Security 102.

1. At the Council meeting this afternoon the United States
representative reiterated support for the resolution of the sub-
committee [1] but announced he would have supported the United
Kingdom amendment [2] if it had been proposed earlier. In the
circumstances he would abstain from voting on the amendment.

However, he [did not] [3] agree entirely with the United Kingdom
representative that the Council was deterred by article 2(7) of
the charter from taking action recommended by the sub-committee.

2. The Netherlands representative after stating he would support
the United Kingdom amendment, pointed out that even if both the
committee resolution and amendment were defeated there was an
obligation under article 24(3) of the charter which would mean
that the question must come before the Assembly.

3. The Soviet representative disagreed with the Australian
statement that the taking of action under article 41 of the
charter initiated a chain of events which would lead automatically
to military operations if less drastic steps proved unsuccessful.

Articles 41 and 42 provided various sanctions for employment in
any one of the three circumstances set out in article 39 and
according to whether there was a threat to peace, breach of peace
or act of aggression the appropriate measure could be selected. He
also argued against reference, [of] the question to the General
Assembly and stressed the primary responsibility of the Council.

Reference of the matters to the Assembly would be avoidance of
duty and would demonstrate inability of the Council to take
decision.

4. The Polish representative made a long speech justifying his
position and saying that if the sub-committee's resolution were
not adopted he would ask for a vote on his original resolution
calling for breach of diplomatic relations. [4]

5. Replying to the Soviet representative, Dr. Evatt, who made a
final speech, said that the main differences in the Council were
not over interpretation of the charter but over the conclusions to
be drawn from evidence. The committee had found no threat to peace
under article 39 and additional evidence would need to be adduced
to prove existence of a threat before direct action could be
taken. Dr. Evatt also argued that adoption of the resolution did
involve action by the Security Council in the discharge of its
responsibility. It was the Council not the Assembly which was
asked to endorse the declaration by the United Kingdom, United
States and France. [5]

6. After again referring to the terms of the declaration and
saying that no criticism of its terms had been made in the Council
he pointedly suggested that if any member of the Council prevented
the endorsement of the declaration there would be a most marked
effect on opinion in Spain. This statement by Dr. Evatt was an
allusion to remarks made by Gromyko to the effect that the British
attitude had led to rejoicing in Madrid and also was a broad hint
to Gromyko of the results if he exercised the veto.

7. The United Kingdom amendment was put to a vote and rejected,
only the Netherlands supporting it. A separate vote was then taken
on the sub-committee's three recommendations. The Soviet voted
against all three recommendations the first of which gained ten
votes, and the second and third nine votes, the Netherlands
abstaining in both these cases. Finally a vote was taken on the
resolution as a whole. Nine votes were cast in favour, the Soviet
voting in opposition and the Netherlands abstaining. The chairman
announced that as a permanent member had not voted for the
resolution it was not carried.

8. As forecast the United Kingdom representative after his
amendment was lost supported the sub-committee's resolution. He
explained that in view of the overwhelming majority in favour of
the resolution he would not withhold his vote which was necessary
for its success. However, he reserved a right to raise the whole
juridical issue at the Assembly and stated that he did not regard
his support of the resolution as committing the United Kingdom to
any particular course of action.

9. Finally, the Polish representative endeavoured to have a vote
taken on his original resolution of 17th April calling for a
breach of diplomatic relations. Australia opposed any snap
decision on this resolution and the Council then adjourned until
Monday. If the Polish resolution is put to a vote it is certain it
will be defeated.