partition of Ireland was one of the questions which disturbed the peace of Europe. The origin of this criticism itself is an indication of its purpose. According to British propagandists, every question is a fit subject for discussion save and except the Partition of this country and the continued justification of Partition by Britain.
While I have no responsibility for the acts of our representatives in the Assembly of the Council of Europe, I should like to avail of this opportunity of endorsing their action in bringing this matter to the bar of world opinion. Obviously, if close co-operation is to be achieved between European nations, the first essential is to discuss and, if possible, remove the causes of friction that may exist between the nations that compose the Council of Europe. Partition is certainly one of the outstanding causes of friction in Western Europe to-day. As Irishmen, we make no apology for desiring the territorial unity of our nation. As democrates, we make no apology for demanding that the Irish people should be allowed to determine their own affairs democratically without outside interference. As Europeans, we make no apology for seeking to remove one of the causes of disunity in Europe.
Our representatives, however, did not confine themselves to matters of purely national interest. On the broader plane, of international co-operation, they were to the fore with their contributions to the discussions on the many complex problems that arose; these included such matters as the future political structure of Europe, economic co-operation, human rights, cultural co-operation and co-operation in the field of social security. They made important contributions to the work of the various Assembly Committees, as well as to the debates in the Assembly itself.
As was to be expected, and indeed, it was only proper that it should be, the delegates and substitute delegates did not always share the same views. They took an independent stand on all questions that arose before the Assembly. On many matters, such as the need for the creation of machinery for the settlement of disputes between member states and the powers of the Assembly, their viewpoint coincided. I am sure that I am stating the views of every member of the House and, indeed, the feeling of the country generally in expressing appreciation of their work in the Assembly, and of their clear statements concerning the enforced territorial division of our nation. It is gratifying to find that, whatever differences may exist on Party issues at home, our representatives can talk with a united voice on national questions outside the country.
The Assembly Session lasted a month, but the Assembly's work is still being carried on in the interval between sessions by some of these committees which are pursuing studies entrusted to them by the Assembly. The Standing Committee, on which Deputy Norton is the Irish representative, provides a means of contact between the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers when the Assembly is not in session. It has met on several occassions. The General Affairs Committee, which has been engaged on the huge task of examining the political structure of Europe and the drawing up of a report for discussion at the next Assembly Session, has met three times already. On the first occasion, Senator Crosbie attended as substitute for Deputy Norton. Deputy Norton attended the second and third meetings in Strasbourg.
At its second meeting in Strasbourg, this Committee drew up a number of resolutions for consideration by the next session of the Consultative Assembly, and dealing with:—
(1) Relations between the Council of Europe and other international organisations.
(2) The nomination by Governments of Ministers or Secretaries of European Affairs.
(3) Amendments to the Statute of the Council of Europe and of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee of Ministers.
(4) The creation of an Executive Committee composed of members of the Committee of Ministers and of the Consultative Assembly to coordinate and plan the work of the Council of Europe.
The Committee on Social Questions continued its work since the last session and has examined various questions, including the question of European housing. On this committee Deputy Everett is the Irish representative and his substitute is Senator Finan. The Committee on Economic Questions, on which Deputy de Valera is the Irish representative, met in Paris last December and again in Strasbourg in June and in Paris in July. Deputy Aiken attended the meetings as substitute for Deputy de Valera. One of the principal aims of this committee is to evolve measures to realise the convertibility of currencies and the liberalisation of trade. Resolutions were drawn up dealing with such matters as inter-European companies, European monetary reform, agricultural production, commercial policy, steel production and the control of cartels.
The Cultural Committee, on which Deputy de Valera is the Irish representative, was responsible for drawing up the report to the Assembly on cultural matters, as a result of which the Assembly submitted to the Committee of Ministers proposals for greater European co-operation in the cultural field.
The Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions, on which Ireland is represented by Deputy MacEntee, undertook the task of drafting a Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which the Assembly submitted to the Committee of Ministers after some amendment. This committee also gave preliminary consideration to the questions of a European nationality and a European passport. The committee met in Strasbourg on the 23rd June.
The Committee on Rules and Procedure and Privileges is entrusted with the task of examining the provisional rules of procedure of the Consultative Assembly. Deputy Sweetman, who deputises for Deputy Norton on this committee, represented Ireland at the meetings of the committee held during the Assembly Session. The committee set up a sub-committee of six members which was authorised to meet in the interval between sessions to complete the task assigned to it.
The work of the Consultative Assembly is, therefore, continuing between Assembly Sessions with the energetic co-operation of our representatives.
A full report concerning the activities of the Irish delegates to the Assembly of the Council of Europe is being prepared and will be circulated as soon as it is completed. I have no governmental responsibility for the acts and affairs of the Irish delegates and substitute delegates, once appointed to the Assembly; they are independent and free to act as they choose. This is at it should be, as the Assembly is composed of parliamentary representatives rather than governmental representatives. While being most careful to retain this important line of distinction, I felt it desirable that every assistance should be afforded by my Department to the Irish representatives and their substitutes. Accordingly, in so far as the limited resources available permitted, I placed a small secretariat, consisting of officials of my Department, at the disposal of the Irish delegates, both here and in Strasbourg. Unfortunately, owing to shortage of personnel, I feel that the secretariat provided by my Department was not as adequate as I would have liked it to be. In so far as it lies in my power, it is my desire to continue to afford the maximum degree of co-operation I can to our representatives in the Assembly of the Council of Europe.
The delegates and the substitute delegates hold office from session to session of the Assembly and, accordingly the question of the appointment of Ireland's four delegates and four substitute delegates arises for consideration before the next meeting of the Consultative Assembly on the 7th August next. It is the Government's intention to appoint the Irish delegates and substitute delegates on the same basis as last year, namely two delegates and three substitute delegates from the Government side and two delegates and one substitute delegate from the Opposition. It is proposed to appoint from the Government side the same delegates as last year. The substitute delegates from the Government side will be Deputy T.F. O'Higgins (Junior) and Senators Crosbie and Finan. Having consulted the Leader of the Opposition, and ascertained his wishes in so far as the Opposition representation is concerned, it is proposed to appoint the same delegates and substitute delegates as last year.
As the House is aware, the Council of Europe consists of two main bodies; the Assembly, whose activities I have just dealt with and the Committee of Ministers, which is the repository of the power to make decisions. In the Committee of Ministers, I have represented Ireland during the last year. Four sessions of the Committee of Ministers were held during the year:—
(a) Strasbourg from 8th to 13th August, 1949;
(b) Paris from 3rd to 5th November, 1949;
(c) Strasbourg from the 30th March, to 1st April, 1950;
(d) Paris on the 3rd June, 1950.
Since the Council of Europe was formed, Greece, Iceland and Turkey were admitted to full membership, and Western Germany and the Saar were invited to join as associate members.
Broadly speaking, the main matters of controversy within the Committee of Ministers can be classified under three main heads:—
(a) The powers of the Assembly;
(b) The relationship between the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers;
(c) The relationship between the Council of Europe and the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation.
In relation to the first of these three matters, namely, the powers of the Assembly, there was a tendency to construe the statute strictly so as to restrict the powers of the Assembly to a minimum. I felt that this was unwise and would tend to weaken the effectiveness of the Assembly to such an extent that it would cease to be regarded as a serious instrument of European co-operation. I felt, too, that it was unwise to deprive the Assembly of responsibility, because its members would soon lose interest and would come to regard it merely as a debating society. This would weaken both its prestige and its own sense of responsibility. One cannot summon over 100 of the leading parliamentarians of Europe and then not allow them to discuss the problems they wish to discuss or to propose such recommendations as they may wish to make to the Committee of Ministers.
At first I found myself in a minority in the Committee of Ministers on these issues, but as I foreshadowed last year, the members of the Assembly were not content with the rather passive role originally contemplated for them by the Committee of Ministers. From the first day of its session, the Assembly made it quite clear that it would at least insist on the right to control its own agenda and proceedings. As a result of the Assembly's attitude, there is now a much more realistic approach to this question in the Committee of Ministers and I think that from now on much greater weight will be given to the views and wishes of the Assembly than was contemplated this time last year.
It is, I think, a healthy sign for Europe that the Assembly, composed as it is of representatives of the national Parliaments of member countries, should be so conscious of its own responsibility that it has not hesitated to criticise the Committee of Ministers whenever it felt that the approach of Ministers was too timorous or hesitant.
I found myself at first in disagreement with the majority of my Foreign Minister colleagues concerning the relationship which should exist between the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. For reasons which I explained last year to the House, I have felt that there should be a much closer relationship between the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly and that Ministers should attend meetings of the Assembly and be given a right to take part in the discussions of the Assembly. Considerable progress has also been made in this direction. While the exact relationship of Ministers to the Assembly has not yet been finally determined, it is now agreed that Ministers may, on certain occasions, be given the right to address the Assembly.
At the last meeting of the Committee of Ministers, a decision of fundamental importance was taken, which will, in my view, largely alter the existing structure of the Council of Europe. A joint committee, consisting of five Ministers and seven representatives of the Assembly, presided over by the President of the Assembly, is to be set up with very wide terms of reference. It is true that this body is to have power only to make recommendations, but it is quite obvious that the Committee of Ministers would find it very difficult to reject recommendations, once made by such a body. Accordingly, I think it likely that this body will become the effective focus of authority in the Council of Europe. I welcome this development as I feel that it will lead to a greater degree of co-ordination between the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers and will result in a more realistic approach by both bodies to the various problems.
The relationship between the Council of Europe and the O.E.E.C. has given rise to much discussion within the Committee of Ministers and, while a working solution has been found, no one, I think, is really quite satisfied as to the exact line of demarcation between these two international bodies. Unfortunately, we suffer from a multiplicity of international organisations, many of which have been built hurriedly—for an ad hoe purpose— without much long-term planning. The O.E.E.C., which was set up mainly to administer the Marshall Plan, deals in effect with all the economic problems of Europe. It has at its command a most efficient and highly-trained team of economists and has done extremely useful work. Unlike the Council of Europe, however, it is a purely inter-governmental organisation. Many of the topics which have been and will be dealt with by the Council of Europe relate also, of course, to economic matters. It is, therefore, difficult to segregate the spheres of activity of the two organisations.
In order to avoid the necessity for having to build up a separate technical economic machine for the Council of Europe, I have urged that the maximum facilities be afforded by the O.E.E.C. to the Assembly of the Council of Europe in relation to all economic matters. Because of the fact that the O.E.E.C. is an inter-governmental organisation and also because its composition is not exactly similar to that of the Council of Europe, there has been a certain reluctance to make the services of the O.E.E.C. freely available to the Council of Europe. However, a compromise has been reached, which, I think, will get over many of the difficulties which have hitherto existed in the relationship between the two organisations.
In addition to meetings of Foreign Ministers, a number of meetings was also held of officials representing their respective Ministers and of specialised committees consisting of Government representatives. In particular, a committee of legal experts was set up to examine the recommendations of the Assembly concerning the proposed Charter of Human Rights. I asked Mr. Cecil Lavery—now Mr. Justice Lavery—to represent the Irish Government on this committee, and I would like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to him for the very valuable contributions which he made in the discussions of this committee.
France, Turkey and Ireland were given the task of examining the accounts of the Council of Europe to ensure that accounts were properly kept and that all expenditure was in accordance with the provisions made. In accordance with this decision, I appointed the Deputy Accountant General of the Revenue Commissioners to act as auditor on behalf of this country. This official has attended meetings of the Audit Committee, and has been of considerable assistance in evolving the accounting procedure which is to be pursued in the future.
These, briefly, are the main factual events that have occurred in relation to the Council of Europe during the past year. Much of the work involved was of a procedural nature. This was inevitable in the first year, but one cannot help regretting that more fundamental problems were not reached.
It is well that, at this stage, we should have fairly clearly in mind the reasons which impel us to participate actively in this new attempt at international co-operation within Europe. One cannot blame anyone for being somewhat cynical at the failure, in the recent past, of international organisations to achieve peace and contentment among the nations. This cynicism should not, however, deter us from continuing to strive to achieve some sort of system which will enable nations to live in peace and to make available to their people the full benefits of the resources placed by Providence at the disposal of humanity. It is easy to be cynical about every endeavour that has not yet been proved successful. But if cynicism were to be the guiding influence, few endeavours would ever be pursued to a successful conclusion.
As I pointed out last year when speaking on this Estimate, the world is facing probably the greatest crisis in its known history. With modern scientific developments, a war in Europe would certainly mean the physical destruction of those areas that stand in the path of the war and may well result in the complete destruction of the civilisation we have known. In modern warfare, there are no victors, and the peoples of all the countries are the losers, whether they are involved directly or not. The experience of the two world wars in this century has taught us that wars provide no solution. Indeed, Communism and Fascism grew out of the wreckage of the first world war. The expansion of Communism throughout Europe and the destruction of the economic fabric of the world have been the main results of the last war. A third world war, with the destructive power now at the command of the bigger nations, would only intensify the destruction of our civilisation.
Wars, however, have been the rule rather than the exception. It is obvious, therefore, that, unless constant and determined efforts are made now to organise human relationship in such a way as to prevent or even, at least, to minimise the likelihood of wars, humanity will again drift into a world conflict.
Probably because of history and of the conglomeration of different nationalities, Europe has been the starting point and storm centre of most wars. Either for political or economic reasons, usually wars have been caused by the attempts of one other European nation to impose its domination over some of its neighbours. That is why the Council of Europe and the O.E.E.C. are of such importance. Both these organisations aim at removing the causes of conflict that have in the past led to war. Apart from removing causes of conflict, the Council of Europe and the concept that underlies it should bring closer together the peoples of the different European nations and their elected representatives. The greater the degree of contact and understanding that can be established on a co-operative basis, the less likely are nations to want to engage in conflict.
No amount of cynicism or despondency should allow us to relax in any way the efforts to secure these aims. As a predominantly Christian nation and as a people with a long tradition of idealism devoid of any desire to dominate, politically or economically, any other nation, we can and should take a leading part in steering Europe to a co-operative basis of organisation.
To those who, through cynicism or lack of idealism, may consider that Ireland has no mission to perform in this field, I would like to point out that Ireland is very practically and vitally interested in ensuring the peace of Europe and of the world. The development of aerial transport and of methods of warfare have radically altered the strategy and politics of war. Wars are no longer limited to neighbouring States, they can, and are likely to be, inter-continental. Ireland's geographical position which, in the past, was an element of protection, may now well turn out to be an element of particular danger to us. The technique and cost of modern armament are such as to put it out of reach of small neutral States to protect themselves adequately, without outside help, from a would-be invader. In this changed and rapidly changing set of circumstances, we in Ireland have a very vital interest in straining every nerve to maintain world peace. Linked as we are with three continents, a Christian nation with a long tradition of idealism, we can, I believe, play a useful role to this end. However, be our efforts puny or important, be they successful or ineffective, let us strive with sincerity and idealism to influence events in the way most likely to ensure the peace and welfare of humanity.
The Council of Europe differs from all previous attempts to organise for peace in two important respects, which I think invest it with far greater potentialities for good than other attempts.
In the first place, unlike the League of Nations and the United Nations Organisation, it is not purely an inter-governmental organisation. The Assembly of the Council of Europe is, in effect, the first real attempt at a European Parliament. True, the seat of power rests in the Committee of Ministers, which is inter-governmental, but the Assembly, as it has already shown, can and will increasingly assert its authority and influence.
In my view, this is of fundamental importance. Inter-governmental organisations are slow, cautious and inevitably subject to secret diplomacy. The Assembly, composed as it is of elected representatives of the people, both from the Government Parties and the Opposition Parties of the different European Parliaments, will bring a completely new concept to bear in international affairs. Secret diplomacy and power politics will cease to be effective weapons under the searchlight of an active parliamentary Assembly. It will also result in a better informed opinion in the European Parliaments on international problems and, I trust, in a greater degree of mutual understanding between the members of the different parliaments. Such an informed public opinion, coupled with closer contact between the peoples of the different nations, should reduce the tendency to drift into conflict.
In the second place, unlike previous attempts at international organisation, the Council of Europe excludes from its ambit all military matters and does not seek to enforce its rule by means of military sanctions. This, too, I think, is an important factor. Psychologically, the emphasis is placed upon the mutual desire to co-operate and is not dependent upon the use of force. It removes, to a certain degree, the element of power politics that has been so evident in other international organisations.
These two elements, and in particular the first one, give me considerable hope, that it may be possible to develop the Council of Europe on sounder foundations than earlier attempts in the same direction.
While this is not strictly related to European affairs, the House would, I think, expect me to give some indication of my views in relation to recent events in Asia and concerning their possible repercussions on the rest of the world. I need not here recite the events which have caused the gravest anxieties to the Governments and peoples of the world in recent weeks. These are well known to the House. Having entered into onerous covenants in good faith, but in an era of unfinished peace amidst the shambles that resulted from the last war, the United States and the U.N.O. had little or no alternative but to adopt the course which they pursued. With a full and sympathetic understanding of the motives of the United States and the United Nations we have watched with anxiety their efforts to maintain international peace under most difficult circumstances. The events of recent weeks are the outcome of conditions resulting from many grievous mistakes made in the recent past—at Yalta and at Potsdam, and of even more grievous mistakes made in the more distant past by European and Japanese imperialism.
This heritage from the past, coupled with the unnatural partition of Korea, was an easy target for unscrupulous exploitation. As one of the architects of the unfinished peace, Russia was not slow to exploit a situation which she had in no small measure helped to create.
While in no way wishing to take away from the very real sympathy which we extend to the United States in this crisis we, in common with the other democratic nations of the world, have much to learn from it. Partitioned, unarmed and living under a doubtful democratic rule, in conditions of economic insecurity, the people of Korea were an easy prey to an ideology that promised national unity and economic welfare. Partitioned, unarmed, politically and economically weak, the South Koreans had neither the enthusiasm nor the material resources necessary to resist an invasion led under a banner of national unity and sovereignity and backed by a strong and unscrupulous power. In these circumstances the battle for the human conscience of the people of Korea was lost before the first shot was fired, and now the sincere and, I am convinced, altruistic motive of the people of the United States will be misrepresented throughout Asia as forming part of a desire to dominate a portion of Asia.
More isolated from the centre of the storm than most other nations and partitioned ourselves, we are possibly able to view these events more objectively. Once you partition a nation and depart from the ordinary rules of democracy and liberty, you nullify the power of that nation to protect and defend itself physically and morally. Once you interfere with the sovereignty or unity of a nation, you create conditions that inevitably sow the seeds of civil war and disaster. Is it too much to hope that even in the midst of this turmoil, the pages of history that are being written in these days in Asia will bring about a realisation that the partition of our nation constitutes a dangerous festering sore in the body politic of the democratic world? The partition of Korea was the result of an unfinished peace. The partition of Ireland, too, is the result of the unfinished peace between Ireland and Britain. The efflux of time has in no way minimised the constant danger which the partition of our country involves for our people and for the democracies of the world.
Lest anything I have said should be capable of being construed as attaching blame to the United States for the partition of Korea, let me hasten to remind the House that only a short time ago President Truman made a declaration setting out in unmistakable terms the opposition of the United States to the continued partition of Korea. He declared:—
"All Americans who have come to know the Korean people appreciate their fierce passion for freedom and their keen desire to become an independent nation.
The debilitated state in which the Korean economy was left by the Japanese has been accentuated by the separation of the hydro-electric power, coal and metal and fertiliser industries of the north from the agricultural and textile industries of the south, and by the effects of continuing Communist agitation.
The Republic of Korea, and the freedom-seeking people of North Korea held under Soviet domination, seek for themselves a united, selfgoverning and sovereign country, independent of foreign control and support and with membership in the United Nations.
The United States has a deep interest in the continuing progress of the Korean people towards these objectives."
This clear-cut statement by President Truman made a deep impression on my mind at the time it was made because of the parallel it held for us in relation to the enforced partition of our country against the overwhelming wishes of our people.
The struggle which divides the present-day world into two camps reaches far deeper into the foundations of our civilisation than a struggle which is based solely on the territorial or national ambitions of one or more nations. It is a struggle which will be won or lost in the conscience of mankind, rather than in the field of strategy or diplomacy.
I fear that insufficient thought has so far been given by the leaders of the democratic world to the fundamental issues that are involved and to the remedies. Many decisions have had to be taken in the agony of the moment, and therefore based on the strategic and military aspects of the conflict. Military preparedness to remove the temptation of military adventures by Russian imperialism is undoubtedly necessary, but this is only temporising and does not reach the root of the problem.
To win the battle in the conscience and mind of mankind, it is not sufficient merely to decry Communism and Russian imperialism. Our attitude, must be, not merely a negative one, but a constructive one. Counter materialism and force, however useful, do not provide the ideal around which the human conscience can rally. To succeed, it is essential that the democratic world should evolve a clear-cut political and economic philosophy that will enunciate clearly the principles for which the democratic world stands. These should be based upon the liberty and dignity of the human being, justice, and equality of opportunity. In the economic sphere, it must include the right to work for an adequate family wage, and the utilisation of productive capacity for the welfare of the people. In the national sphere, it should include a clear enunciation of democratic principles and assert the right of nations to determine their own affairs freely, by democratic means, without outside interference.
The democratic world lacks a charter of what it guarantees to its people. It is essential that such a charter should be provided and that, once provided, it should be scrupulously observed by big and small nations alike. It should be the banner around which those who believe in national, personal, political and religious liberty throughout the world can rally. I hope that the Council of Europe may be of assistance, so far as this portion of the world is concerned, in providing for what I consider to be a lacuna in the philosophy of the western democracies.
On account of the shortness of time, I think I will not be able to deal at any length with the work related to the O.E.E.C. I have already indicated that the work involved was very considerable and that it has imposed tremendous pressure and strain on the staff of the Department of External Affairs. If there are any questions arising from our participation in the O.E.E.C., I shall be happy to answer them. As I think our side of the House have probably spoken at greater length than they should, I shall not be able to deal with the O.E.E.C. in detail.
