FILTER BY:

UNO and Spain

The United Nations Security Council was called upon to break up diplomatic relations with Franco, Spain. Poland demanded this action because according to Dr. Oscar Lange, the Polish delegate, Spain presents a definite international problem for, said he. Spain today is “an armed camp with a standing army of 600,000 to 700,000; manufacture of arms flourishes; sections of the Spanish border with France have been heavily fortified; tank traps have been built on the roads, bridges and passes; 200,000 men are massed in Catalonia alone.

Four specific charges were listed for the Security Council to prove the actions of the Franco regime have led to International friction and endangered international peace and security. “(1) The Franco regime has been put into power with the support of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, against the will of the Spanish people, who resisted Franco and the Axis for almost three years. (2) The Franco regime was an active partner in the Axis war against the United Nations. It willfully gave aid and comfort to our enemies. (3) The Franco regime has caused a state of international friction by compelling the French Republic to close her borders with Spain by massing troops on the borders of France. (4) The Franco regime has allowed the territory of Spain to become a refuge for German assets, for German personnel and for German scientists engaged in pursuits dangerous to the peace of mankind.”

Briefly summing up the matter the delegate said that Spain is the “last surviving partner of our enemy, the Axis,” and because of the existing situation Spain presents a danger signal. The UNO should in no way minimize this danger for delay action “until guns are shooting, until bombs are dropped, until men are killed and cities destroyed in order to certify the situation as international friction.”

Naturally this move is strongly supported by France and Russia but both Great Britain and the U.S. have balked a little in interfering in Spain, hoping and suggesting that Franco be removed by his own people and a democratic regime be set up.

FOOD CRISIS AND CAMPAIGN:

A definite campaign is now under way throughout the nation to make people eat less food and avoid all waste. Because of war destruction, Europe is not growing its own food. Drought and cyclones have ruined the wheat crop in India, South Africa, and Argentina–the places Europe was depending on to supply her with grain. The situation is indeed critical. At present there is mass starvation, scores of thousands of men, women, and children are going to starve to death in the weeks and months immediately ahead. UNRA reports famine in China bringing death to 4 million and in all 30 million are starving. This threat of famine in Europe and Asia can be headed off only by America. The task is gigantic and we in the U.S. will be called upon to tighten our belts and to “Hooverize” again in a very real way. Herbert Hoover, who gained fame during and after World War I for organizing relief campaigns for Europe and who is now on an inspection tour in Europe and Asia, has been appointed to head this campaign. The campaign will use the ordinary avenues of newspapers, magazines, and radio to make recommendations to housewives as well as to hotels and restaurants. It will not only mean darker bread but there will be an actual cut in the consumption of good.

BRITISH LOAN:

The Senate began a debate on the British request for about $4,000,000,000. The British now find themselves in an economic mess; hence the request for money. The Truman administration wants Congress to approve the loan and all indications point that it will. The interest on the loan would be two percent, no payments on principal or interest would be required until 1951, and the British Government would have until the year 2001 to clean up the debt; and when British exports are below prewar levels, the interest could be omitted.

Those who favor granting this amount to England point to the fact that England needs it because war has brought it on. It will take England quite some time to build up her foreign trade with other countries. She depends upon trade for half her food supply. The United States is the only one who can help her; we were the only major nation that escaped the devastation of war. By extending aid to England we will help make her stable and prosperous and in the long run we may contribute to our own prosperity by lending. The cost, $4 billion, may seem great but had the war gone on for another month we would have had to spend the amount which we are being asked to lend to Great Britain. The cost of help therefore is small in comparison to the cost of war. Then we must never forget that the defeat of the Axis nations was only the first step toward victory; world economic stability must be included and be a part of the victory to be won.

On the other hand it is argued that there is a limit to our money. We cannot afford to let out billions now, for the war cost us about 325 billion dollars and we have a national debt of 275 billion. There is a limit. Let us reconstruct our own house first. Then too, it is argued, that granting loans causes sore feelings sooner or later. And how about repayment of these loans? There is more than 46 billion dollars worth of war materials and supplies that our Allies received during the war which shall probably never be paid back. Isn’t that enough? We are giving outright gifts to the UNRA to relieve suffering. It goes without saying that we have done our part and are doing it. Then, too, if we load Britain the money, can we refuse Russia, France, and the others? Why should Uncle Sam come around and bail humanity out every time nations get into economic trouble?