Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Jun 1949

Vol. 36 No. 13

North Atlantic Pact—Motion.

Mr. Denis Ireland

I move:—

That Seanad Éireann directs the attention of the Government to the uncertainty aroused in the minds of Irish citizens by the North Atlantic Pact and its implications for Ireland, and requests the Minister for External Affairs to make a statement.

When this motion was first considered, relations between Ireland and Britain looked like entering a new phase and one felt that the kind of frustration which was in the atmosphere might eventually clear away. The frustration arises, I think, from the fact that we are a nation quite capable and quite willing to play our full part in international affairs, but certain things obstruct us from doing so. The Six-County attitude on this is important. I wonder if the House realises that, up to a couple of years ago at any rate, the term "bridgehead" was used officially in the Six Counties to describe the political situation there.

On several occasions, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland referred to the Six Counties as "Britain's bridgehead in Ireland". I took that up as a journalist and one or two other people took it up also. We pointed out that the term "bridgehead" is a military term and in its usual connotation it means something aimed against somebody. This term, when publicity was given to it, gradually disappeared from official statements up there, but it is an interesting fact that up to quite recently the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland could describe the function of Northern Ireland as that of a "bridgehead in Ireland".

Then we come to the further complication that has arisen and that has rather changed the atmosphere since we first contemplated this motion— that is, the "Ireland Bill". I suppose many Irishmen, and a good many Ulstermen like myself, regarded some exclusive clause in that Bill as almost inevitable, but it would surely, as far as we thought, have met the case if in the Ireland Bill there had been inserted a clause which said that "Northern Ireland is excepted from all the action contemplated in this Bill". Instead, we have had the further stage of a deliberate framing of the clause which supports in Northern Ireland this very political clique which talked so glibly about being "a bridgehead in Ireland". Not only that, but we have representatives of the British Throne taken through special Orange districts and a processional route specially organised so that it would go through the Orange districts in Belfast, and we had a representative of the British Throne beating the Orange drum. That is to be taken into account when we consider the new line which Sir Basil Brooke has taken. The same man as talked very recently about a bridgehead in Ireland now says that we must all be friends. "Surely the defence of Ireland," he says, "can be organised on the basis of two separate States." There is nothing to prevent it, says Sir Basil Brooke.

It seems to me very difficult to enter into defensive arrangements with those who think in terms of a bridgehead against you, because, although that term has not been used officially for some months past, there is no doubt that the mentality which produced that term still exists, so that we have three factors in the situation at the moment. We have this bridgehead mentality in the Six Counties; we have the sections of opinion in the Six Counties who think in terms like that locked into position by a piece of legislation originating in Westminster; and then we have the representatives of the royal family driving home that position and locking it still further. We cannot altogether ignore these three factors in approaching the present situation. The Orange card is the card to play. That term was originally coined by the father——

An Cathaoirleach

I wonder is the Senator going outside the terms of his motion in discussing these matters. His motion calls for a statement from the Minister with regard to the North Atlantic Pact.

Mr. Ireland

Very well; I was trying to establish the factors that enter into our situation, and I need not elaborate any further. I have mentioned the three factors which make it very difficult for us to contemplate a full defensive alliance at the moment, and all I want to know, as I think many Irishmen want to know, is whether this situation as it exists at the moment has the approval of the other signatories to the North Atlantic Pact. We have no doubt that the Minister will make it perfectly clear, as he has already done, where we stand under Article 4 of that Pact, but there is uneasiness and uncertainty in the minds of Irishmen at the moment as to just where we stand and perhaps the Minister may be able to enlighten this House and the country as to the present situation following the incidents to which I have referred—the clause in the Ireland Bill, the circumstances of the recent royal visit to Northern Ireland and, as I say, the bridgehead mentality which I mentioned. I ask the Minister if he can give us any further information as to the situation of Ireland in relation to the Atlantic Pact since these further incidents.

Captain Orpen

I formally second, reserving my right to speak later.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister?

Captain Orpen

I was wondering whether other Senators would care to intervene before the Minister and I stood down to allow them to speak, if they wished to do so. Perhaps, as they are not anxious to avail themselves of the opportunity, I might be allowed to speak now. The terms of this motion rest on the uncertainty aroused in the minds of Irish citizens. This uncertainty seems to be based on two things. We have had reports in the newspapers that responsible people have said that Ireland will not join in the Atlantic Pact until Partition is ended. That is one type of statement appearing in the newspapers as emanating from responsible people. We have also the other type of statement that Ireland cannot possibly enter into any satisfactory system of defence, so long as the country is divided. I am taking these two types of newspaper statement as being in the minds of some people the same thing, whereas they are totally different. The first might be likened to the small child who will not do as his mother says unless he gets chocolate or, in the grown-up, it might be said to be a form of political blackmail. The second statement, however, seems to me to be in a very different category. Speaking in the Dáil on 10th December, 1948, at column 1341, the Minister for Defence said:—

"An adequate defence plan for a small island divided in two is nearly militarily impossible."

Anybody with any sense of reality in a difficult situation will agree with that statement. The Minister for External Affairs, in answer to a question regarding the Atlantic Pact, on 23rd February, 1949—I will not read the whole answer, as it is rather long, but will pick out one part which bears on the two aspects I put forward at the beginning—said:—

"The defence of a small island such as Ireland can be undertaken effectively only by a single authority, having at its back the firm support of a decisive majority of the population of the whole country."

That is the same type of statement as that made by the Minister for Defence, and I think we will agree that it is true from a military point of view. What puzzles many people in this country is what we are to do about it and what can we do, if anything. We have seen a number of recent articles in various journals on this problem but, unfortunately, most of these articles are written from one point of view and that point of view does not always fit in with the point of view of the majority in this part of Ireland. I would refer Senators to an article unsigned in the last issue of the Round Table. The only indication of authorship seemed to suggest that it emanated from somebody living in Dublin. I do not propose to quote from it. It is rather indecisive and there are a great many articles of a similar nature.

It is interesting to find several views from another point of view. There has been a series of letters in Time and Tide. I will quote from the last letter I have seen. It is in the June 11th, 1949, issue of this publication. It is a long letter and I will only quote one portion of it.

"A more serious obstacle, mentioned by some of the more thoughtful writers is that to join the pact——"

An Cathaoirleach

Is this article signed? Is there a name to it?

Captain Orpen

This letter is signed. I will deal with that later.

"A more serious obstacle, mentioned by some of the more thoughtful writers is that to join the pact would imply an automatic guarantee of the territorial integrity of all its signatories and might be held to involve the perpetuation of Partition. No one, however, could reasonably expect the Government of a Republican Ireland permanently to abandon its hopes of ‘unity,' one of the principal planks of the Irish political platform of no matter what Party.

But is there any insuperable difficulty about including, in any offer made by the Dublin Government, the one reservation that no guarantee will be demanded of it which might prejudice its freedom of judgment on the question of Partition? Unless I am much mistaken, America would be unlikely to raise any objection, and I would imagine that, in view of the importance of the issues involved, Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be likely to concur. Other countries would hardly be concerned."

That letter is signed and it is of a little interest to observe the signature, one Hugh Montgomery of Blessing-bourne, Fivemiletown, Northern Ireland. I feel that when we try to find ways and means of settling difficulties we should always remember that misunderstandings and differences of opinion are increased and made bigger the more infrequent the contacts between the various contestants. I suggest that it should be possible eventually to arrive at some sort of understanding on the other fellow's point of view and that that is always a prerequisite to ultimate understanding. It is quite useless to think of getting any understanding between people of widely different views as long as no attempt is made to understand fully the reason for your opponent's or adversary's point of view. This understanding must come first before there is any hope of making any progress.

I am afraid that a number of newspaper reports, little extracts removed from their context and paragraphs removed from them, have done much to increase the misunderstanding between this country and our north eastern neighbours. I feel that free and open discussion in the calm atmosphere such as can be attained in the Seanad may do much to elucidate the difficulties and possibly help the position. When we get a person writing in such a paper as that from which I have just quoted, Time and Tide, signing his name to a letter and obviously coming from Northern Ireland, I look on a letter such as that—and I have not the pleasure of the gentleman's acquaintance—as an invitation that the matters should be talked over in a reasonable way.

I suggest that possibly the Minister, in the atmosphere of the Seanad, would not only clear our minds and ease our minds by making a statement on these things. It was with that end in view that Senator Ireland and I put down this motion in the hope that the Minister for External Affairs may find it convenient to avail himself of the opportunity of saying something on this difficult matter.

Minister for External Affairs (Mr. MacBride)

I am very indebted to Senator Ireland and to Senator Orpen for raising this matter in the Seanad. I had not had an opportunity of dealing with this matter in the Seanad before, and I think it is right that the Seanad should have an opportunity of considering and discussing it. To a certain extent I feel a little bit handicapped in dealing with the whole question, because the exchange of views that took place between the Irish Government and the Government of the United States, as well as the Governments of the other nations that have adjured to the Atlantic Pact, have not yet been published. I have taken steps to ascertain the views of the United States Government concerning their publication, because I think their publication might clear a great deal of the doubt and misunderstanding that arose by reason of the inadequate Press statements that have appeared in relation to the Atlantic Pact.

There is a number of matters that have to be considered fairly carefully in relation to this Atlantic Pact. In the first place, it is essentially a military alliance and in considering a military alliance I think it must be the function of any Government to visualise the worst eventuality possible and then to ask itself: "If the worst comes to the worst, will we have the support of the people or of the vast majority of the people for entering into military alliance with A, B, C or D?" I think that Senators will realise that, not merely this Government, but no Government would have the support of the majority of the people for a military alliance with the power that occupies a portion of our country, as we claim, wrongfully. An analogy might be found in the position that existed between France and Germany during the period from 1870 to 1918, by reason of the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by Germany. During that period of some 38 years it would have been impossible for any French Government to enter into a military alliance with Germany and I think the same would apply in any country. The position would become completely impossible. We are in the position here of claiming that Britain is quite wrongfully and without democratic right occupying a portion of our country against the will of the overwhelming majority of the Irish people. Either that claim is a valid claim, or it is not. If it is a valid claim, then would not it be completely ludicrous if we were to place ourselves in the position of entering into a military alliance guaranteeing the territorial integrity of the power that is wrongfully occupying portion of our country?

Apart from that difficulty, I think there is another difficulty. I think there is a constitutional difficulty. In effect, the Atlantic Pact contains guarantees of territorial integrity of the participating nations. Unless it were clearly recognised by Britain, by the United States and by the other signatories that, as far as Ireland was concerned, as far as every portion of Ireland was concerned, the territorial integrity was a matter which concerns solely the Government elected by the Irish people, then I think we would be acting contrary to the provisions of our own Constitution because, under our own Constitution, we claim that the national territory includes the whole island of Ireland.

I do not see, then, how, having regard to the provisions of the Constitution, any Irish Government or any Irish Parliament could constitutionally guarantee the rights of Britain in a portion of our own country. That places, if you like, a constitutional difficulty in our way, but I think the essence of the matter lies in the fact that, before you can enter into military alliance, the Government must be assured of the support of the overwhelming majority of the people for that military alliance.

Now, apart from these reasons, based directly on the contents of the Atlantic Pact, based on military considerations, based on public policy, the Atlantic Pact is heralded as the new instrument of international co-operation in the North Atlantic. It was intended to preserve, if you like, the democratic way of life among the nations of the North Atlantic. With that we are in complete agreement. We approve of the Atlantic Pact and I think that, if it were not for the fact that a portion of our country is wrongfully occupied by Britain, we would have been in the Atlantic Pact.

Theoretically, its aims, its purpose are in accord with our own wishes and our own desire. It is based largely on the concept of co-operation, but when you come to turn that theory into practice you ask yourself, "If co-operation is to be the basis of this agreement, surely the first essential must be to discuss the difficulties that exist among the nations of the North Atlantic, to discuss in our case the difficulties that exist between Britain and ourselves." The first essential of co-operation must be to remove the existing disputes. Otherwise, it is not co-operation. Otherwise, it can become merely an attempt at domination or at utilising certain words to cover up a certain position.

We realised that and we suggested that there should be a discussion to examine the difficulties that existed between Great Britain and ourselves, to examine the obstacles to our participation in the North Atlantic Pact. That offer was not accepted and I must say the fact that that offer was not accepted causes some doubt as to whether the word "co-operation" was used in its true sense or merely to put a facade on the terms of a military alliance. More than once we have expressed our willingness and our desire to discuss with the nations that have adjured to the North Atlantic Pact the problems that exist between Britain and ourselves and that preclude us from participating in the Atlantic Pact. That offer has not yet been accepted. I do not know whether at some date in the future it may be accepted. It appears to me that if the word "co-operation" is not used merely as an empty formula, the first step that should be taken is to initiate discussions to remove the obstacles that exist to co-operation. Likewise, if the word "democracy" is not used again as an empty formula, then surely it should be the concern of the democratic nations to try and promote democracy in the area of their influence.

The enforced partition of our country is a constant denial of the elementary democratic right to national self-determination. A lot has been said and written about Partition from time to time. In the end, it always seems to me that our case comes down simply to the proposition that we claim that the Irish people have a right to determine by their own free votes, democratically, the form of government they should have in the country—without any outside interference. That is the essence of our claim and that is the essence of democracy. When you come to examine it, all other democratic rights really depend upon the right of the people of a nation to determine their own affairs without outside interference. When outside interference steps in then you cannot have democracy. That is the very evil which caused the last war. It is the very evil which Russia is causing in Europe at the moment. It would, therefore, seem that the democracies of Western Europe should at least themselves give an example amongst themselves and I hope they will.

One thing I was worried about at the time we were asked to join the Atlantic Pact was that our refusal would not be understood in the United States. As the House knows, there are no people for whom we have greater friendship than the people of the United States: there is no nation with whom we have closer bonds. I was worried lest our attitude might not be understood by the people of the United States. I was worried lest hostile propaganda—which is a feature, very often, of news published abroad in relation to Ireland—should distort our viewpoint or should arouse hostile feeling towards us among the people of the United States. I am satisfied, however, that that has not occurred.

I was glad to have an opportunity of visiting the United States a short time ago. I had an opportunity then of realising that the people of the United States understood our viewpoint quite well. I think Senator Orpen quoted from a letter written by Major General Montgomery and possibly the House will permit me to quote one or two excerpts from what is the leading Catholic organ in the United States—America—dealing with our attitude. I need not read the articles in full. One article which was published in April, dealt with the invitation to join the Atlantic Pact. The excerpt is as follows:—

"The last war taught us the key position of Ireland in Atlantic defence. If any action of Great Britain's weakens the Atlantic defence, that action becomes public business. It might be argued that in face of the danger threatening the world from Communism, Ireland ought to waive the Partition question and join the pact. With even more cogency it can be argued that Britain ought to cease and desist from the wholly unjustified course of action that is keeping Ireland out. It seems a little lopsided to urge a noble generosity upon Ireland if we do not urge simple justice upon England."

A more recent article, dealing with the same topic, was published in the magazine America on the 18th June of this year. It is a longish article. The early part deals with the origin of Partition and with the denial of civil liberty in the Six Counties. I shall quote the latter portion of the article, which is as follows:—

"In fact, at no time in the past 27 years has the British Government lifted a finger to protect human rights in Northern Ireland. Its present action is a gratuitous insult to the Irish people and their Government, for existing legislation rendered the addition of the offensive clause completely unnecessary."

That is the clause in the Ireland Bill.

"History would seem to be repeating itself. After the First World War, when the United States was debating the League of Nations, Irish-American opinion was inflamed against the League by Britain's denial in Ireland of the ‘right of self-determination' she was proclaiming for Europe. At the present moment, with the Atlantic Pact under consideration, Britain has gone out of her way to anger Irish-Americans by her disregard for ‘the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law' which the Atlantic Pact, according to its preamble, is designed to safeguard.

The Irish Government understandably feels that to sign the pact under these circumstances would be tantamount to underwriting the existence of Partition for the next 20 years.

In view of the paramount importance of building a strong defence against Communist aggression, it has been argued that Ireland should waive such considerations and sign the pact. It would be more logical to urge first that Britain show some concern about the denial of civil liberties in Northern Ireland. Surely we should ask England to be just before we ask Ireland to be generous.

It needs only a glance at the map to understand the strategic importance of Ireland in the Atlantic defence. Since the United States will bear so great a share of that defence, it would seem that our Government has sufficient standing to offer its services towards mending a situation that threatens to leave a dangerous loophole in the Atlantic armour."

I cannot help but feel that the views represented in these articles must gain ground among the democratic Christian people of the United States. I feel that with the growth of realisation of that viewpoint not merely in the United States but among more thinking opinion in Britain it will then be realised that the first step towards the establishment of co-operation must be to discuss the removal of the obstacles that exist to co-operation.

As I said at the outset, I am sorry that, so far, it has not been possible to publish the exchange of views that has passed between your Government and the Government of the United States, but I hope that shortly it will be possible to do so.

Mr. Ireland

I just want to thank the Minister for his statement and to say that it will do no harm that we should restate our position as a nation, and I withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The Seanad adjourned at 4 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 23rd June, 1949.