MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION Mr. Ulate called at the residence this morning by previous appointment. He wanted to discuss the Spanish question. It appears that he had attended a meeting of the Junta at which Costa Rica position on the pending resolution in the UN was discussed. asked him what decision the Junta had taken and he said it had not yet been able to make up its mind. There was to be a further meeting and he had been asked to submit his own views.
Mr. Ulate said that the conduct of foreign relations by this government is something unique and that the members of the Junta are playing with foreign affairs like children.
For example, Nr. Cafias, the representative of Costa Rica at the UN, had apparently taken offense at rir. Odio recent instruction and now communicates only with the Minister of Justice.
Mr. Ulate ascertained that in the latter part of 1948 the question of sending a Minister to Spain had been the subject of long discussion in the Junta and the decision taken that Costa Rica should support any resolution in the UN assembly looking to withdrawal of the existing resolution recommending withdrawal of chiefs of raission.
In March of this year the Spanish Minister had discussed the matter with the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Odio) who had sent him a formal note stating that Costa Rica would support a repeal resolution provided the UN did not have before it evidence that such action would be contrary to the welfare of the Spanish people. Within the last few days Mr. Odio had sent instructions to Mr. Cañas directing him to vote for the repeal but including the same conditions. It will be seen that Mr. Ulate was paraphrasing from memory the phraseology of the recent instructions to Mr. Cañas which have been published in the local press. However, on May 10 Mr. Odio sent a second note to the Spanish Minister in which he stated categorically and without conditions that Costa Rica would vote for the resolution introduced by Brazil. Mr. Vlate said that in his view this should settle the matter since normal diplomatic intercourse would be impossible if a formal communi.
cation from one goverment to another over the signature of the Minister of Foreign Affairs could not be taken as final.