Your United Nations 92 [1] and 97. [2]

1. I am greatly disturbed by your reports on Spanish sub-
committee. By proceeding along the lines you indicate a fiasco may
well be made of an enquiry which is important in itself and
important as the first Security Council enquiry.

2. Any Committee of Investigation must not passively request
information but also seek it. A mere request to the members [of]
the United Nations to supply information especially on a
confidential basis will bring forward political opinion and few
facts except those which confirm that opinion. The United States
were not at first in favour of the investigation and their
official is not likely to produce any facts which might indicate
need for action. If in fact the United States Government were in
possession of such facts and were to reveal them they would be
condemning themselves as members of the United Nations for not
bringing them to the attention of the Security Council earlier.

Similarly with other governments.

3. Though this must have been clear, the enquiry has been limited
to one month and thereby any first hand investigations or the
taking of evidence outside New York is excluded. This was contrary
to my instructions which were to have the main part of the
Committee's enquiries centred nearer Spain.

4. Reference UN92 and paragraph 5 of 97. It is important that no
evidence or information should be accepted which cannot be made
public. Furthermore, the enquiry proper should be wholly open.

5. If a meeting of the Committee or any other reason prevents your
attending committee on arrangements for setting up United Nations
site I will nominate another official. General principle should be
followed on all committees that the Australian representative
unnamed will represent Australia and the Secretariat should be
asked to accept that procedure as far as we are concerned.

Nomination of a particular person is too rigid and tends to
misrepresent the true position.