A/37/PV.55 General Assembly

Panama was one of the 15 Latin American countries which, on 15 November 1%5, presented to the Genl-~.aI Ass('::mbly at its twentieth session a draft resoiution which was sub- sequently adopted by an overwhelming majprity on 16 DI~cember of that same year, as resolution 2065 (XX), entitled "Question of the Falkland Islands (Mal- vinasY'. We sponsored that draft resolution because of our acknowledged anti-colonial position and opr firm support for the principle of the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means. 17. Seventeen years have elapsed since the adoption of that resolution, in which the General Assembly noted the existence of a dispute between th~ Govern- ments of Argentina and the United Kingdom con- cerning sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands and invited the two Governments to proceed without delay with t~e negotiations recommended by the Special Argeni~na and the United Kingdom to expedite the nego~jations concerning the dispute over sovereignty with regard to the Malvinas Islands. 21. In the light of t"'~ account I have given of the resolutions and cc:nsensus decisions adopted by the General Assembly on the question of the Malvinas Islands, it is clear that there is a body of precedent which constitutes a reflection of the desire of the inter- national community for a negotiated solution of the question of the Malvinas, which cannot be set aside for circumstantial reasons or ignored at the whim of one Government, Ht claimed by the British Govern- ment. But from this ac:ount it is clear that the colo- nial Powers stubbornly resist liquidation of their empires and that, in their vain efforts to maintain that anachronistic system, they do not hesitate to mock shamelessly the feelings of the international community as represented in the General Assembly. Seventeen years of unsuccessful negotiations con- firm this assertion. 22. Draft resolution A/37/L.3/Rev.l, which we and 19 other Latin American countries sponsored, is in harmony with the traditional conduct of the As- sembly on the question of the Malvinas, and we hope it will be strengthened by the resolute support of the Members of the Organization that sincerely desire to promote international peace and understanding. 23. Those countries that, pn one pretext or another, openly or subtly oppose a.n initiative designed to promote the peaceful solution of a dispute, or that may be indifferent, are contributing, consciously or unconsciously, to the creation of subjective or objective conditions which then lead to recourse to means other than the peaceful means we are all com- mitted to promoting. 24. The question of the Malvinas Islands has been considered for nearly 18 years in the United Nations and therefore the international community knows full well that the existence of the dispute between Argen- should~ determine the future of a usurped Territory which is not its own. 36. By insisting on recognition of the right to self- determination of the population of the Ma\vinas, the United Kingdom is trying to conceal its clear purpose, which is to perpetuate its colonial occupation 38. Both past and recent h.istory. dispel any such illusion. The tragedy of the indigenous population of Diego Garcia is still fresh in our memory. There was no consideration at all for them. They were apparently slaves who could be transferred at the stroke of a pen or bargained away without taking their aspirations into .account. It is paradoxical, to say the least, that the same colonial empire now sets itself up as the champion of the rights of the in}l~bitants of the Mal- vinas, when, in leasing the atoll of Diego Garda for the installation of an American milit?\·y base there, it explicitly agreed to deliver the territory free of inhab- itants or population, thereby displacing hundreds of the indigenous people, who now long to return to their land. 39. We must therefore ask who is applying a double standard. Two days ago, at the 12th meeting of the Fourth Committee, we heard the testimony of two representatives of the kelpers, whose passage and per diem were paid by the British Government so that they could promote the British thesis. Why should we not also be able to hear, at the appropriate time, th~ testimony of the indigenous population of Diego Garcia? 40. There is more and more information attesting to the intention of the United Kingdom to convert the Malvinas into an important military fortress, with the establishment of a naval base from which would oper- ate an undetermined number of frigates and de- stroyers, the maintenance of a nuclear submarine in the area, the stationing of a full brigade of Royal Marines and two squadrons of the Royal Air Force -totalling some 3,000 men-the installation of radar facilities and systems for ground-to-air missiles, the extension of the runway and installations of Puerto Argentino airport and the presence of Harrier air- craft and a fleet of helicopters. 41. We most vigorously condemn this attempt to perpetuate the illegal occupation of the Malvi~as Islands, in any guise, be it as a~ strictly British mdi- tary "base on occupied foreign territory, a slice of ter- ritory ceded to the United States on the model of Diego Garcia and Ascension or a North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] base-that is, operating as a multinational base, because the ultimate objective will always be the violation of Argentine territorial entity, thus constituting a permanent danger to inter- national peace and security. 48. The Government of Honduras has indicated, and has recently reiterated, in the statement in the general debate by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Edeardo Paz Barnica, that: "Honduras recognizes the sovereign rights of the Republic of Argentina over the Malvinas and supports its claim. Hondurafi believes that every conflict between States c,an be settled by negotia- tion; therefore, it reject& the use of force in any international conflict"-and at the same time, as it is doing now-"... is in favour of a speedy negotiated solution between the parties which would give sovereignty over the Malvinas to Argentina." [24th meeting, para. 59.] 49. Our position is not based on whim. History does not lie. The British do not have primary rights over the Malvinas. Argentina inherited the Islands from the former Spanish Crown. In 1833, Great Britain took the Islands by force and expelled the Argentine authorities that were there at the time. That act cannot be justified in any way. No one can be said to have "abandoned" a right when it has been taken from him by force. 50. As for colonialism, all of us are forced to recog- nize that it is doomed to disappear. How many here In the Assembly, whatever their colour, have obtained their freedom from some former metropolitan Power? This forum is the most eloquentevidence ofthis historic process. The number of States Members of the United Nations has -trebled since its creation in 1945. What were most of the Member States before that date if not colonies of the great empires? And who lost those former territories? The answer is perhaps naive: they were lost by those who had temporarily occupied them without being entitled to do so. A State cannot conquer its own territory. It may defend it-that is quite another thing-but a State cannot patiently accept the emplacement on its territory of a foreign population that, in accordance with the law ofgenetics, will end up outnumbering the indigenous population. A State which owes loyalty to its own people cannot allow its sovereignty to be trampled upon indefinitely. 51. Those are three fundamental elements that no one disputes today; they have a symbiotic relationship in international life. In the case of Argentina, all three -territory, population and sovereignty-are in that (;ountry's favour. Although today it has been rendered vulnerable because of the use of force, our children will in the future history of the Americas see that here one more battle was won against obsolete colo- nialism, which should no longer exist in this century. - 75. In 1973, the General Assembly, gravely con- cerned at the fact that eight years had elapsed since the adoption of resolution 2065 (XX) without any substantial progress having been made in the negotia- tions, after expressing its gratitude to the Government of Argentina for the contim~ous efforts it had made to facilitate the process ofdecolonization and to promote the well-being of the population of the Islands, urged both parties, in resolution 3160 (XXVIII), to proceed without delay with the negotiations in order to put an end to the colonial situation. In 1976, the General Assembly adopted resolution 31/49, which was similar to the preceding one and which also received overwhelming support. 76. Other bodies have also spoken out in favour of Argentina with regard to the question of the Malvinas, including the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, of which my country is a member. The first Decla- 77. On the basis of that Declaration, the highest bodies of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries have continued to recognize Argentina's sovereignty and have urged the United Kingdom to continue negotiations. Thus, this is not a new question for the General Assembly and its reembers. The parties concerned, Argentina and the United Kingdom, must undertake negotiations for the settlement of this dispute. 78. The objection raised by some delegations with regard to the failure to mention specifically the ces- sation of hostilities in the initial draft resolution has been overcome in the revised draft resolution [A1371 L.3IRev.I]. The representative of the United Kingdom is not satisfied with the relevant text, despite the fact that there is a de facto cessation of hostilities and despite the specific statement made by the Min- ister for External Relations of Argentina when he addressed the General Assembly. Similarly, the representative of the United Kingdom does not take into account the fact that this commitment involves not only Argentina but also the other 19 countries which, along with Argentina, sponsored the draft resolution'. In this connection, we must also under- stand that the Latin American countries view with the gravest concern the existence in the Malvinas of a military base which has close to 4,000 men equipped with the most advanced war material. 79. The draft resolution, in its preambular part, ~mphasizes the imperative need for the parties to take due account of the interests of the population of the Islands in accordance with the provisions of General Assemblv resolutions 2065 (XX) and 3160 (XXVIII). 80. There is nothing objectionable in the draft reso- lution, nothing that is not in the context of the Charter or the resolutions previously adopted. We therefore hope that many countries will support us with their vote in order to turn this draft resolution into an effective tool for the definitive solution of the problem of the Malvinas Islands. 81. The operative part of the text, as well as requesting the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to resume negotiations, requests the Secretary-General to undertake a renewed mis- sion of good offices in order to assist the parties in complying with that request. Undoubtedly, the Secretary-General would be acting with the wise prudence and great diplomatic skill which we know he possesses! His good offices would be an important 83". The representative of the United Kingdom said that the proposed draft resolution could lead to a political confrontation between Argentina and his country. Nothing is further removed from the honest intention of our countries in proposing this course, in keeping with the principles of the Charter and with the best traditions of international law. We under- stand what motivates the British refusal even to consider a negotiated solution, but we also understand that such a position is not in keeping with the positive course demonstrated by the United Kingdom with regard to the ending of the colonial era. Dozens of new countries in America, Asia, Africa and Oceania, which today are proud Members ofthe United Nations, bear witness to that. 84. On the basis of that ancient British tradition of genuine political realism, I call on the United King- dom not to offer the international community a proce- dure that would be out of keeping with its own history. The once powerful empire, which still has decisive influence through its culture and civilization, the cradle of many of the political and human rights that guarantee the dignity of our species throughout the world today, cannot escape the huge respon- sibility of acting in accordance with the principles of peaceful coexistence enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. 85. Nor can the General Assembly accept the argu- ment adduced by the representative of the United Kingdom that his Government cannot hold talks with the present Argentine Government because of the state of confrontation that allegedly exists between them. The question of the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom is not of recent date. On the contrary, it goes back to the first decades of the last century, and dozens of Governments of both countries have dealt witlt it and negotiated it. . . 86. On the other hand, with the brilliant oratory that we expect from the representative of the London Government, he has set forth to the General Assembly his argument that the draft resolution submitted by the Latin American countries prejudges the result of the negotiations, because it contains the concept of sovereignty dispute as the main issue among tliose that will have to be dealt with by the parties within the peaceful negotiating process. If this were not in the text, it would have meant quite clearly giving full r,atisfaction to the Government of the United Kingdom. But the countries that believe in the effec- tiveness of the United Nations system could not have committed a greater folly if they had not included that concept, as they would have been ignoring all the . 88. Is this not a sovereignty dispute, if both coun- tries consider it to be so? Does the aforementioned representative think that. by admitting this, his right and aspiration would thereby be diminished? Does his country, so well versed in international law, really not know that the inhabitants of the Malvinas never stopped being British subjects, transplanted over several generations, and that the fact of their pres- ence there has not succeeded in giving rise to sover- eignty over that Territory-sovereignty that the Argentine Republic does possess? 89. Nor can it be argued, as the representative of the United Kingdom did, that the question of the Malvinas Islands must be solved through applying the .principle of self-determination to the British subjects settled on the Islands since 1833. For Peru, for Latin America and for the whole international community, since this has been enshrined in the various resolutions and consensuses so often men- tioned here, this colonial problem must be dealt with on the basis of the principle of territorial jntegrity, and the negotiation preceding settlement of the prob- lem must involve only the two parties directly con- cerned: the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom. Of course, the population of the Islands will be carefully taken into consideration in order to protect its well-being and all its interests. 90. The colonial situation of the Malvinas Islands did not come before the General Assembly as the result of any claim by the people living there with regard to the metropolitan country, that is, the United King- dom. On the contrary, the United Nations began to deal with the situation when the sister Republic of Argentina made a serious and well-based claim of sovereignty over the Territory. In accordance with this premise of principle, any argument adduced here by the representative of the United Kingdom in favour of the right of self-determination is null and void. On the other hand, to accept the exercise of self- determination would mean, as far as international law is concerned, the admission of a new situation in which any occupation of foreign territory by force, followed by the expulsion of the inhabitants and authorities and the implantation ofaforeign population, would acquire legitimacy merely by those inhabitants being given the right to self-determination. 91. It follows that we cannot accept the interpre- tation of the representative of the United Kingdom of Article 73 of the Charter. While his Government has year after year reported to the Secretary-General on the safeguarding of the interests of the inhab- itants of the Malvinas Islands, the fulfilment of an obligation established by the Charter cannot create 97. First, given the legal as well as the political nature of the dispute, the draft resolution testifies to insufficient efforts to affirm unreservedly and un- ambiguously the purposes of the Charter contained in Article 2. Such affirmation is especially imperative, given the diametrically opposed legal and historical positions held by the disputants. 98. Secondly, given the solemn obligation which we as Member States have under Article I of the Charter, we must be vigilant respecting the serious conse- quences which inconsistencies in our decisions can engender. In this respect, it is significant to recall the de facto recognition conferred by the Assembly on one of the disputants through the measures it has instituted to implement Article 73 of the Charter. Additionally, there are the implicit priorities which the Assembly set in its first major decision on this ques- tion, to be found in its resolution 2065 (XX). It must also be observed that these implicit priorities were not clearly reflected in subsequent resolutions, nor are they in the draft resolution now before us. 99. Thirdly, and finally, for the very reasons just given, it is most unwise for the Assembly to present its chief administrator with tools which are not fully equal to the magnitude of the task given him. lOO. Thus, while my delegation is in complete agree- ment with the need for negotiations expressed in the draft resolution, it cannot support the deficient modali- ties and guiding principles which underpin it, and is therefore constrained to abstain in the vote. 101. To be even more explicit, this vote of absten- tion by the Bahamas is the means by which my Govern- ment wishes to state to the As·sembly that whatever the sympathies of each Member State here rep- resented for either of the disputants, there is an over- riding obligation incumbent on each of us under Ar- ticle 1 of the Charter. This overriding obligation is that we must all act in such a way as to contribute to the defusing of emotions between the disputants and to encourage attitudes that will ensure final and lasting accord between them, as well as to ensure that all results achieved are in the best interests of the people of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).

Senegal enjoys exemplary relations, based on mutual respect, with both Argentina and Great Britain. Hence, our great consternation, our great concern, 111. One of the parties felt that it had been wronged and that it had to resort to force to settle the dis- pute. The method chosen could not meet with our approval. Nor could the reaction of the other party, no matter how legitimate it might appear, facilitate solu- tion of the dispute. Thus, bearing in mind the need to resort to the peaceful settlement of disputes on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, my delegation will vote in favour of this draft resolution and appeals to Argentina and to the United Kingdom, two countries which are friends of Tunisia, to resume negotiations that were broken off. In this regard, taking account of the interests of the population of the Malvinas Islands, that is, the need not to preju- dice the enjoyment of their rights, remains, in this case, an overriding obligation. 112. With regard to the question of the principle of self-determination, the Tunisian delegation would like to say the following. Tunisia has always considered itself to be a vigorous defender of one of the greatest accomplishments of the Organization: the principle of self-determination and the right of peoples to decide their own future. Tunisia today reaffirms its attach- ment to this principle with the same force and the same conviction. 113. In the case with which we are concerned, two considerations must be taken into account: first, the historical and geographical, as well as the ethnic realities that are specific to the region and, secondly, the risk of wide interpretations which are inevitably resorted to by those who are accustomed to faits accomplis and the establishment of settlements. That is why we must be somewhat cautious. In the case of the Malvinas Islands, it is indeed clear that imple- mentation of the principle of self-determination could not, of and by itself, resolve the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom. To advocate that as the only basis for a settlement of the conflict may result in prejudging the very content of negotiations in which we hope to see the two parties engage.

Luxembourg has always been' and con- tinues to be in favour of negotiations to settle dis- putes, whatever they may be. Any resort to force is unacceptable to us. The draft resolution before us indeed calls for negotiations, but it does not appear to envisage them as a neutral pfi>cess, without pre- judging their outcome. 115. That is why my delegation, regrettably, will be forced to abstain in the voting. Since reference is made in the text to decolonization, we would have liked to see an allusion also to its corollary, that is, the right ofthe people concerned to self-determination. Similarly, paragraph 1 seems to us to prejudge the outcome of the negotiations, since the question of sovereignty alone is mentioned, whereas in our opinion the question of the Malvinas Islands has other ele- ments, particularly those referred to in Articles 1and 73 of the Charter. 120. For these reasons, my delegation will abstam in the voting on this draft resolution. It seems to us that the adoption of this draft resolution might exac- erbate the differences, which would be prejudicial to the negotiations and to the peaceful settlement of the dispute, in accordance with the principles of the Charter, which we so earnestly'desire.

I wish to explain why my delegation is going to vote against the draft resolution before us. 122. I sense that many delegations here are troubled at being obliged to vote on it. There is a feeling that it is a mistake for the Argentine Government to have pressed this matter to a vote so soon after their inva- sion of the Falkland Islands. This invasion showed that the present Argentine regime will stop at nothing in pursuit ofits claim to sovereignty. "Stop at nothing" is not an idle phrase. Neither appeals from the Sec- retary-General and the President ofthe Security Coun- cil nor a mandatory resolution of the Security Coun- cil were heeded. Even now, the Argentines continue to make it clear, especially to their own public opin- ion, that they expect to have what they call a second round and ar.e preparing for it. Only two days ago, 124. As to the other changes put forward by the sponsors, the reference to the interests of the people is no less unsatisfactory and disturbing than what is said-or rather not said-about hostilities. If the Argentines had genuinely wanted to reassure the Falklanders and to influence Britain, they would have referred not to the interests of the people, but rather to their wishes. Who can be a better judge of their interests than the Falklanders themselves? Anyone who listened to the cross-questioning of the peti- tioners in the Fourth Committee two days ago will have realized what a mockery it is for the Argen- tines to talk about thei.r !espect for the interests of the people. There is no sign in the draft reso!ution----or in the sponsors' speeches-of any recognition orthe fundamental fact that these people have been for generations, and continue to be, the people of the Islands. It is ludicrous for the Argentines to refer to them as "immigrant communities". They, and only they, are Falklanders and the Falkland Islands are their home. 125. The revised version ofth~ draft resolution drops all reference to the declarations of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. But, in spite ofthis significant omission, paragraph 1 insists upon talking about "the sovereignty dispute". This formula is designed to prejudge the issue and is therefore unacceptable to my Government. 126. It is, in any case, impossible to accept a call for negotiations as if the Argen~ine invasion had never occurred. It is impossible to accept negotiations when basic principles are excluded. These principles are fun- damental. They cannot be drafted or negotiated away or made to mean something else. 127. The Argentine attitude is strangely out of date. Argentina's entire case is based upon its version of what happened in the eighteenth and nineteenth 152. My delegation has taken note of the efforts of the sponsors of draft resolution A/37/L.3/Rev.l to accommodate the view that the Falklanders should participate in the determination of their own future. However, the sixth preambular paragraph falls far short of a clear commitment to respect the wishes of the Falklanders. 153. My delegation is further of the view that appro- priate conditions of peace must be established be- tween the United Kingdom and the Republic ofArgen- tina so as to ensure the existence of an atmosphere that will be conducive to meaningful negotiations. The de facto cess&iion of hostilities in the South Atlantic is a step in the right direction. The next step must be a formal cease-fire between the combatants and a renunciation of the use or threat of use of force by both countries, thus paving the way for a peaceful settlement of the dispute. 154. Of course, my Government holds no brief for the United Kingdom, but we cannot help wondering whether the United Kingdom would seriously con- sider proceeding to the negotiating table in the present conditions, in which technically a state of war still 1 • h h . f for them to find their place in the South Atlantic seem to De content Wit t elr own system 0 govern- in ways which can be accepted by their Latin American ment and forms of administration. If anything, it is Argentina, not Britain, that is attempting to impose an neighbours and by the international community at alien rule. large. 177. What the Australian Government wishes to see 172. The foregoing necessarily conditions our is a lasting and peaceful solution of this issue which approach to the draft resolution before us. Australia so regrettably erupted into hostilities between Argen- could only welcome the attempt to modify the initial tina and the United Kingdom last April. We believe text in an effort to accommodate concerns expressed the moral force of the United Nations needs to be bilaterally to the sponsors. A number of deficiencies applied to ensure there is no resumption of the use in the earlier draft resolutkm were indeed made good in of force in the Falkland Islands. the revision. The revision, however, continues to fall short of what Australia would regard as necessary. 178. We believe also that, at the appropriate time, the United Nations should urge the Governments of 173. Of special concern to my delegation is the still the United Kingdom and Argentina to resume dis- tepid reference to the rights of the inhabitants of the cussions, in a less emotionally charged atmosphere. Falkland Islands. Those rights have been consigned We hope that such discussions will lead to an agree- to a preambular paragraph and they are asserted in a ment about the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvi- highly qualified way. It is relevant that the Minister nas) which will take full account of the wishes and for External Relations of Argentina spent a good part interests of the inhabitants of the Islands themselves. of his statemeillt in denying that self-determination has any relevance to the Falklands. This appears to 179. It is because the draft resolution before us is us to dilute still further the extent to which the inter- imprecise on these fundamental aspects of the situa- ests of the Islanders would be taken into account. tion that the Australian delegation will abstain when What was the purpose of the last-minute insertion the draft resolution is put to the vote. of the phrase calling for "due" account to be taken of 180. Mr. BABBA (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (inter- the interests of the Islanders? In our view, the refer- pretation from Arabic): My delegation will vote in ence is much too qualified. It does not go far enough. favour of the draft resolution which has been sub- It falls short of what would be compatible with the mitted, on the basis of the well-known position of my position Australia has taken on the need for the Islan- country with regard to decolonization. ders to be consulted and for their wishes to be taken 181. Libya believes that the British presence in the into account. Malvinas Islands is tantamount to a colonial situa- 174. As for the operative parts of the text, let me tion. We cannot accept the allegation that the Islands say that Australia has no difficulty with the proposi- are an extension of the British Isles. On the contrary, tion that a resumption of contact between the United they are the natural geographic and historic extension Kingdom and Argentina would be in the interests of Argentina and are therefore an integral pari of the of all parties. It is our hope that, in the longer term, territory of Argentina. The British refuse to give up they could reach agreement on thefuture ofthe Islands. the Islands to Argentina and to recognize Argentine 185. My country, in the past and before the regret- table events of last April, asked the United Kingdom and Argentina to take into account the need to avoid armed confrontation and appealed to the international community to spare no efforts in order to ensure the resumption of negotiations between the two parties under the auspkes ofthe Secretary-General, in order to achieve a peaceful settlement guaranteeing the sover- eignty of Argentina over the Malvinas Islands, in the interest of the maintenance of peace and security in the region.

My dele- gation, on an earlier occasion, abstained in the vote on a draft resolution which contained the most recent substantial pronouncement of the General Assem- bly on the Falklands dispute. Then, as on this occa- sion, the Netherlands could not support a text nn which the outcome of the negotiations between the parties to the conflict was prejudiced. We would have preferred the neutral wording of Security Council resolution 502 (1982). I wish to make it clear, how- ever, that the Netherlands welcomed the following statement by the Minister for External Relations of Argentina in the general debate on 1 October: "There has been a de facto end to the hostilities in the area, as everyone knows, and my Government does not intend to take the initiative in changing that situa- tion". LJ4th meetmg, para. 281.]

My delegation has asked to be allowed to npeak in order to explain its position on this matter, the question ofthe Falkland Islands (Malvinas), which is before this Assembly. 196. The Government of the Republic of Sierra Leone has indeed been consistent in its support of the right of peoples to self-determination and inde- pendence. It is the considered position of my Govern- ment that the question of the Falkland Islands (Mal- vinas) is pre-eminently one of self-determination and decolonization and as such falls within the purview of Article 73 of the Charter. Any and all negotia- tions which fail to take that point into account can only prolong tension and deter fruitful consideration of the issue. We fear that the draft resolution before th~ Assembly calling for negotiations on the sover- eignty dispute falls short of recognizing that self- determination, independence and sovereignty are inseparable in this consideration. 197. Regarding the outbreak of armed conflict in the area-between the Republic of Argentina and the United Kingdom-my Government very much regrets the fact that force was used by one of the parties to the conflict and the other was constrained also to resort to the use of force, thereby precipitating a military confrontation which resulted in the loss of lives and property and which has brought us to the present situation. My Government does not believe that the use of force is the best method of resolving inter-State disputes. The Charter provision on this subject and our obligations as States Members of the United Nations is a matter of basic principle known to us all. 198. In view of the foregoing, my delegation beiieves that time should have been allowed for tempers to cool and reason to resume its place in the search for a peaceful and just solution to this conflict. Prin- cipally, then, it is against that background that my delegation has decided to abstain in the voting on the draft resolution that IS before us. 199. Mr. van WELL (Federal Republic ofGermany): The conflict in the South Atlantic, the tragedy of armed hostilities between two nations that are both 202. In view of that, my Government very much welcomed the first steps towards a normalization of relations between Argentina and the United Kingdom. We welcome the de facto end of hostilities and the intention of both parties not to renew them. We hope that the formal end of hostilities can soon be reached, as this would provide a still better basis for the restora- tion of normal relations between Argentina and the United Kingdom. 203. The aim to be pursued at this stage when we are making a fresh start, looking to the future, should be to avoid anything that might create new tensions between the two countries. The preamble of the draft resolution contains references to resolu- tions adopted in years prior to the armed conflict over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). The Federal Republic of Germany has never taken a position on the issues underlying the dispute concerning the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). We abstained in the voting on resolutions adopted by the General Assem- bly on this issue. If we were to take a different stand now, we feel that it could be interpreted to mean that we were now taking sides with one or the other party on the basic issue. For that reason, we have decided to abstain in the voting on the draft before us. 204. We are none the less deeply convinced that only negotiations, as called for also under the Charter of the United Nations, for the settlement of disputes will produce a satisfactory solution to the problems existing between Argentina and the United Kingdom. We look to the Secretary-General to be of help in this direction. 205. Difficult as it may be to sit down again at the negotiating table when the memory of the recent battle and the suffering is still fresh, both sides should strive for a new start in negotiations, without asking the international community to prejudge the outcome and without setting pre-conditions. 211. For those reasons my delegation can only abstain in the voting. France, which understands how the peoples of Argentina and the United Kingdom feel today, will spare no effort to facilitate the implemen- tation of the recommendations in the operative part of the draft resolution, because we are convinced that there will be no lasting peace without a .rapid negotiated settlement.

The Albanian delegation, in its statement yesterday on the question of the Malvinas Islands [53rd meeting], condemned the British aggression and expressed support for Argentina's right to exercise sovereignty over the Islands. Thus, our delegation will vote in favour of the draft resolution. 213. We believe that, as is stated in the preamble, the maintenance of colonial situations is incompatible with the United Nations ideal of universal peace. The draft resolution correctly, in our view, implies that British colonial domination of the Malvinas Islands 215. We have reservations also in respect of some of the documents to which the draft resolution refers. Those reservations are well known and we shall not repeat them now. Reference is made in the draft resolution to "the population" of the Islands, but we know that they are settlers installed there by force. 216. We wish to state clearly that our support for the draft resolution does not mean that we have any confidence that British imperialism will renounce its colonial positions if the negotiations with Argentina are resumed. Even when aggressors and imperialists come to the negotiating table, they do not negotiate in good faith. 217: Mr. VRAALSEN (Norway): The Norwegian Government has on earlier occasions expressed its concern over the dispute between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the Falkland Islands. Norway is deeply committed to the principles in the Charter of the United Nations concerning the peaceful settlement of disputes. We have therefore specifically expressed regret that one of the parties, Argentina, resorted to the use of force in a dispute that was subject to negotiations. 218. To achieve the full implementation of the Decla- ration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, long-term arrangements for the Falkland Islands must eventually be worked out through negotiations between the parties. Such ar- rangements must be in accord~nce with the Charter. Emphasis must be placed on the principle of the right to self-determination of all peoples. The wishes of the population in the Falklands must, in our opin- ion, be a central factor when the future of the Iglands is being decided. The right to self-determination has always been a guiding principle in the wiJrk of the United Nations. That principle must also apply in the present case. 219. My delegation welcomes the attempt made by sponsors to meet the concerns expressed by a num- ber of delegations. The revised draft resolution before us does not, however, take our considerations suf- ficiently into account. We shall therefore abstain in the voting.

Following the S~curity Council meetings that took place after the unleashing of the ~~nflict whose sad and painful events are still fresh in our mind, the General Assembly is now dis- cussing the question of the Malvinas Islanqs with a view to finding a solution in accordance with the let- ter and spirit of the Charter.

My delegation will vote in favour of the draft resolution, and we shall do so mainly because it has the potential for bringing about a meaningful negotiated settlement of the dis- pute between Argentina and the United Kingdom. However, in view of new complications introduced into this question as a result of the recent war be- tween the two principal parties, we would have pre- ferred the text of the draft resolution to be more specific in stipulating that negotiations leading to a peaceful settlement of the dispute between the two parties should take into consideration the interests as well as the wishes and security of the Islanders and the denunciation of the use of force to settle disputes. 226. The war in the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) was too painful and too dangerous for other complex issues on the question to be subtly overshadowed by claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), justifiable as those claims might be, for we take strongly into account the wishes, interests and security of th~ 1,800 residents. 227. Those considerations cannot be separated from the sovereignty dispute and abandoned to oblivion, nor can the United Nations or any individual State lay arbitrary control over the thoughts of the Island- ers. Ignoring the wishes, interests and security of the .Islanders will make resolution of the dispute more complex. We believe that it cOl!ld never be resolved by taking a wait-and-see attitude, nor could it be resolved by.a majority vote. 229. For that reason, my delegation feels that even though negotiations continue to be desirable for the return of peace and stability in the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), the Assembly must listen equally to what Argentina, the United Kingdom and the majority ofthe Falkland Islanders themselves are saying in order to find the correct formula for a peaceful negotiated settlement, in conformity with the principles of the Charter. If that is not done, then requesting the parties, Argentina and the United Kingdom, to nego- tiate when either one of them may not be prepared or willing to do so could be attended by greater evils than could be counterbalanced by any benefits that could result from it. The good offices of the Secretary-General could also be threatened. 230. For those reasons also, even if this draft reso- lution is adopted-and I am a supporter of it-my delegation would still appeal to all good friends of Argentina and the United Kingdom to persuade those two countries to resume their negotiations in good faith, with moral courage and bold statesmanship, at a time appropriate to both; the results would then be fruitful. In the meantime, we appeal to those two countries to follow their expressed intentions by positive action in the cessation of all hostilities, in order that peace and stability may return to the Falk- land Islands.

The Final Commu- nique of the Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau ofthe Non-Aligned Countries, held this ye in Havana, states, in part: "The Ministers reiterated the decisions of pre- vious Non-Aligned Conferences and Meetings in which they expressed their support for the Argen- tine Republic's right to the restitution ofthe Malvinas Islands and sovereignty over them. They recalled tha~ the struggle against colonialism in all its form8 is a basic principle of non-alignment, and reaffirmed thier staunch solidarity with Argentina in its efforts to bring an end to the outdated colonial presence in the Malvinas Islands and to prevent its re-ebtablish- ment." [A/37/333, annex, para. I ID.] 232. My delegation believes that the Malvinas Islands are an integral part of the Argentine Republic, There- fore, the British colonial Power should immediately withdraw its militar}· forces from those Islands and commit no further aggression against the peace and security of the region. At the s~me time, the British Government must recognize the legitimate right of Argentina to sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands. 236~ While it is obviously crucial that resolution 1514 (XV) be recalled in the body of the present document, because the issue is basically one of decolonization, my delegation regrets that resol!Jtion 1541 (XV), which is also relevant, is not mentioned. Our regret is all the more pointed in that the issue should be resolved on the basis of all the appropriate and clearly defined United Nations principles spelled out in the Charter and in relevant resolutions. The omission of such refer- ence, therefore, causes my delegation some anxiety. 237. The United Nations has in the past encouraged the two parties to themselves resolve the problem we are considering. It is pertinent to note here that, prior to the war, the United Nations had taken steps whereby the two parties had come together and, benefiting from the good offices of the Secretary- General, had attempted to reach a solution. '238. We believe that the best way to resolve the problem to the satisfaction of all parties is by abiding by United Nations precepts and principles without ignoring the interests of those who live on the Islands. This position by no means implies that my delega- tion is taking sides with one party as against the other. It only means, even if I hav(;: to repeat it many times, that every possible opportunity must be explored, all realities taken into account and all concerns ade- quately met, if a just solution is to be found. 239. It has been argm:d that, in view of the high emotions still prevalent in the twc- countries regarding the 'issue under consideration, tl\e time is not propi- tious for the resumption of negotiations. My dele- gation finds it difficult to go along with this point of view, because we believe that the emancipation of a people under colonial domination should not be conditioned by considerations other than those leading to their rapid liberation. It is our duty to ensure in this caGe that the parties directly involved are encouraged to resume dialogue as soon as possible 246. For these reasons, the Gambian delegation will be unable to support the draft resolution.

Ever since the establish- ment of Israel in 1948, my country's foreign policy has been grounded in the conviction that all interna- tional disputes should be settled by peaceful means in conformity with paragraph 3 of Article 2 of the Char- tel'. We regard direct negotiations between the States parties to any dispute as the most suitable manner for the settlement ofsuch a dispute by peaceful means. 248. Our vote today WIll retlect our adherence to these basic principles, which are indeed the central pillars of Israel's foreign policy. Israel, therefore, will vote in favour of the draft resolution. 249. I should like to emphasize that our vote does not reflect on the substance of the dispute concerning the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) or on our position regarding each and every provision contamed in the draft resolution. The questions of substance per- taining to the dispute concerning the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) should, in our view, be resolved solely in negotiations between the United Kingdom and Argen- tina, in a spirit of reconciliation and taking into full account the interests of all the parties concerned. U

Italy has more than once expressed in the Assembly its position on the dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom regarding the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). It did so in 1965 .by voting in favour of resolution 2065 (XX), which requested the two parties to begin negotiations. It did so once again in 1973, when it voted in favour of resolution 3160 (XXVIII), requesting the continua- tion of negotiations already under way. In the voting in 1976 on resolution 31/49, which contained a similar request, Italy abstained, because the text seemed to predetermine the outcome of the negotiations called for in the resolution itself. 251. Even when the armed conflict was raging, my Government constantly maintained its position in favour of a speedy resumption of negotiations. We underlined this by expressing our full support for Security Council resolution 502 (1982), as well as by the many statements made during that period by both Prime Minister Spadolini and Foreign Minister Co- lombo. Further evidence of Italy's position was the message addressed by President Sandro Pertini to the Secretary-General expressing appreciation for his .i negotiating efforts and encouraging him to pursue them further. "'264~ Mrs. MAUALA (Samoa): Samoa is in favour of efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Falkland Islands problem. My delegation will abstain in the voting on this draft resolution, however, because'we are.unhappy with what appears to be the intention of the draft resolution, in spite of its reference to nego- tiations to find a peaceful solution. 265. Had there been an alternative draft resolution which placed emphasis on the central importance of self-determination for the Falkland Islands to this issue and that placed proposed negotiations between the parties in a properly neutral context, we would . have supported it with enthusiasm.

The settlement of inter- national disputes by peaceful means is the solemn responsibility assumed by all Member States under the Charter, and the dispute over the Falkland Islands .(Malvinas) is no exception. Indeed, the resolution just adopted is based on the recognition of this fact, and as it is in accordance with Japan's basic policy, my delegation voted in favour of it. Nevertheless, my delegation wishes to clarify the following points with regard to its vote. 286. First, Japan once again expresses its regret that there was an attempt last April to settle the Falk- land Islands (Malvinas) dispute by force and that Security Council resolution 502 (1982), which was adopted with my delegation's full support, was ~ot implemented. Japan believes that such use of force must not be resorted to a second time. From the standpoint of international justice and political reality, it would be an illusion to believe that the tragic occur- rences of last April, May and June had no effect whatsoever on the peaceful settlement of the dispute. Japan therefore attaches particular importance to the insertion in the draft resolution of the last part of the fifth preambular paragraph and of the seventh pream- bular paragraph of the resolution and strongl~l appeals 296. On the other hand, the two parties to this dispute, Argentina and the United Kingdom, have enjoyed friendship and co-operation between them- selves until this disagreement reached its present proportions. That is why the Turkish nation and its Government were deeply saddened by the recent worsening of the situation and the outbreak of an un- fortunate armed conflict between them. 297. Ever since the question of the Islands was first considered in the United Nations, Turkey has sup- ported the finding of a solution to the problem through negotiations. Turkey voted in favour of earlier General Assembly resolutions on the subject encour- aging the two parties to settle their differences through such negotiations. When, earlier this year, the crisis in the South Atlantic deepened, Turkey maintained its strong desire for and support of the holding of negotiations urgently between the two parties with a view to solving the pending problems. 298. At this moment, again on the basis of our friendship with both Argentina and the United King- dom, we had hoped very much that a consensus draft resolution, on which the resumption of the neces- sary negotiations could safely be based, COUld be found. We regret that it has not been possible to formulate such a consensus draft, which would have been more helpful to the parties concerned. For this reason, my delegation abstained in the voting on the draft resolution before us. In this connection, my delegation would like to emphasize once more its sincere wish and desire for the settlement ofthe critical dispute between the two parties as soon as possible, through negotiations between them. 299. Mr. DORR (Ireland): Ireland abstained in the voting which has just taken place. The decision was a difficult one and one to which my Government gave the most careful consideration. I should like to explain briefly the reason for our position. 300. When Argentina took over the Islands by force last April, we made it quite clear that we thought this effort to resolve a dispute by force was wrong. We voted for Secl1rity Council resolution 502 (1982), which called for an end to the hostilities and a WIth- drawal of Argentine forces and which called on both Governments to seek a diplomatic solution to their dif- ferences. We also made it clear then and subse- quently that we had taken no position on the merits of the underlying dispute about the Islands. 301. As the tragic conflict between Argentina and the United Kingdom escalated in May and June, Ire- land was active in the Security Council in trying to find a way to bring what we believed to be an unneces- sary war to an end. We wanted to involve the United Nations in ending the conflict, and we were particu- larly concerned to support the efforts ofthe Secretary- General to that end. Unfortunately, those efforts' to bring a negotiated end to the conflic were not success- ful. The war ended, and the United Kingdom re- covered possession of the Islands. 305. My Government therefore, after very careful consideration, decided to abstain in the voting un the present resolution. Clearly this does not mean that we in any sense take a negative position on the idea of negotiations on this or on any other conflict. Indeed, I repeat Ireland's hope that both Governments will in time find it possible to negotiate a peaceful solution to all aspects of a tragic dispute which has already cost many lives. We believe further that it could be useful to involve the Secretary-General hl due course, in using his good offices to get such negotiations under way.

Botswana voted in favour of the resolution because we prefer a peace- ful resolution of the Falklands conflict to violent con- frontation between the parties. It is our view that the longer the conflict remains unresolved, the more dangerous the situation in the South Atlantic will become. Our vote in favour of the resolution should not be construed as constituting support for one party or the other in the conflict, nor should it be under- stood to prejudge the outcome of the ne1!otiation's. 307. Finally, we remain firm in our conviction that the interests or rights of the Islanders should be taken into very serious account in the negotiations. They are people, those Islanders; they have every right to decide their own future, a right which negotiations betweell Argentina and the United Kingdom cannot simply ignore or brush aside. tation~ it tried hard to prevent the adoption of the Latin Americ~n draft resolution. Thus, it centred its statements on t~e recent past, grotesquely distorting history and law, ,md apparently closed all doors on a resolution that only requested negotiations between the parties within the framework ofearlier decisions of the General Assembly. 311. To object to a resolution th~ only aim of which is the peaceful and just settlement of an international dispute is not easy. It is even less so when the reso- lution has the firm backing of a whcJe region. Nor is it easy to attack it because of its aIneg~d untimely nature, because no one can accept as logical the argu- ment that becc1.Use an international conflict occurred only recently. attempts should not be made to put an end to the causes of it. In fact, we are entitled to suspect that such refusal to negotiate is not an opportunist action, but rather a firmly established principle of British foreign policy towards my country, as demonstrated by 17 years of fruitless negotiations. We Latin Americans are thus not surprised thatonly . a few countries, whose special circumstances we all know. voted against the Latin American draft resolution. 312. A detailed response to the stat(~ments made by the United Kingdom delegatiqn would merely serve to caJ.~Sf. of one single Government: this is the cause of a nation. The democratic Government that will shortly be elected in Argentina will take up the banner that we whole-heartedly raise today with the same warmth, conviction and strength in defence ofour rights, which ar~ the rights of the Republic of Argentina and of Latin America. 315. That is why I call for the initiation of fruit- ful and honest negotiations, so that we may demon- slrate to the world our determination and, as has been said here, so that this world parliament can foster a decision for peace and justice. The meeting rose at 7.35 p.l1l. NOTES I See A/32/110, annex, and A/32/111, annex. 2 See A/8368 and A/8369. 3 United Nations, Treaty Series, vot. 21, No. 324. 4 A/31/197, annex I, para. 119. 5 A/102t7 and Corr.t, para. 87. 7 The delegation of the United Arab Emirates subsequently in- formed the Secretariat that it had intended to abstain in the vote on the draft resolution.