The Waterbury Democrat., 1946-04-22
By Dresv Pearson

potsdam Declaartion) either purported to affect this position or how they could legally affect t they he'd purported to do so
 VNether of these declarations can be interpreted as tstifyng direct interference by Security Council In international affairs of Spain or contention that continuance of present Spanish regime constitutes threat to international security If by international law matter is one Of domestic jurisdiction then no declaration of Three Powers or even Assembly Resolution of UNo can cause 1t to cease to be SO.
 "If form of Spanish Government is legally Spanish domestic matter Gas we think 1t surely is) and if purport of this Declaration or Assembly ReSs olution had been (which we say 1t is not to say the spanish regime could be dealt with under Chap ter 6 of Charter, then Declaration and Resolution would have been contrary to Charter and void. No such declaration or resolution could possibly over- ride basic principle of the Charter (see Article and Article l03).
 Bar Spain from Agenda-''For all foregoing req sons vote should be cast against any proposal to place spanish question on agenda on lines suggested by French Government. It should ot course pc made abundSatly clear that United Kingdom Government are as anxious as anyone to see end of present Spanish regime, and ready to join in any action which they feel is really calculated to bring apout its peaceful replacement by more suitable Govt.
 If, nevertheless the Council decided by niajor- ity vote to place the matter on agenda, question would presumably be considered situations m that event and even on widest motS Council could claim to do would Do to investigate situation under Article 34, in order to determine whether there was threat to international security and under Article 36 to recommend appropr1ate procedures or methods of adjustment GAS stated above, recommendations of these now coul donly be made if threat to peace was declaredO
 Discussion might be pushed to extent where 1t became necessary to take vote on preIlmmary question whether continuation of spanish situation was likely to endanger maintenance of international peace and security When 1t comes to such vote we see no alternative to your voting in negative, Dis" erection should be used as to stage ct which such vote should be brought on, for we would not want to be accused of stifling all discussion of matter which, by majority vote Security Council had ai- ready agreed to adopt on agenda.
 Use veto # neCessary--"Tn any case we are op- posed to imposition of economic sanctions NorS while, as we have already impressed on N Bidaut we are very ready to continue discussions with French and U. s. Govts. through usual channels as tc how best we pursue our common objective towards Spain do we favor decision by the Council onlines suggested by French Govt in their note ot l2I3 That matter be referred to Council of Foreign Ministers of Powers for consideration
 Besides affording UsSR further opportunity of making trouble. such action by Council might set undesirable precedent for other occasions (Cf Harm done to League of Nations by transfer of Corfu dis pute to Ambassadors Conference)
 Tt is possible that attempt may be made to represent spanish situation already constituting threat to peace in order to bring 1t under Chapter 2 of Charter Attempt should be made to stop this by use of veto as necessary