AN AMERICAN IMPRESSION OF IRELAND’S LEADER

New Zealand Tablet, 3 June 1920, Page 19

AN AMERICAN IMPRESSION OF IRELAND’S LEADER

The following striking leading article appeared in the New York Evening Journal of March 1: Anyone who talks to Eamon de Valera feels the profound sincerity of the man. He is compounded of candor and integrity. And if ever the fire of enthusiasm for a noble cause burned in a fearless heart and a sane, capable mind, it so burns in the heart and mind of Eamon de Valera. <

When the Irish chieftain speaks from the public platform no audience of his is free from the agents of’ England, listening to every word, in the hope that some careless phrase may be uttered which can bo , twdsted or misrepresented to convey a false impression of the speaker’s meaning. It is an old, old trick of politics,, at which the English are past masters, and at which many Americans, too, are adepts. And it is remarkable how the Irish leader has succeeded, in the course of hundreds of speeches, in presenting Ireland’s argument for freedom with powerful emphasis, and in avoiding, at the same time, the traps of his enemies, all set to catch a sentence, a clause, a word that might be misrepresented to his disadvantage or used to shake the confidence of Americans and Irishmen in his devotion to the cause of Irish independence. The only attempt to use one of Eamon de Valera’s public utterances to discredit the sincerity of his devotion to Ireland’s demand for her complete liberty and complete independence of England, has been very recently made, and, we bound to say, very cunningly made, and also, we are glad to say, very unsuccessfully made. The occasion arose in this way: —The only argument made by the advocates of English rule over unwilling Ireland that appeals at all to Americans is the argument that England’s security demands English control of Ireland. Replying to that argument, Eamon de Valera very sensibly conceded that no Irish man could reasonably deny that Englishmen acted naturally in wishing to ensure the safety of England, just as any other people naturally desire to ensure the safety of their own country first of all, and proceeded to argue that England’s safety would be far better secured by the neighborhood of an independent, free, sovereign, satisfied Ireland, than by the neighborhood of a sullen, resentful Ireland, occupied by an English army, and hating with a deadly hatred, and resisting with every possible device of desperate men and wonlen the alien rule and the alien occupation of their country. Illustrating this sensible reply and this sensible appeal to British self-interest, the Irish leader cited the first paragraph of the recognition of the independence and sovereignty of Cuba by the United States, and asked why a recognition of the independence and sovereignty of Ireland by England in the words of that paragraph would not afford England security and Ireland her rightful place among the free nations of the world. We cannot imagine a more statesmanlike or sane suggestion. Yet this very suggestion gave a handle to the British enemies of Ireland, and to some Americans, who were deceived by British cunning, to misrepresent the clear meaning and intent of Eamon de Valera, and to attempt dissension in Irish ranks, which might' have been disastrous to the Irish cause in America had the confidence and trust of the mass of Irish-Americans in Eamon de Valera not been so unshakable. Eamon de Valera quoted only the first paragraph of the recognition of Cuba’s independence, which is: “That the Government of Cuba shall never enter into any or other compact with any foreign Power or Powers which will impair or tend to impair the independence of Cuba, nor in any manner authorise or permit any foreign Power or Powers to obtain by colonisation of, for military or naval purposes,, or otherwise, lodgment in or control over any portion of said island.” . . There are other stipulations in the articles of recognition, reasonably applicable to the relations then existing between Cuba and the United States, but not applicable to the relations between England and Ireland and these stipulations which are not applicable to Ireland and England, Eamon de Valera did not quote or endorse. Nevertheless, here was an opportunity—" matter how strainedfor misrepresentation which his enemies had long sought, and which they temporarily deceived some excellent Irish-Americans. It was shouted from the house-tops that de Valera was willing “to Cubanize” Ireland; that de Valera was willing to submit Ireland to British suzerainty; that de Valera was willing to sacrifice the substance for the

shadow of, independence, and so on and so on, to the end of the false chapter. Now, Eamon de Valera did nothing of the kind, suggested nothing of the kind, and—if we know ; him aright—would die as bravely as ,he fought and risked death in the Laster Revolution before he would even listen to anything

The paragraph of the recognition of Cuban independence which Eamon de Valera quoted— which - was the only paragraph he quoted—is .as full and complete recognition of independence and soverignity as any nation could grant to another. „... The only stipulation as to independence is that Cuba shall never agree with any foreign nation “to impair or tend to impair the independence : of Cuba;” and the only condition is that Cuba shall not. permit any foreign Power to rule any part of Cuba, or to make Cuba a base for foreign military or naval forces. A more complete recognition of independence could not be written. The United States not only recognises, so far as this paragraph ,is , concerned, the full sovereign independence or Cuba but stipulates that no -future Government of Cuba, shall impair that sovereign independence. It is not only a recognition of ? Cuba's independence t len, but an insistences that Cuba shall remain independent which is exactly what has happened. The exact words of Eamon -de Valera were these; On the other hand, if it were really her independence and her simple right to life as a national State that Britain wanted to safeguard, she could. easily. make provisions for that without in any .way infringing upon the equally sacred right of Ireland to its independence and to its life.

. The United States, by the Monroe Doctrine, made provision for its security without depriving the Latin Republic of the South of their independence and their life. The United States safeguarded itself from the possible use of the Island of Cuba as a : base for an attack by any foreign Power by stipulating ‘ That the Government of Cuba shall never enter into any 'treaty or other compact with any foreign Power or Powers which will impair or tend to impair the independence of Cuba, nor in any manner authorise or permit any > foreign Power or Powers to obtain, by colonisation of, for military or naval purposes or otherwise, lodgment in or control over , any portion of said island.’ “Why doesn’t Britain do this with Ireland, as the United States did with Cuba? 'Why doesn’t Britain declare a Monroe Doctrine for the two neighboring islands? The people of Ireland, so far ■ from - objecting, would cooperate with their whole soul. But there are even other ways in which Britain could safeguard itself if this plea were really an honest plea. An international instrument could easily be framed—as in the case of Belgiuman instrument that meant more for the safety of France, as the last war proved, than the actual possession of Belgian territory, especially if such possession were against the will and despite the protests of the Belgian people. Again, the Peace Conference and the creation of a League of Nations gave England another opportunity, if England or Britain minded to avail of it. In a genuine League of Nations the contracting parties could easily, by mutual compact, bind themselves to respect and defend the integrity and national independence of each other, and guarantee it by the strength of the whole. But England preferredand prefers—a League of Empires—an unholy alliance to crush liberty, not a sacred covenant to maintain liberty, even when such a covenant will perpetuate her own. No ! It is not her national safety nor her legitimate security that England wants to safeguard. By any of the four methods indicated she could have made provisions for these. What she wants to make provision for, I repeat, is the perpetuation of her domination of the seas by her control of the great Irish harbors. From these her ships of war can issue forth on the Atlantic, and in 24 hours can strangle the commerce of any trade rival she may wish to attack, and completely cut the communications between the old world arid the new. She wants this and she wants further, as I have said/ the perpetuation of the present commercial monopoly through which she exploits Ireland to-day, as she exploited the colonies here until the cup overflowed in ’76 and the exploitation was ended for ever. “England would have Americans believe that Britain’s safety would be threatened by the presence of an independent Ireland on her flank. Well do England’s statesmen know the contrary. Well they know that this England and Britain would be safer as regards their legitimate national rights than they have ever been since they first started on their campaign of aggression against Ireland.” „ • ■ ■ .J Eamon do Valera proved his courage and capacity as

a fighting man when he faced death for Ireland in that famous- Easter Week. And by the statement hero quoted he proves his calibre as a statesman and wise leader. No, honest man, honestly seeking an honest meaning, can possibly see", in Eamon do Valera’s words any hint, or suspicion of a hint, of abating Ireland’s demand for full independence by so much as the breadth of a hair. The whole argument is that if England were sincere she could offer a recognition to Ireland and obtain perfect assurance of her own safety in four different waysand that since England refuses to do this, she is shown to be insincere by her own act, and her argument that' Irish independence would be fatal to her own safety is proven to be a subterfuge and a falsehood. It is fortunate for the cause of Ireland that .this unwarranted effort to injure Eamon de Valera, and discredit him with his own people, has only caused all who admire and trust him to admire and trust him still more. If such a palpably false accusation could disrupt the Irish people, the supporters of Irish independence in America would feel much astonished and much disheartened.