Repeated London for Dr. Evatt. Security 42.

1. Cadogan resumed the debate on Spain in the Security Council
this afternoon. [1] He stated that before the council embarked on
collective action it must be sure that it did so in conformity
with the charter and that its action would produce the desired
result. After raising the familiar arguments regarding domestic
jurisdiction he traversed the Polish statement and questioned the
accuracy of some of its statements. He also pointed out that the
question of Spain had been raised under Chapter VI but Poland
request immediate enforcement of measures under Chapter VII. [2]
United Kingdom would be unable to vote for Polish resolution.

2. Gromyko spoke at great length dealing with the issue of
domestic jurisdiction and then addressing himself to three
questions-
(a) the Fascist nature of the Franco regime,
(b) the foreign policy of Franco during the war and
(c) whether the Franco regime constituted a threat to peace.

He pointed to the dangerous results of a policy of non-
intervention and urged the United Nations to take determined
action. His speech, like that of the Polish representative, was
obviously directed in part towards the American public and he made
frequent use of United States sources and referred to the United
States Congressmen and others who had been calling for action
against Spain.

3. The Brazilian representative enlarged upon the importance which
Brazil attached to article 2(7) [3] and declared that Brazil would
vote against any action by the Council violating this principle of
the charter. He also argued that the purpose in article 1 [4]
would not be served by the proposed action and he, therefore,
opposed the Polish resolution.

4. Hodgson came in effectively at the end of a rather tiresome and
representative debate and made a most forceful speech of the
series. He said that the Polish motion referring to a situation of
the kind mentioned in chapter VI, raised fundamental issues
relating to the peace aims for which the United Nations had fought
the war and, therefore, the utmost care should be taken to handle
it in a manner which would serve these aims. At the outset the
issue of domestic jurisdiction had to be faced. Australia placed
great value on the limitation in article 2 paragraph 7 about the
line between domestic and international matters had not been
fixed. A Government of Fascist origin and tendencies might adapt
practices at home or enter into relations with reactionary
Governments in other countries which would seriously threaten
international peace and security and thus become a matter which
was not merely of domestic concern. There was evidence in the San
Francisco, London and Potsdam declarations, to which Australia had
subscribed, that the Spanish situation was recognised as being of
international concern and furthermore the declaration of 4th March
by the French, United Kingdom and United States Governments was
even more significant. [5] But what were the facts behind this
declaration? What was the reason why these three major powers
desired the removal of the Franco regime and what information was
in their possession when they try this international action?
Further, the United States Department of State and Foreign
Economic Administration had published certain white papers and
pamphlets alleging that Nazis were in basic control of important
phases of Spanish economic and industrial life. Again what were
the facts and the reasons behind these allegations? Prima Facie it
would appear that the Spanish situation was a matter of
international concern but the Security Council was not yet in
possession of full information. The next question was whether the
Spanish situation was a cause of international friction. The
Polish representative had referred to conditions on the frontier
but the French representative had said no word about this being a
cause of friction. What evidence was there on this aspect? At
present it was not an established fact or a cause of disputation.

Thirdly, did the Spanish situation endanger international peace
and security? The Polish delegate had made several assertions but
on the other hand they were statements of a different kind. The
Polish delegate had referred to a Spaniard who had come to the
United States to buy a plant to produce uranium. Did he, in fact,
buy it and if so, what had happened to the plant? The Security
Council did not yet know the truth.