UNO22.

1. Full dress debate in committee 8 on site of permanent
headquarters of United Nations has commenced following two days
manoeuvering over procedure. As there has been no decision re
manner in which vote will eventually be taken and as debate will
be allowed to range over whole field, components of executive
committee's recommendation have considerably reduced if not
removed altogether the handicap which executive committee
recommendation placed on them and doubtless they will continue to
work as they did during the past three days to ensure that the
questions are eventually put to vote in the manner calculated to
divide those in favour of recommendation or lead to abstentions.

2. The debate itself will be in the nature of an informal poll and
speakers declare their defence. To date Canada, Poland, Greece,
Netherlands and Belgium have spoken in favour of site in Europe
and Philippines, Cuba, Australia and Chile in favour of site in
the United States. Informal poll cannot at present produce more
than 26 firm supporters for the United States. About 12 states are
strong for Europe and about 12 including Arab states hold balance
with present prospect that many of them will swing to Europe.

3. In yesterday's debate Hodgson for Australia referred to
statement by Dr. Evatt before executive committee in favour of San
Francisco. Australian vote would go to San Francisco not because
it was in the United States but because it was most suitable site.

Before we could argue for San Francisco we must argue for the
United States. Australia would always be mindful of Europe but
concern was not with one continent but with world, not with
preservation of European civilisation but with preservation of
civilisation itself. Answering argument that Europe was likely to
be the centre of future international problems, Hodgson said that
the middle east and far east were just as likely to have problems
and in fact late war had its origins in China Incident just as
much as in any European incident. Yet no one argued that for this
reason headquarters should be in the middle east or far east.

Rather we argued that the site should be sufficiently detached to
see the world as a whole. Organisation must not become immersed in
local or continental problems to detriment of world problems.

Organisation also needed making of will and determination of
peoples of the world and they looked for a new start and a new
outlook. This choice fell on the United States. Positive
advantages of the United States in communications amenities
material resources were then indicated and argument of difficulty
of access was answered by reference to modern air transport and
fact that member states would probably maintain permanent
representatives at headquarters. Argument which had been advanced
by Spaak [1] of Belgium that headquarters should not be in
territory of permanent member of security council was strongly
contested and it was advanced that such an argument imputed that
great powers would not act in accordance with their obligations
under charter. Concluding we stated a vote for the United States
would give conditions of freedom and security and an atmosphere in
which organisation could achieve its objective.