710.52/7–2848: Circular airgram
The Secretary of State to Diplomatic and Consular Offices in the American Republics 1
The Brazilian Ambassador2 informed us on July 21 that his Government was disturbed over the effect on the UN of the gradually [Page 1046] increasing number of Ambassadors or Ministers assigned to Spain by various of the American Republics. He also mentioned the effect on inter-American relations of the division over this point with some American Republics bitterly opposed to closer relations with Spain. There is obviously a difference of opinion as to whether the 1946 Resolution on Spain is still in effect. Although, the Brazilian Government does not agree with the US that the Resolution is still binding (see Depcirgram Dec. 30, 19473) and would like to send an Ambassador to Spain, it believes the doubt about the 1946 Resolution should first be resolved in the UN. We suggested that Spain would probably come up for discussion at the General Assembly this Fall and that this matter could be considered at that time. The Ambassador felt it would be well for the US and Brazilian Governments to exchange views with the other American Republics and perhaps with other governments, lie thought this might also tend to forestall the sending of Chiefs of Mission to Spain by American Republics pending possible General Assembly action. We agreed with his suggestions.
We have already initiated discussions with the British and French to get their views and to see if it will be possible to agree on a common position. In substance the following considerations have been presented:
The support and strengthening of the UN is a fundamental principle of our foreign policy and we attach importance to scrupulous compliance with UN recommendations. Since the UN Resolution of December 12, 1946 on Spain was not repealed by the 1947 General Assembly, we intend to continue to adhere to its recommendations so long as it remains in effect.
However—and without going into historical detail—we have long questioned the advisability and efficacy of this Resolution and experience has strengthened our doubts. It has failed in achieving its intended purpose, namely, encouraging a change in the Spanish Government. Furthermore the Resolution has not received the full respect of the member states of the UN. The portion relating to Chiefs of Mission has been violated and there are indications of the possibility of additional violations of that provision. This lack of respect for a UN resolution is injurious to the UN. It would be better for the UN to recognize a mistake and repeal the provision not engendering respect than to allow it to expire in a lingering fashion through repeated violations. Therefore, if a substantial number of governments indicate a desire at the next General Assembly session to repeal or modify the 1946 Resolution, we would be prepared to seriously consider such proposals.
We recognize that there is little, if any, possibility that such action will succeed until the Spanish Government has undertaken some modifications in its domestic policies which, will make it less objectionable to public opinion in the Western nations. Even in the absence of such [Page 1047] modifications, however, we are prepared to vote in favor of certain changes in the Resolution, basing our action on our honest belief that the Resolution has proved to be an ineffective gesture. In this connection, we would favor either or both of the following two changes if they are proposed at the next General Assembly session: (1) amendment of the 1946 Resolution to permit the admission to membership in technical organizations affiliated with the UN of any non-UN member when such member, in the opinion of the organization, will contribute to the special technical objective of the organization: (2) deletion from the Resolution of the recommendation concerning the withdrawal of Ambassadors and Ministers from Madrid.
In the event that there are indications before the General Assembly meets that the Spanish Government is undertaking a liberalization of its domestic policies, we would then be prepared to consider, to the extent justified by the actions of the Spanish Government: (1) giving active support to the above changes or (2) voting in favor of repealing the 1946 Resolution.
It is suggested that, at your discretion, you take a suitable opportunity to discuss this question with the FonOff, reporting any conversations to the Department.
- Information copies were also sent to the Embassy in Madrid and the United States Mission to the United Nations.↩
- Mauricio Nabuco.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1947, vol. iii, p. 1099.↩