Memorandum by Joseph P. Walshe on the Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (Geneva Protocol)

Considerations particularly affecting the Saorstát

I We must either accept the Protocol with Britain or reject with her.

We could not carry out an Economic boycott of a state with which Britain continues her ordinary commercial intercourse nor could we trade with a country with which our neighbour has severed all relations. The same principle applies to military cooperation.

Should Great Britain happen to be the aggressor state we should have no choice but to continue our ordinary relations with her no matter what obligations were imposed upon us by an international instrument. Any other course would be suicide in our present lopsided economic position.

According to our present conception no dominion can be in a state of war with another country unless the Empire as a whole is at war, and there is no possibility of changing that position except by a slow process of evolution.

Our attitude towards the Protocol, if it is to be realist must be the attitude of Great Britain.

II These arguments hold to a lesser extent in the case of the Covenant but the world has agreed to regard that document as having no serious value where really serious issues are concerned. Its sanctions are vague and all its provisions can be evaded by a quibble. Italy showed the way to treat the League in the Corfu incident, Poland when she seized Vilna. The protocol is more definitely a military and economic pact and was framed chiefly by France with a view to keeping down the Central powers. It has come much too early for the Saorstát which is not an independent state in so far as the purposes of the protocol are concerned. We can therefore reject it without having regard either to the motives of the framers or the advantages likely to accrue to them from it.