Repeated London for Dr. Evatt. Security 42.
1. Cadogan resumed the debate on Spain in the Security Council this afternoon.  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.  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)  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  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.  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.