FRANCO REPLIES TO ALLIES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 90, Issue 55, 7 March 1946, Page 5

FRANCO REPLIES TO ALLIES

“DON’T MEDDLE WITH SPAIN”

TERMS OF JOINT DECLARATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED

Heed. 7 p.m. London, March 5. Britain received a blunt “don’t meddle” retort from General Franco in to the joint British-American-French declaration, says the “Exchange Telegraph’s” diplomatic correspondent. A Washington message says that a State Department official reported that Franco, in a Note received 24 hours before the release of the British-American-French declaration, served notice on the United States that he had no intention of leaving office under Allied pressure. The Note vigorously asserted that Spain should run her own affairs without outside intervention.

Official French circles arc not in the least satisfied with the terms of the joint declaration on Franco, says Reuter’s Paris correspondent. It is believed that if France alone issued the declaration the terms would have been much stronger. A Government spokesman said he believed that the United States initiated the declaration in an attempt to reach a solution on the Spanish question without recourse to the United Nations. Reuter’s says it is reliably reported in Paris to-day that Britain rejected a French proposal that Franco should be brought before the Security Council. The British view appears to be that the Spanish regime is an internal matter for the Spanish people to decide. The tripartite declaration on Spain is regarded in Washington as a compromise designed to keep Britain, America, and France in step on Spanish policy, and to induce anti-Franco politicians to cease quarrelling among themselves. American officials believe that the main hope of getting rid of Franco is unity among the major Allies on the Spanish problem and greater unity among Spanish Royalists, Communists, Socialists, and Liberal Democrats. Russia has already brqken away from the Big Four and favours direct action against Franco, while France was on the verge, also, of breaking away and following a sharp unilateral policy. It was to prevent the latter development and offer some inducement to the anti-Franco forces inside anj outside Spain that the present declaration was issued. If it fails tp produce an anti-Franco coalition, however, it is unlikely that Washington and London will be able to prevent Moscow and Paris taking much more serious action against Franco and appealing to the United Nations Security Council. Russia favours an Immediate diplomatic and economic embargo against Spain until the Franco regime collapses, hut Britain and America oppose this, on the ; round that it would produce civil war, in which Franco and hi..- henchmen would be the last to suffer. “UNWARRANTED MEDDLING”

The Madrid correspondent of “The Times” says the Spanish press published garbled official extracts from the joint British-American-French declaration, which was described as "a piece of unwarranted meddling.” Editorial comment dwells sarcastically on "the short-lived ideals of non-interven-tion and the Atlantic Charter, which have given place to barefaced ingratitude and ruthless bullying by nations that Recognised Franco before the war and curried favour with him while danger lasted.” The correspondent says Spaniards generally understand the reasons for the Allied challenge to a neo-Fascist. regime which survived the Axis defeat hut do. not see how they can alter the situation. Allied readiness to support an interim Government strikes them as an empty gesture, though it may satisfy public opinion abroad.

TORTURE CHARGES AMBASSADOR’S REPLY

Recd. 6 p.m. London, March 5. The Spanish Ambassador told a women's deputation that allegations that three Spanish women patriots were tortured and sentenced to death were propaganda of gaolbirds. He said trials were open to the public and the Press. The women were neither tortured nor sentenced to death. Any Press correspondent in Spain was free to write as he wished and to send it out of the country. The Ambassador promised to convey to the Government the women’s demand for an open trial for the three women, civilised prisoi. conditions for them, he presence of observers from democratic countries with freedom to meet the accused, also uncensored Press reports of the trial?.

After the deputation, the nomen stated they were not impressed by the reply. In view of the assurance frem the Ambassador that they would be welcomed in Spain, they were considering the possibility of sending a delegation to attend the trial and interview the accused

MADRID RADIO VERSION London, March 6. After more than 12 hours' silence on the subject, Madrid radio has now put out a heavily-censored version of the joint declaration made last night by Britain, the United States, and France, giving their views on the Franco regime and the future of Spain. The Madrid version omitted every mention of Franco by name, and deleted entirely several phrases which were critical of the Falangist Government. Among the omissions were a reference to the repressive measures of the present regime against the efforts of the Spanish people to find their own political expression, the declaration’s view that Spain could not take part in world affairs while Franco was in control, and the hope that leading patriotic and liberalminded Spaniards would soon find means to bring about Franco’s peaceful withdrawal. The radio, without direct reference to the British-American French declaration, said: "There doesn't seetai to exist any more urgent problems in the international field for these politicals on the banks of the Thames. It makes one forget other questions, accumulating unpleasantly on the political horizon— the Russians not evacuating Persia and not budging from Manchuria. Don't Indonesia, Indo-China, the Middle East, the Far East, Egypt and Europe present grave political problems?”