NEW YORK, 26 April 1946, 3 p.m.

Cablegram UN86

TOP SECRET MOST IMMEDIATE

Security 51.

1. After conference with Bonnet and Lange, Hodgson presented the
following draft to the Security Council this morning. [1] Begins:-

The attention of the Security Council has been drawn to the
situation in Spain by a member of the United Nations acting in
accordance with Article 35 of the Charter, and the Security
Council has been asked to declare that this situation has led to
international friction and endangers international peace and
security.

Therefore the Security Council, keeping in mind the moral
condemnation of the Franco regime in the Security Council, and the
resolutions concerning Spain which were adopted at the United
Nations Conference on International Organisation at San Francisco
and at the first General Assembly of the United Nations [2], and
the views expressed by members of the Security Council regarding
the Franco regime, hereby resolves
To make further studies in order to determine whether the
situation in Spain has led to international friction and does
endanger international peace and security, and if it so finds,
then to determine what practical measures the United Nations may
take.

To this end, the Security Council appoints a Sub-Committee of five
of its members and instructs this Sub-Committee to examine the
statements made before the Security [Council] concerning Spain, to
receive further statements and documents, and to conduct such
inquiries as it may deem necessary, and to report to the Security
Council as soon as practicable. Ends.

2. Mexico immediately moved that the taking of a vote be adjourned
until Monday in order that Delegations might obtain instructions
from their Governments and this suggestion was adopted. Mexico
explained privately later that his object was to give Gromyko
every chance of obtaining a change in instructions to allow him
either to support the proposal or to abstain.

3. The Soviet objections, as indicated in our Security 49,
paragraph 2, are to holding unnecessary inquiries instead of
taking immediate action and so far they have not requested any
constitutional questions relating to the Council's power to
investigate a situation under Article 34. Our proposal, as at
present drafted, will probably be readily accepted by all other
representatives as subject for a procedural vote to which the veto
would not apply, and we have carefully refrained from opening up
this question. Both Americans and British, however, are fully
conscious of the fact that the adoption of our resolution by
procedural vote would help to establish precedent for avoiding the
difficulties presented by Article 34 and while they do not appear
to be averse to action which might help to overcome some of the
problems created by the sponsoring powers declaration regarding
investigation, it will be necessary to keep the resolution in such
a form that the inquiry which it suggests should not appear to be
the type of investigation provided for in Article 34. In
particular, Cadogan takes the view that a Sub-Committee of the
Council of the kind proposed could not by itself decide to proceed
to Europe without prior reference to the full Council as he would
consider such a decision would change the character of the Sub-
Committee completely and give it the character of a formal
commission of investigation of the kind envisaged in Article 34.

Moreover, he takes the view that a Sub-Committee of the Council
should be composed of representatives on the Council named as
individuals and that if the body were constituted otherwise it
would again take on some of the characteristics of a formal
commission of investigation.

4. Subject to these qualifications, it appears likely that our
resolution in its new form will obtain general support and that
possible Russian objections may be overcome by taking a procedural
vote.