Letter from Francis T. Cremins to Joseph P. Walshe (Dublin) enclosing copy of the speech by Patrick McGilligan to the 10th Assembly of League of Nations

Enclosure

It is not my intention to review in any detail the various important activities of the League as disclosed by the Report to this Assembly. I will confine my remarks to a few matters which in the view of my Government seem to merit particular attention. First of all, there is the important question of disarmament. At the Assembly the Delegation from the Irish Free State urged the desirability of convening the Disarmament Conference before this year's Assembly, in order that the light of publicity might be thrown on the difficulties which prevented agreement on the limitation and reduction of armaments. Progress in the Preparatory Commission's work has, unfortunately, not so far been favourable to the calling of the Conference. Although some important decisions have been reached, practically the only result that is claimed for the activities of the Commission since last year is an improved atmosphere in the discussions. This result is, of course, to the good; but I think that in the eleventh year after the world war, and a year after the signing of the Kellogg Pact, some more definite result might have been expected.

    The matter is, no doubt, a complex one, and I do not minimise its complexity, but one can hardly be charged with impatience for drawing attention to the slow progress that has been made towards its solution. Surely a pact between the Nations, which outlaws war, could, if it means anything, be followed almost automatically by a reduction in the weapons of war? M. Briand in his brilliant speech on Thursday reminded us that the question of Economic Disarmament could not be solved if the matter was approached from the technical aspect. He was convinced that the solution was a political one. There can be no two views that the solution of the General Disarmament problem also, and outstandingly, is a political one. Moreover, until this question is approached by all parties with the same determination to reach agreement which characterised the recent discussions at The Hague there will, I fear, be little prospect of agreement.

    In this connection it will not be out of place to pay a tribute to the conciliatory attitude of the leading Naval Powers, Great Britain and the U.S.A. I do not wish to imply that the other Nations concerned are not serious in this matter. But I think that the keynote of the whole situation was struck by the United States representative when he declared at the Preparatory Commission that it was the duty of each Nation to examine the problem with the view primarily to discover what concessions could be offered. It must be admitted that the governing consideration is a political one, and it is for that reason that my delegation once more advocates the calling of the Conference, without waiting for agreement on technical points, in order that the political aspects may be made apparent, and that efforts may be made to discover what concessions can be offered by all parties, in the general interest. We can take a lesson in this matter from the experience of the last ten years. It is safe to say that the delegates to this Assembly would not find themselves in the atmosphere of peace and goodwill which prevails here today if the technical aspects of various other post-war problems had been allowed to eclipse the political considerations.

    We have always regarded the presence here in Geneva of the leading Statesmen of the world and repeated pronouncements by them in favour of peaceful settlements of disputes and the condemnation of war, and what leads to war, as of inestimable value. But we feel that if these words and professions, however sincere, are not followed up by appropriate action, first they lose their effectiveness and, eventually, can become harmful, as conveying to the public interested in these matters that words and actions have here no bond, that statements are not seriously meant, or that the League is so ineffective that even in one of the principal tasks laid upon it by the Covenant it can and ought to be ignored. It would be dangerous to accustom our peoples to couple together the ideas of 'League work for Disarmament' and 'futility'.

    M. Briand recalled how intimately the question of disarmament was connected with that of security. No doubt the obligation to reduce armaments undertaken in Article 8 of the Covenant is limited to such reduction as is consistent with national safety. There is, however, a danger that national safety may, in relation to this matter, be easily exaggerated, more especially if the technical mind prevails. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that although during the last ten years there has been a considerable increase in general security, due to the work of the League and to forces outside the League, there has been no corresponding decrease in the implements of war. In some countries there has been reduction - I bring forward the action of my own country which in this matter has acted in closest accord with the spirit of the League. Five years ago we had, comparatively speaking, made an enormous decrease in the armaments of the Irish Free State and had reached a position of something approaching normality. Since then, however, we have further reduced our annual expenditure on arms from about £2,800,000 to less than £1,500,000. When I mention that our expenditure on Education now amounts to over 4½ million pounds a year, and that to a single branch of social service, namely, provision for Old Age Pensions, our State contribution is in the region of three million pounds a year, it will help to place in true perspective the present provision of £1,500,000 for all purposes of national defence. I have little doubt that from the technical point of view excellent arguments could have been advanced against these reductions, but the feeling that influenced our decision was that money, urgently required to develop agricultural and other industries, should not be squandered on arms. This is an aspect of the question which merits the consideration of the Nations. A reasonable and immediate curtailment of the scores of millions set out unashamedly in the Armaments Year book of the League would go very far to solve the widespread problem of industrial and especially of agricultural depression.

    That the League has made and is making commendable efforts to promote a feeling of security amongst the Nations is beyond question. The Assembly, I am sure, welcome the fact that an early date has been fixed for the Conference on the Codification of International Law. It is inevitable that some countries should have difficulty in accepting the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court owing to the divergences of view which exist regarding the application of International Law. My Government believes that in the holding of this Conference, to establish rules of law which will be generally acceptable, a great advance will have been made in the promotion of judicial settlement of International disputes.

    This brings me to the question of the Optional Clause. I shall have the honour during the course of this Assembly of making the declaration accepting this Clause on behalf of the Irish Free State, confident that by this act the Irish Free State will be helping to promote the peaceful settlement of all disputes of a legal character between Members of the League and other States who accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice.

    We feel, however, that acceptance of the Optional Clause is hardly enough. It is in our view necessary to have some means of settling those types of disputes which are not strictly legal in character. The Committee on Arbitration and Security has provided us with a means of achieving this. The General Act, as well as model bi-lateral treaties in regard to Arbitration, Conciliation and Judicial Settlement are now open to accession by all Members of the League. It is my intention to seek, during the next Session of Parliament, approval for the acceptance of the General Act by the Irish Free State.

    The Committee has also provided us with a draft Convention on Financial Assistance in case of war or threat of war. My Government are prepared to go far to meet the requirements of that Convention. It may not be generally acceptable in the form in which is it submitted, but it ought not (especially in view of the importance of the measure) be a matter of much difficulty to find a text which will be acceptable to all. As a practical means of preventing war - and prevention is always better then cure - this proposal would seem to be a very decisive safeguard.

    Last year our Delegation felt called on to devote some attention to the economic policy of the League. Whilst agreeing that the economic situation in Europe demanded some such policy as the Economic Conference had put before the League, we felt compelled to call attention to what we considered defective in the methods suggested for the carrying out of that policy. We expressed the fear that the result might be the stereotyping of industries along the lines they had followed, and in the places where they had been established up to the present; that the underdeveloped countries would be doomed to stagnation, or, worse still, to comparative retrogression in this respect. We are glad to acknowledge that we have received assurances that nothing could be further from the thoughts of those who were principally responsible for the policy - and in the current report of the Consultative Committee attention is expressly called to the exception which these countries must constitute.

    We have little quarrel with that Report, or with the excellent statements on economic matters made here by the statesmen of the greatest countries in Europe. But we are anxious that the Economic organisations should move forward to action, so that from their approach to and handling of concrete cases we may understand their method of discriminating between the industrially advanced and the industrially backward countries, and observe if a difference is recognised, and marked in subsequent recommendation, between bargaining, retaliatory and purely protective tariffs. We are anxious to see, what practice alone may show, if the only aim is to secure the removal of those artificial props which are said to bolster up industries in countries unsuited to them, without some investigation first of all being made to discover what other industries are fitted to take their place. We should be slow to think that the assumption will be acted upon that there are none such, and that some lands will be compelled more and more to rely on agriculture, the present depressed state of which is deplored without any effective remedy being suggested or even sought. And if the protective tariff as a weapon of defence is going to be taken away, or even limited in use, it will be of vital importance to know how the League on its economic side will react to the various means by which Nations promote economic aggression - the system of bounties, the manipulation of shipping freights, the organisation of international cartels, the control of capital and the provision or denial of credit.

    Other opportunities will be taken to discuss such points as these in more detail, and we may ask the Assembly later to pause and consider whether this economic policy as adumbrated does not raise an exceedingly difficult and delicate question indeed - the free movement of peoples as a necessary corollary to allowing industry and commerce to follow what are called their natural courses.

    One other aspect of the general activity of the League to which I should like to refer is that of ratifications. We ourselves cannot claim a fully satisfactory certificate in this respect, but our comparatively late entry into the League, and the necessity we were under of creating an entire political system, can be pleaded in excuse. But we are convinced that it is harmful to the League, tending to bring it into disrepute, if the number of conventions signed but not ratified is permitted to increase. This is a matter to which we propose to give early attention, and I hope that when the Assembly meets again we shall have a better record to show. But there is one aspect of the problem of ratifications which I would like to emphasise. Conventions are worked out here in Geneva in an atmosphere in which general considerations are naturally and rightly very much to the fore. But the consideration as to whether ratification will follow takes place in the different national capitals where, not unreasonably, individual needs and problems are likely to be in the forefront of departmental views. The decision to take no action in the way of ratification may therefore be taken on the ground that the convention in question has no direct relevancy to national conditions. States perhaps forget that whereas the protection of a convention may not be required within its own territory, it may be of the greatest value to those of its citizens who work in other countries. In any case, each Member of the League has a duty to lend the support of its ratification to conventions which have been recognised as of general interest, though they may seem to have no immediate national importance. I would, therefore, urge delegates to attempt to ensure the acceptance of this policy by their Governments and so to secure that agreements which they have recognised in Geneva as international necessities shall not remain mere paper aspirations because in what is really their second reading the test of their desirability and utility becomes one of the narrowest immediate national interest. We have come to the conclusion that this consideration is not for us a valid excuse for failure to ratify, and that our loyalty to the League requires that we should display an interest in all the activities of the League, tho' we may not be directly concerned.

    With the same object, namely, that of securing that all the discussions and mutual concessions at Geneva shall bear their full fruits, I would remind delegates of the danger of attaching to their acceptance of conventions reservations for which no provision has been made. Reservations clearly cannot be made to any convention or protocol except in so far as the convention or protocol expressly provides for them, and then only within the limits so provided. It is to be hoped, therefore, that during the coming decade League conventions will not be nullified by the practice of attaching to their acceptance such reservations.

    The next matter I would like to touch is that relating to the important subject of minorities. It will be recalled that during the last Assembly the question of the consideration of petitions from minorities was raised by several delegates, and the opinion was expressed that the time had come when some action should be taken for the better protection of the minorities concerned. It cannot but be a source of gratification to all members of the League that, following the action taken by the Canadian representative, this question should have received such prompt consideration by the Council, and that so satisfactory a conclusion should have been reached. The Assembly owes gratitude to the representative of Canada for conceiving and bringing forward a solution of a problem which had until his time defied solution, and to the Council for its conscientious and efficient handling of the problem. The result will rebound to the credit of the League, for the entry into force of the new provisions will undoubtedly do much to remove sources of irritation which if allowed to develop might well have constituted a serious menace to Peace.

    Before concluding, may I mention another matter which was referred to by the Irish delegation to the Ninth Assembly, namely, the Organisation of the Secretariat? It would, I think, be unfortunate if consideration of this matter by the Assembly should be postponed until next year, and I accordingly support the British Delegation's proposal to refer to the 4th Commission the section of the Secretary General's report dealing with the organisation of the Secretariat. It is, in our opinion, essential to the proper carrying out of the work of the Secretariat - work which indeed is most excellently performed notwithstanding conditions which require amelioration - that the League should take definite and early steps to ensure that the Secretariat will be a body of international Civil Servants who will have proper security of tenure, and whose advancement in the League service will, in all cases, depend on individual merit rather than on the incident of nationality.

    In conclusion, I should like, on behalf of my country, to pay a tribute to the great work which has been accomplished by the League since its foundation ten years ago. During those years in all the difficult problems which threatened peace, the spirit which prevailed was the spirit of the League. Slowly, perhaps, but very surely, that spirit is being enshrined in covenants between the peoples of the world, and difficulties which formerly surrendered only to force majeure are now resolved by something akin to kindliness. It is no small thing that in the first decade of its existence such a spirit should have prevailed, and that in such an atmosphere the problems resulting from the world war have been investigated and clarified. We do not think it too much to hope that in the beginning of a new decade the way has been pointed and the spirit has been formed along and in which these problems may at last be solved.