A/40/PV.93 General Assembly

23.  QUESTION OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS) (a) REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE SITUATION WITH REGARD TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECLARATION ON THE GRANTING OF INDEPENDENCE TO COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES (A/40/23 (Part VIII), A/AC.109/835 and Corr. 1) (b) REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (A/40/891) (c) DRAFT RESOLUTION (A/40/L.19) (d) AMENDMENTS (A/40/L.20) Sir ,John THOMSON (United Kingdom): If I have ke~·· anyone waiting, I apologize. It is a British tradition, which we try to maintain, to be on time, to be precise and, as you will learn from what I am about to say, to be clear. Nevertheless, I should have liked to have kept ora inglese this afternoon, but unfortunately I found that I had to adapt my speech considerably. I listened this morning with great attention to the speeches made by a number of representatives. Above all I listened to what was said by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Argentina, the Ambassador of Brazil, in introducing draft resolution A/40/L.19, and, of course and in particular by the other sponsors of that draft resolution. I take seriously what I heard this morning and I hope that those who are listening to me this afternoon will also take seriously what I have to say. As I have said on previous occasions, we believe that, to be constructive in international affairs, there needs to be a dialogue. This involves listening as well as speaking. We, for our part, would like this debate to be constructive; if possible, more constructive than its three predecessors. That is why I listened carefully and why I take seriously what has been said by the sponsors of the draft resolution and particularly by the Foreign Minister of Argentina. We are not in agreement. We must get to grips with the points on which we disagree. In other words, if we cannot have a consensus resolution, as rtr.y delegation had originally hoped, we had better consider each other1s points of view and bring out into the open the problems which really exist. All of us here are professional diplomats or politicians. We are all men and women of Government. This means that we know that disputes are not resolved except through a clear understanding of positions and a realistic assessment of facts as they are. It means that we know that there are occasions on which evasions and ambiguity can actually be helpful, but it also means that we know that there are tL~es when evasions and ambiguity will be the reverse of helpful and will actually be damaging. Many people misuse the word "diplomatic" simply to mean "tactful~. That is a slur on our profession. True diplomacy requires clear thinking and plain speaking~ In colloquial English we have a word for being tactful and at the same time evasive, we call it Wfudgew• As t listened to the statements this morning 1 thought a lot of fudging was going on. I heard the Foreign Minister of Argentina say: WThe Argentine Government has given serious thought to this proposal" meaning draft resolution A/40/L.19 - Wand after much discussion on this subject has decided to vote in its favour in this Assembly.w (A/40/PV.92, p. 6) It would be rather strange if the Government of Argentina did not vote in favour of its own draft resolution. It is true that this text formally has been put forward in the names of seven delegations, but it is common knowledge that none of those delegations contributed a single word to the text in front of us. Those delegaticns - and I by no means blame them, they have much goodwill towards both sides and are trying to do something to help Argentina - acted at the reques~ of the Argentine Government. They adopted a text drafted in Buenos Aires. This is not a neutral text. This is not a text put forward by people who have moved equally between the two sides. This is a text which is 100 per cent made in Argentina. There is no British input. Not one word was contributed from London. Perhaps we suggested some alterations - I will not go into confidential discussions - but not one word either of addition or of omission was accepted. So let us not fudge the issue. We have before us a plain Argentine draft. Now, the Argentines say they will graciously accept it and the sponsors say that it is balanced. But is this not once again a question of the old story of being judge and jury in one's own case? The Argentines drafted it and so it is balanced. But what about us? Are we not a party to the situation? If the General Assembly is to adopt a balanced draft resolution, should there not be some British input into it? This Argentine argument reminds me of the position the Argentines take about the interests and wishes of the Falkland Islanders. They say that if we will only hand over the Falkland Islanders to them they will look after their interests. But does this not put the 't~. gentines in the position of being judge and jury for the future of the Falkland Islanders? Why should they be the judges of the interests of the ~alkland Islanders? Why not let the Falkland Islanders themselves judge their own interests? In short, surely it should be the wishes of the Falkland Islanders that prevail. I have spoken of fudging issues. The outstanding example of this is the Argentine-drafted resolution before us in document A/40/L.l9. It is in many ways a considerable improvement on its predecessors. It omits various matters which we found objectionable and prejudicial. It includes a partly new point, namely, it takes into account Wthe interest repeatedly expressed by both parties in normalizing their relationsw• This of course is what my Government has been trying to do for more than two years, and I will come back to the point later. Meanwhile, I note with pleasure that it is now also the Argentine intention. The improvements of which I speak are, however, minor compared with the crucial words which show that the Argentine position remains unchanged in substance. (Sir John Thomson, United Kingdom) I cannot help wondering whether the improvements are not simply meant as a disguise for the fact that the Argentine Government is now trying to get the General Assembly to accept its position without its saying plainly what that position is. People who are not closely involved in the Falklands problem might not recognize at first the real meaning of some of the phrases used in the Argentine-drafted resolution. Take, for example, the phrase "all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)w. It sounds O.K., but actually it conceals a trap. We have to remember who drafted the phrase and we have to remember what the drafters have said before. The Permanent Representative of Argentina to the United Nations said in a letter to the Secretary-General on 18 March of this year: "Only serious, substantive negotiations in good faith aimed at seeking a peaceful solution to the dispute over sovereignty and any remaining differences concerning the question of the Malvinas Islands can lead to the restoration of sound and harmonious relationships between the two States." (A/40jI87, p. 2) In other words, only if sovereignty is dealt with can there be progress. The Foreign Minister of Argentina said in his statement to the General Assembly: "The fact is that for us relations between the two Governments and countries can be developed on a solid basis only to the extent that the central problem between us - the sovereignty dispute over the islands - is not ignored. To ignore that subject would be to base any restoration of relations on a fiction." (A/40/PV.5, p. 59) That statement was made about nine weeks ago, just as, I suppose, the drafters of the Argentine text were getting down to work. (Sir John Thomson, United Kingdom) In other words, the Argentine-drafted resolution in its reference to "all aspects·, includes sovereignty and not only sovereignty but all the things the ;'&tgentines mean when they speak of it. (Sir John Thomson, United Kingdom) The Argentines mean that they will not discuss any ~egtion of normalization with us unless we agree to discuss sovereignty with them. And they have taken that position after my Government had made it abundantly plain that we cannot discuss the question of sovereignty. Thus the Argentine position blocks the way to any discussion of normalization. Moreover, when the Argentines talk about discussion of sovereignty what they mean is that the discussion must end in the transfer of sovereignty from Britain to Argentina. Argentine representatives have repeatedly made it clear that the only possible outcome of decolonization in the case of the Falklands is the tran~fer of sovereignty'• Thus, if we were to accede to the Argentine request to discuss sovereignty we would be getting into a monumental fUdge, because they would believe that we were accepting that the only outcome could be the transfer of sovereignty. My Government, I repeat, takes the clear position that our sovereignty, on which we have no doubts, is not for negotiation. I was talking about the phrase in paragraph 1 of draft resolution A/40/L.19: "including all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)". It is perhaps typical of Argentine drafters that they should constantly refer to the future of the Falkland Islands and never - perhaps because of some psychological blockage - to the future of the Falkland Islanders. The reason, of course, is that they find the existence of the inhabitants inconvenient. That leads them into the strange doctrine of claiming that self-determination does not apply to the Islanders. There is no question about that Argentine attitude. We heard it repeated this morning. If anyone was doubtful about the meaning of what he heard this morning, let me refer him to what the Permanent Representative of Argentina said on 16 November 1983: (lli..i!ohn Thomson, united Kingdom) .My country respects the self-determination of peoples, but it has the support of the countries of the Latin American region and the Non-Aligned Movement, which consists mainly of States which have come to independence recently, in maintaining that the right to self-determination does not apply to the specific case of the Malvinas •••• (A/38/PV.57, p. 96) Thus, when the Argentine-drafted draft resolution talks about resolving problems ·in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations·, we have been put on notice, sadly, that the principle of self-determination cannot be applied to the Falkland Islanders, that the phrase ·in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations· does not, for the Argentines, include the principle of self-determination - at any rate, not in this instance= That is a sad conclusion. The PeOple of the Falkland Islands have the right to self-determination, like other people, and my Government is committed to it. It would therefore be another monumental fudge for us to pretend that we did not know what the Argentines mean when they speak of the Charter of the United Nations not applying in this instance to the Falkland Islanders. In short, the Argentine-drafted draft resolution makes no change in the position of the Argentine C~ernment, either on sovereignty or on self-determination~ I regret that. In advance of the debate I sought confirmation, or the reverse, that that was the position. It was confirmed to me that there was no change in the Argentine position. I think that is the only conclusion we can reach from listening to the Argentine Foreign Minister this morning. If I am wrong, I hope he will say so publicly. I am not complaining. I well understand that the Argentine position has not changed. I state freely and clearly that my Government's position has not changed (Sir John Thomson, United Kingdom) either; I do not want there to be any fudge about that. But I do ask that there should be no fudge about the Argentine position either. The resolution that the Argentines drafted means a lot more than it might seem to the simple bystander. It is not a balanced draft resolution, and my delegation will vote against it in its present form. We need to introduce balance into any outcome of this debate. We are not seeking victory. AS I have said, we cannot accept an unbalanced resolution made 100 per cent in Argentina. Therefore, we put forward the brief amendments contained in docwnent A/40/L.20. That does not say all that we might have said, but it does bring us back to the heart of the problem - the people concerned. And it is a test as to whether the Argentines are willing to respect the wishes of the people~ If they are, they will accept our amen~~ents. If they reject them, it is plain that the Argentines are not willing to give priority to the ~iishes of the people. Let us consider what our amendments are. ~ne first - the insertion of a new second prelanbular paragraph - is based textually on the common article 1 of the two International Covenants, that on civil and political rights and that on economic and social rights. I quote from the first paragraph of that article, as follows: "All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.~ (General Assembly resolution 2200 A (XXI), Annex, art. 1) Already 81 members of the United Nations have signed those Covenants, and I have no doubt that others will do so. Our second amendment - a short addition to the end of paragraph 1 - is equally based on United Nations texts. After the words Rin accordance with the United Charter-, which, as I have just shown does not, for the Argentines, mean self-detenaination in this cas~, we propose to add -and the right thereunder of peoples to self-determination-.. That is Charter language. Is there anyone who will deny that under the United Nations Charter there is a right of peoples to self-deteraination? Of course not, and that is what our amendment says. The Argentine text is intended to include sovereignty and to exclude self-determination.. we object to it on both those grounds. The Argentines object to OUr amendment, because they claim that the principle ~f self-determination cannot apply to the Falklands. There is a clear opposition here, and it will not profit us to fudge it.. I regret this clash - I expect the Argentines do, too - but let us consider what it is that we are weighing in the opposite scales. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that there is a certain disproportion between the Argentine demand for sovereignty and the British reaffirmation of the principle of self-determination. There are a great many territorial disputes around the world, though fortunately not all of them lead to fighting. No one wishes to sweep under the rug such dangerous and emotional things as territorial disputes. But all the same they have,) be taken separately and ad hoc with due consideration to all the circumstances. Self-determination on the other hand is a general principle which is enshrined in the Charter and in innumerable United Nations documents. It is frequently described as an inalienable right. It is the basis on which the great decolonization movement took place and it is to the application of the principle of self-determination that most of the countries in this Chamber owe their existence. Self-determination is therefore of a different order of importance and generality to the rights and wrongs of particular territorial disputes. Self-determination is not a matter for negotiation. If you do not have self-determination, how are you going to have sovereignty? How have the Argentines come to have sovereignty in Argentina? I do not know what to make of the phrase in the speech by the Foreign Minister of Argentina where he spoke of the "limited rights of a foreign people to legitimize- (A/40/PV.92, p. 9-10) the occupation of territories by force. But, whatever that means, I ~ccept that the present democratic Government of Argentina - which we very much welcome and which came to power as a result of the failure of the previous military regime to conquer the Falklands - is a fully legitimate Government and that it draws its legitimacy from the freely expressed will of the electorate of Argentina. In the same way the people of the Falklands have recently had an election - on 3 October, as a matter of fact. They, too, have elected by free and (Sir John Thomson, united Kingdom) fair elections their representatives to speak for them. Two of those elected representatives will be speaking tomorrow morning in the Fourth Committee. I want to be very clear and fair about this crucial matter of self-determination. I listened with care to the Ambassador of Brazil. He is a man who is universally resPected in this Asse~ly, and with justice. He said that the draft resolution was "a neutral document" (~), and I believe that he means it. Nevertheless, as I have explained, it is not a neutral document. It could hardly be, when it is 100 per cent crafted in Buenos Aires without a single British co~tribution. But, leaving that aside, I am not quite sure that the Ambassador of Brazil has quite seen to the bottom of the Argentine text. unle~s the Argentines have changed their position - and they say they have not - they are asking us to change our position and go into talks on sovereignty. They are also not saying that they will accept the principle of self-determination. And I am afraid that my suspicions are aroused by two sentences in the speech by the Ambassador of Brazil. He says: "In saying 'in accordance with the Charter; the draft intends to include in that expression all the pertinent principles and provisions of the Charter and the rights thereunder; in other words, it does not exclude the possible invoking ••• of any provision of the Charter that may be applicable to questions being negotiated." (p. 16) "The pertinent principles" of the Charter, provisions "that may be applicable" - those words might sound fine if we did not know that the Argentines in fact say that self-determination is not pertinent and that it is not applicable. So those words do not seem to me to be balanced. They do not seem to me to be neutral. I would prefer to omit the adjectives. My suspicions are increased when the Ambassador of Brazil says that he is distressed by the United Kingdom amendments - and I must say I take it a bit hard when the Foreign Minister of Argentina describes them as ludicrous. Self-determination ludicrous? What are those amendments except the principle of self-determination? If the principle of self-determination is pertinent and applicable, why can it not be included? I am glad that the Permanent Representative of Brazil says that the principle or right of self-determination is beyond questionJ but if it is a right, it is a right. As I have said, it is a right for the Falkland Islanders and not a matter for negotiation. Once again I say that we must not fudge the issues. It distresses me that the Foreign Minister of Argentina says that Arg~ntina has always been and will always be a staunch defender of the principle of the self-determination of peoples, while at the same time he says: -the reference to the principle of self-determination can cast doubt on Argentina's attitude towards the population of the islands.· (p. 11) Well, yes, indeed his unwillineness to apply self-determination does cast doubt on the Argentine attitude regarding the population of the islands. He accepts the principle but when it comes to the point he will not apply it. That is fudge and more fudge. At one point in his speech the Foreign Minister of Argentina said: -Does the united Kingdom truly want self-determi~ationto be applied •••?- (A/40/PV.92, p. 12) I answer, yes, and I would be glad if he would join me in that answer. I hope that I have dealt with the reasons for our amendment and why we cannot accept the Argentine-crafted resolution. (Sir John Thomson, united Kingdom) But I cannot end there because some extraneous points were raised in the speeches this morning and I must just say a word about them so that there may be no misunderstanding. South Georgia and South Sandwich islands were mentioned. They are a quite separate matter from the Falkland Islands. They were claimed by the Argentines many, many years after they began their claim to the Falkland Islands. They have a totally different history. I must say that my Government has no doubt about our sovereignty over those islands, as we have no doubt in the case of the Falklands. The Beagle Channel was mentioned. We for our part welcomed the agreement between Chile and Argentina. We note that here was a territorial dispute on which Argentina sensibly did not press its sovereignty demands - not to the end. A reference was made to Hong Kong. This is a matter which has nothing to do with the Falklands and which has a lot to do with a lease that expires in 1997. A satisfactory agreement was reached which was approved by the people of Hong Kong. Namibia was also mentioned - very strangely, since my Government was one of that small group that put together the agreement to be implemented by Security Council resolution 435 (1979), and that provides, as we all know, precisely for self-determination. I challenge the Foreign Minister of Argentina to find anything on the record in which the British deny the right of setf-determination of Namibia. We have constantly held the opposite. (Sir John Thomson, united Kingdom) Then, a good deal was said about militarization. I do not know why Argentina keeps raising this question of military balance in the South Atlantic. The fact is that there is a gross disproportion between the British and the Argentine forces in the South Atlantic. The Argentine forces are many times the size of the British forces - as we discovered, to our cost, when our little garrison of some 40 men was overwhelmed in 1982. We have had to do something since to produce a slightly better balance. I regret that the Foreign Minister of Argentina said that our relatively small defence forces - which are soon to be further reduced - "wHl sooner or later lead to their being justified in terms of strategic objectives which go beyond the mere defence of the Islands and their inhabitants". (A/40/PV.92, p. 7) I am not sure exactly what that means, but it sounded as if he thought that the small British force in the Falklands was somehow going to commit an aggression - when, of course, that force is there precisely to prevent one. There was a reference to fisheries in the South Atlantic. My Foreign Minister dealt with this in his speech during the general debate this ~~ar. He said; "There are many areas where mutually beneficial co-operation is possible, for example in the increasingly urgent task of conserving the SOuth Atlantic fisheries. Informal discussions in the Food and AgriCUlture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) have shown that an international effort will be required to deal with this. We are reauy to give our support to the FAO's constructive initiative and hope that the Argentines will be equally prepared to work with the FAO". (A/40/PV.9, p. 62) we are glad to learn that Argentina, like us, is supporting the FAO stUdy on this problem announced last week, and that it sees "scope for co-operation in international action". I hope that the Argentine Foreign Minister is indeed suggesting that there is scope for common co-operation in international action and (Sir John Thomson, United Kingdom) is not suggesting that it is now a new problem between our two countries. I am worried at his statement that failure to solve the Falklands dispute will cause other problems to "become uncontrollable" (A/40/PV.92, p. 7). This is a good example of our different approaches. We do not think that the fisheries have to wait until the problem of the Falkland Islands and their inhabitants have been solved. That brings me to the question of what we can do to improve relations between Britain and Argentina. We reciprocate the views of those who have said that we should have talks to reach a norn~lization of relations, in the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations. We have proposed a number of steps. In September 1982 we agreed with Argentina on the abolition of the financial restrictions that both sides had introduced during the conflict. we fully honoured our part of the agreement, but the Argentine authorities are implementing it only partially and still maintain discriminatory restrictions on British firms in Argentina. In 1983 we also proposed the resumption of air links between the two countries. There was no Argentine response. In 1984 we proposed talks on a wide range of subjects with an agreed formula for dealing with sovereignty. But in Bern the Argentines departed from this specific agreement, and this led directly to deadlock. Since 1982, 12 Argentines have been refused entry to Britain and 39,000 have been given visas. We welcome that. That is a list of some of the actions - or, if you like, deeds - that my Government has undertaken. It shows that the United Kingdom has tried to take steps to promote contact and dialogue and to build mutual confidence - all indispensable for the restoration and normalization of civilized relations betwean our two countries. It r~mi:l.:';: Cl,Olr d,ilOei:e hope Qlai: progress can be made,. and I know that many countries ,;apresented here share our views. In acting on what we have done, we ha~a followed the Secretary-General's advice, and we share the regret he has expr:essed in his latest report at the lack, notwithstanding our efforts, of progress. I must express our gratitude to the Secretary-General for the impartial and constructive role he has played.* As the list of deeds I have just read out shows, we do not regard the existence of the dispute or the events of 1982 as a bar to trying to mend fences. Our philosophy is that the discussion and solution of little problems can lead on to the solution of bigger problems. But if the other party refuses to talk unless he can address the subject of taking your land, mending fences is difficult, if not impossible. We contin/Je to believe that the right course for both sides is quiet diplomacy and renewed contacts working towards a normalization of relations, without prejudice to the question of sovereignty, about which we continue to differ - no fUdging there. I must ask that we should not fail to recall that people are at the heart of this dispute - namely, the Falkland Islanders. It is t!leir fate, their futures that we are talking about. All the evidence suggests that the Islands were originally uninhabited. The people there are not a transitory people. Many can trace their roots on the Island back five or six generations - longer than many on the American mainland, North or SOuth. They are a hardy, peaceful and homogeneous people, who have evolved their own identity, customs and political and cultural institutions. Where they live is remote, little visited and little known. Something of their life can be glimpsed in a 25-minute film which will be shown in ~Ar. uassole (Burkina Faso), Vice-President, took the Chair. Coofe~e.~ce P.!X!!! A at 10 o'~lQ~ tomorrow m.ornill9~ Following the screening of the film, two elected representati"es of the Falkland Islands will, as I have already said, speak on behalf of all of them in the Fourth COlIlllittee and will be ready to answer questions. Those who doubt the sincerity of the Islanders' attachment to the democratic process or the genuineness of their community should attend. If they come with open minds, I believe they will go away convinced. Before concluding, I should say that it is unwillingly that I have recalled the unhappy events of 1982 and our disappointment at Argentina's failure to respond to the steps we have taken since then to restore good relations. As our record shows, we are ready for dialogue and friendship with a democracy committed to the same ideals as ours and guided by a Government wi th exemplary attachment to the rule of law. OUr hope lies in our belief that sooner or later dialogue between democracies has to develop. Meanwhile, we cannot endorse words that conceal reality, that masquerade as deeds and that, as this debate has already shown, because of their falsity sharpen rather than blunt our differences. But the damage can in some degree be mi tiga ted if the Assenbly decides to balance what is unbalanced, to substitute substance for shadow. If we can secure that balance, then a development of real significance will have occurred, a~rl this Assembly will have made a major contribution; It is for that balance, represented by the united Kingdom amendment on self-determination, that I appeal. Let us have balance and clarity. That is what our amendment is intended to achieve. With their reference to "all aspects" the AL'gentines already have their version of sovereignty in the draft resolution. Whether they want to say it in plain terms or in disguised terms is for them, but the sovereignty is there. We must assert the relevance of the principle of self-determination, and I trust the General Assembly will support us. I The Foreign Minister of Argentina quoted from Article 1 of the United Nations Charter, but he quoted somewhat selectively~ He did not quote paragraph 2 of Article 1, which speaks of: "respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples·. We base our position on the language of the Charter. Surely the world's press is not going to report that the General Assenbly, when it came to the point, refused to act on a fundamental principle of the Charter, which has also been called an inalienable right. The Fbreign Minister of Argentina regrettea that no negotiations were under way. We regret that too, very mch. We are ready for a step-by-step normalization of our relations. We would enter into negotiations on these matters tooorrow, but in our anxi~ty to achieve that we must not get into the sort: of situation we reached at Berne last year. I will not go into the reasons for the breakdown that occurred then - I dealt with them in my speech last year - but it is plain that that breakdown damaged Anglo-Argentine relations. We do not want a repetition of that. Let us be clear, fair and above-board, and do away with fudging. we sincerely look forwar~ to the day when the deoocratic peoples of Argentina and Britain happily normalized their relations and when, at the same time, the democratic people of the Falklands are freely determinintJ tJneir political status and freely pursuing their economic, social and cultural development. Mr. GOES) (Ghana;: I shall proceed with my statement, despite the interruption, which I regard as temporary. Perhaps when the sale is over, I shall receive as mch attention as my distinguished predecessoc received. The question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) is an old issue, having been keenly debated in the General Assembly for over 20 years. The fact that the issue is still retained on the General Assenbly agenda is indicative of how intractable (Sir John Thomson, United Kingdom) are the problems that lie at the heart of the decolonializaUon process. Although the reasons for the delay in concluding the settlement of the question needs no elaboration u the Ghana delegation nevertheless regrets that progress has been so difficult in this matter. It is exactly a year ago that the General Assembly adopted resolution 39/6 (1984) urging the Governments of Argentina and the united Kingdom to resume negotiations in order to find a solution to the problem. My delega tioR has studied the secretary-General's report on the item in document A/40/89l of 15 Noveliber 1985. It is to be regretted that in spite of the initiative and good offices of t.he secretary-General there has been no dialogue at all between the l'Wo Governments concerned. If that continues, no settlement will be possible. My delegation finds it necessary in the circumstances to look at the recent past to find a possible way out of the present deadlock. We recall the unfortunate war fought in 1982 over the Islands and the resulting hardening of positions. It was clear to us at the end of that war that a solution had temporarily eluded us. We understood the difficulties involved and even saw the pr~~tical need for a cooling-off per iod in the short term. But with the greatest respect to both Governments, my delegation would like to believe that the time has come to resume negotiations to find a viable solution to the problem. We cannot condone a permanent stalemate, because in such a situation lurks the seed for further conflict in the future. Koreover, the recent change in the politics of the area generally should help to encourage movement. The reality of the Falkland Islands question at this stage is that both the united Kingdom and Argentina have assumed positions to which they are passionately attached. The speeches of the two representatives this JOOrning and this afternoon respe<etively attest to that. They have held those positions ever since the issue was brought before the General Assellbly. The grievances can only be resolved through negotiations. Indeed, the only times when there has been a semblance of JIIO'lement in the past has been when dialogue took place between the two Governments. What is mre, the General Assenbly itself is coDlllitted under the Charter to induce a peaceful settlement of the dispute, hence the need strenuously to encourage the parties to interact. Another reality is that r.either side can have the matter resolved only in the way that it deems appropriate. The colonial status of the Islands and the demographic factor, as well as their g~ographic location, are all ra~ifications that may be dealt with only through political dialogue and discussion. That the Falkland Islands should no longer continue in their present colonial status is not in doubt; our preoccupation is how to bring that status to an end. In considering the stalemate of the last two years, therefore, we recollllllend that the two Governments involved not only conduct negtotiations but also do so without pr:e-conditions.. For t.ltat reason, we plead witb the delegations of Argentina and the United Kingdom not to insist on pre-conditions to the dialogue reco!mDended. Whatever their concerns, and we have no doubt that they are weighty, we recommend that they be placed on the negatiating table ra ther than argued in resolutions before this Assembly • (Hr. Gbeho, Ghana) A little while ago we listened to the eloquent words of the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom,. who proceeded to analyse his country's position and also the proposals before this Assembly. Perhaps unwittingly he also imputed certain motives to the co-sponsors of the draft resolution. In fact, he said that the co-sponsors were 8trying to do sometbing to help Argentina- (supra, p. 6). I should like to assure the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom that nothing could be further from the truth .. We do not at this stage question any of the weighty arguments that he adduced. we do not at this stage rule out his country's attachment to the principle of self-determination. What we seek to do in this draft resolution is to point out that, if either side should insist on its pre-conditions, dialogue would be absolutely impossible. Supposing this General Assembly were to endorse 100 per cent the inclusion of the word 8self-determination8 in the draft resolution, and adopt it, and supposing the Government of Argentina refused to have any dialogue after that, where would our actions have led us? I suggest that the answer is nowhere. And, vice versa, supposing we succeeded in including in the draft resolution the mention of sovereignty, to which Argentina seems pas.sionately attached, and supposing the United Kingdom refused to have anything to do with the draft resolution or its implementation afterwards, where would our draft resolution in this General Assenbly have led us? The answer again, I suggest, is n~here. The simple purpose of the co-sponsors of the draft resolution is to produce an enabling resolution that would allC7tJl the two sides to meet and to exchange views. The brilliant arguments we have heard are perhaps not out of place here, but they would be more appropriate at the negotiating table. I should like to explain that the sponsors, of which my delegation is one, are not agaL~st thQ principle of self-determinationa It is not even an issue (Mr. Gbeho, Gb&W!) here. We would not agree to this item being inscribed on the agenda of the General AsseDlbly if we had any doubt about self-determination being applicable. All that we are saying at this moment is let us first crawl before we try to run, let the two parties find out what their body chemistry can come up with, without this AsseDbly attempting to rule one way or the other. In conclusion, my delegation would like to thank the Secretary-General for his efforts in the matter. Although they have hardly borne fruit., we believe that they have served the purpose of e.asizing to the GovernlD'~nts involved that. they owe it. to the international community and to the cause of international peace and security to find a peaceful and negotiated solution to this intrac~ble problem. We hope the Secretary-General will continue his efforts until the matter is resolved. We wish to appeal again to delegations to refrain from taking a position at this stage one way or the other and to join in the task of at least. bringing the two parties back to the negotiating table. Mr. GUMUCIO GRANlER (Bolivia) (interpretation from Spanish): The General Assembly is now considering the question of the Malvik'las Islands for the fourth year in a row. This item is not just an Argentine cause, but also a cause of the whole of ratin America. In this regard, the Bolivian people and Government have maintaL,ed since the last century the firmest support for the Argentine Republic in the question of the Malvinas Islands. Bolivia's support derives not from mere rhetorical solidarity between two peoples bound. together by ties of geography and history, but rather from the fact that we believe in the same principles of international law, particularly the principle of non-recognition of territorial conquests by force of arms. I hereby reaffirm, on behalf of the constitutional Government headed by Mr. Victor Paz Estenssoro, our firm support for the Argentine Republic in the (Mr. Gbeho, Ghana) dispute over the sovereignty of the Malvinas Islands, whi<:h, in the opinion of my Government, are an integral part of Argentine territory. Bolivia, together with the other countries of La~in America, has sponsored the resolutions on this subject adopted by the General AsseJli>ly in the last three years. Those resolutions call for negotiations in order to find a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute relating to the question of the Malvinas Islands. They also request the secretary-General to continue his mission of good offices in order to assist the parties, Argentina and the United Kingdom, to resume negotiations to that end. My delegation wishes to thank the secretary-General for his selfless efforts pursuant to resolution 39/6, and deplores the fact that the negotiations have not yet been resumed, as the report of the secretary-General (A/40/89l) points out. At this fortieth session a group of countries friendly to Argentina and the United Kingdom decided to submit a draft resolution which would provide a new perspective in order to resolve this dispute. I refer to draft resolution A/40/L.19. This draft resolution has a procedural content and differs from resolutions adopted at past sessions in that it does not refer to the substantive aspects of the question. This is an interesting initiative and provides a chance to break out of the deadlock caused by the negative response of t.'le United Kingdom· to the three previous resolutions. That draft resolution has been accepted by the Argentine Republic, as we heard from Mr. Dante Caputo, ~~e Foreign Minister of that country, in his statement this morning. Given the Argentine acceptance and the novel nature of draft resolution A/40/L.19, my delegation has decided to become a sponsor in the hope that it may contr ibute to the beginning of the dialogue which it is essential to establish (Mr .. Gunucio Granier, Bolivia) between the parties. In this connection, we ask the secretariat, through you, Mr. President, to include Bolivia's name among the co-sponsors. During the debate on this item last year I had the privilege of citing various contributions by eminent Britons to the cause of the United Nations and the solution of international disputes by peaceful means. This year, the statement made by the British Prime Minister on 24 OCtober, the fortieth anniversary of the Organization, gives us some reason to be optimistic on the question of the Malvinas Islands. Mrs. Thatcher said: -The United Nations has also shown that it is a force for action. It can help to keep the peace in three vital ways: first, by setting the stage for negotiation ••• secondly, by acting as the catalyst which persuades those in dispute to prefer negotiation to confrontation,; and thirdly, by pursuing its peace-keeping role. - (A/40/PV.48, p. 41) (Mr. Gumucio Granier, Bolivia) Mrs. Thatcher also said that -the power of international organizations in today's world is the power of persuasion, not coercion. The United Nations cannot and should not try to dictate deta~led solutions to countries involved in disputes. Only the parties themselves can reach agreements - ... (A/40/PV.48, p. 44) Those two quotations clearly offer hope. As draft resolution A/40/L.19 is an instrument which appeals to the parties to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully the problems pending between both countries on the future of the Malvinas Islands, it does not go into details on the substance of the dispute or try to steer the parties towards a specific solution. In other words, this draft resolution, which is based on and strengthens the principles of the Charter, is a firm response to the United Kingdom Prime Minister's perception of what the United Nations is and should be. I endorse the words of Mrs. Thatcher in this regard when she says that the United Nations is -a force for action, not a mere frothing of words-. (A/40/PV.48, P. 42) My delegation therefore associates itself with the appeal addressed by the co-sponsors to the United Kingdom and Argentina to support draft resolution A/40/L.19 and to proceed, through the good offices of the Secretary-General, to take the necessary steps to start a dialogue and appropriate negotiations. In conclusion I wish to refer to the draft amendment submitted by the United Kingdom and relating to the principle of self-determination (A/40/L.20). On the one hand I wish to make it quite ;lear tnat Bolivia, together with Argentina and the other countries of Latin America, joined together in promoting a just cause in the adoption of resolution 1514 (XV), which recognized the need to apply the principle of self-determination to colonial territories. Similarly, Bolivia, (Mr. Gumucio Granier, Bolivia) together with Argentina and all the countries of Latin Afierica, supported the process leading to the independence and liberation of the peoples of Africa, Asia and the caribbeanJ the outcome of this process was successful, as a result of which we can now rejoice in the fact that our Organization has attained virtual universality with the inclusion of more than 100 States which have joined the 51 founder Members of the United Nations. I should explain that, in supporting the right of peoples to self-deteraination, we clearly had in mind the indigenous local inhabitants, who had to be allowed to enjoy their rights, .and not tt-oat the administrative staff of colonial enterprises or Governments should benefit from the principle of self-determination. I also wish to point out that the inclusion of the principle of self-determination in amendment A/40/L.20 does not involve challenging the validity of that principle but on the contrary rather distorts the purposes of draft resolution A/40/L.19. We wish to emphasize once more that that draft resolution merely invites the parties to negotiate and does not seek to dictate solutions of principle, which can be arrived at only through negotiations, and accordingly can be arrived at only by the parties. ~nerefore Bolivia, together with the other countries of Latin America and the non-aligned countries, firmly opposes that amendment because it is irrelevant and prejudicial to the sound objective pursued by the sponsors of draft resolution A/40/L.19. Recalling the words of Mrs. Thatcher, that the united Nations cannot and should not try to dictate detailed Solutions to countries involved in disputes, I wish with all due respect to urge the delegation of the united Kingdom to withdraw its amendment. I am sure that on this occasion the united Kingdom will help to ensure that all of us will continue to work together so that the United Nations will be a true temple of peace, to quote the words of Winston Churchill 40 years ago. Mr. KNIPPING VICTORIA (Dominican Republic) (interpretation from S~anish): Once again the General Assembly is considering the question of the Malvinas Islands. In accordance with the instructions he received from the General Assembly in resolution 39/6, the Secretary-General has submitted to the Assembly a report on what he has done pursuant to that resolution as part of his renewed mission of good offices, in order to help the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to res~me negotiations with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the question of the Malvinas Islandse In that report the Secretary-General states that he has exchanged views on the question with the two countries involved in this dispute and has had meetings with the President of Argentina and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, as well as with their reSPective foreign ministers. He regrets that it has not proved possible to develop a formula that would enable the two parties to engage in the kind of talks foreseen in resolution 39/6, and deplores the lack of progress towards the normalization of the situation in the South Atlantic. This lack of progress towards the normalization of the situation in the South Atlantic is a permanent source of concern for the international community, and particularly for the entire Latin American region. It is obvious that the continuation of this situation creates tension which could affect the maintenance of international peace and security. There is also the unquestionable fact that, until a just and peaceful issue is found for the situation of the Malvinas Islands, that situation will continue to irritate the Latin American legal sensibilitip.s. For these reasons and aware of the interest of the international community in finding a prompt and just solution to this dispute, a group of countries has submitted to the General Assembly for consideration a draft resolution which requests the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to initiate negotiati.ms uith a vt.e-..: to fi.llIing we means to resol.ve peacefully ana definitively the probl.ems pending between both countries, inclUding all aspectr on the future of the Malvinas Islands, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. It will be noted that the authors of the draft resolution have studiously avoided referring to contentious substantive issues. They have done so for the sole purpose of getting the parties to sit down at the negotiating table to consider their respective points of view within the framework of a broad and frank dialogue. Consequently the draft r~olution before the Assenbly b essentially a procedural draft and one which i.s, in our opinion, well-balanced and objective. (Mr. !nipping Victoria, Dominican Republic) on a nulllber of occasioos and in various bodies of this vi'g.:mi2atioo we have always upheld the idea that there is no international dispute or conflict which cannot be resolved through peaceful means, as provided by international law and the Charter itself. The Dominican Republic, which has unswervingly upheld the just and legiti~te claims of Argentina to the Malvinas Islands, will therefore support this draft resolution. As for the amendments to the draft resolution to which we are referring submitt:ed by the united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I wish to make it quite clear that the Dominican Republic supports and firmly defends the principle of self-determination which is a fundamental part of our foreign policy and is inherent in the very existence of our country as a free, sovereign and independent State. However, in the context of the present situation, it seems to us that the introduction of this principle would adulterate the procedural fra~~work of the draft resolution by prejUdging one of the substantive elements in the dispute. Consequently, its inclusion would disrupt the balance and objectivity of the draft resolution and have a prejudicial effect on its noble spirit. We are convinced that it is essential to break out of the deadlock in this matter and the Dominican Republic, which has relations with both countries, therefore urges the parties to resume their negotiations in order to find a dignified, honourable and lasting solution to the dispute. In conclusion, I wish to announce to t:he sponsors of the draft resolution that my country wishes also to become one of its sponsors. (Mr. Knipping Victoria, Dominican Republic) Hr. AaTAQl? (Spain) (interpretation from Spanish) ~ The Government of Spain continues to be deeply concerned at the situation in the SOUth Atlantic, one "bleb has grown out of the dispute over the Malvinas Islands. 'nfelve lIlOI1thS after the adoption of resolution 39/6, we see ourselves constrained to share the 5ecretary-General's disappointment over the fact that it should not have proved possible to resume the dialogue between Argentina and the United Kingdom with a view to finding a peaceful and negotiated solution to the conflic"'~. The prolongation of this situation is especially distressing to the Government of Spain, inasmuch as it affects two countries with which Spain is linked by countless bonds and, above all, by the readiness and determination to share a future of ever-closer co-operation. For 20 yearo now the United Nations has set forth and reaffirmed a doctrine ~:lith re~ard to the Malvinas Islands which my country fIlly shares. In accordance wit>"l resolution 20/65 (XX), reiterated and consolidated in a variety of consensus documents OI'i this issue and in resolutions 3160 (XXVIII) 31/49, 37/9, 38/12 and 39/6, the colonial question of the Malvinas Islands can be resolved only by the implemention of paragraph 6 of resolution 1514 (XV)J in other words, by the restoration of Argentina's territorial integrity, duly taking into account the interests of the popo.1lation of the Islands. This is the crux of the problem and this is the doctr ine of the General AsseDJbly for resolving it.. The absence of dialogue between Argentina and the United Kingdom not only prevents finding a negotiated and peacet~ll solution to the root conflict separating botil countdes, but, rather, in anc c: itself ~<.m~ti1:utes an additional factor making for tension.. It is within this context that the Government of Spain especially values tl'H~ spirit of compromisf! with which the Government of Argentina has coma to this fortieth session. This hand held out fer dialogue and negotiation free £rom pre-conditions is a political gesture that stipulates neither reservations nor qualifications and it is fully in keeping with the spirit of the fortieth anniversary of the Charter of the United Nations. However wide the gap still separating the positions of both sides may be, we are convinced that there is no alternative to this dialogue and negotiation. We believe the draft resolution now before the General Assemly fully reflects this conviction. What we have is a procedural draft resolution from which the sponsors have eliminated all elements that might cAstitute an obstacle to the initiation of dialogue and the normalbation of relations between the two countries. Hence, we hope the General Assembly will keep intact its essentially conciliatory content. The peaceful and progressive return of Latin Amer iea to delllOC~racy canst!tutes one of the few bright spots on the international horizon in this day and age. Argentina embodies the best paradigm of this evolution. The restoration of denocracy in the region not only has borne f::uit in each one of the countries concerned, but, indeed, has simultaneously reached out on the international level, making it possible to lay down new groundwork for the peacefUl settlement of bilateral or regional disputes. The question of the Ma1vinas Islands IlUst not be left out of this process which is full of hope. Hr. FAN Guoxiang (China) (interpretation from Chinese): The United Nations General Assembly first considered the question ef the Malvinas Islands in 1965 and adopted resolution 2065 (XX) which called on the Governments of the United Kingdom and Argentina to proceed with n~gotiations with a view to finding a solution to the sOl7ereignty dispute over the Malvinas islands in the spirit of the Declaration on deco1onization and in the interests of the population of the Islands. (Hr. Artacho, S);i!in) SUbsequently, the General AsseJllbl,., r,Adopted similar resolutions at many of its sessions. Twenty years have elapsed since then, but the dispute still remains unsettled. The international coDlJlUnity is deeply concerned about this situation. The question of the Malvinas Islands is an issue left overfroJl history and it should be settled properly in accordadce with the basic principles as contained in the united Nations Charter. To safeguard state sovereignty is one of the important principles of the United Nations Charter. Argentina's claim to sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands reflects the national aspiration of the Argentine people and has won the consistent sympathy and support of the third-world countries, particularly the Iatin American countries. Both the Conference of the Non-Aligned Countries and the or~r'\ization of American States have adopted relevant resolutions on many occasions supporting Argentina's claim to sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands. The Chinese delegation maintains that Argentina's claim to sovereignty over the territory of the Malvinas Islands should be respected by the international community. The peaceful settlement of interna.tional disputes is another important principle of the United Nations Charter. The thirty-ninth session of the General Assenbly and the meeting of the Special Committee on the Si tuation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, held last August, adopted resolutions on the question of the Malvinas Islands, urging the Government of Argentina and the Government of the United Kingdom to resume their negotiations to find an appropriate solution. It should also be noted that, in order to promote a dialogue between the two sides so as to bring about a normalization of the situation in the south Atlantic, the United Nations Secretary-General has made many efforts and has expressed his willingness to continue his good-offices mission. The Chinese delegation is of the view that a settlement of this dispute in accordance with the United Nations Charter and the provisions contained in the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly conforms wi th the interests of both b~e Argentine and British peoples and is also conducive to the preservation of peace and stability in the south Atlantic. We wish to renew our call on the (Mr. Fan Guoxiang, China) Gcwernaent of Argentina and the Government of the United Kingdora to resume their negotiations so that a peaceful and reasonable solution can be found for the question of the Kalvinas Islands. Hr. CHAMORRO MORA (Nicaragua) (interpretation from Spanish): The ~uestion of the Malvinas Islands is a problem which is of great concern to the inteL-national coDI'IIUnity, and above all to the Latin American countries and to the Non-Aligned Movement. As the question of tb~ Malvinas comes once :again befolre the General Assenbly . for consideration, we wish to reaffirm what has been stated on many occasions by the Non-Aligned M:>vement, namely the need to uproot colonialism in all its forms ana manifestations in Latin America and the Caribbean, and our total solidarity with those peoples in our region living in colonial circumstances. The question of the Malvinas and the adjacent islands is not a dispute about sovereignty. The Malvinas are Argentine and the sovereignty of the Republic of Argentina a.ver these islands is beyond question. What we have here is a colonial situation in which the IOOther country is refusing to join in negotiations in a serious-minded way within the framework of the provisions and &ims of the united Hations Charter • Nicaragua, a country which has repeatedly stated its readiness for dialogue and the peaceful resolution of disputes, emphasizes that the inmediate opening of negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom to resolve the question of the Malvinas once and for all is of overriding importance and, moreover, reflects both a demand and a requirement by the international coumunity. We reaffirm our satisfaction over the responsible and mature way in which Argentina has voiced its readiness for dialogue and negotiation and has on numerous occasions shown evidence of open-mindedness and an interest in a political and negotiated resolution of the problem. (Mr. Fan Guoxiang, China) However, we see with great concern that this readiness displayed by Argentina to resolve the subject within the fralleWork of the principles and purposes of the united Nations. Charter has not been Etched by a corresponding attitude on the part of the united Kingdom Government. The countries of Latin America and the countries meDbers of the Non-Aligned Movement are deeply concerned over the massive British military and naval presence in the area of the Malvinas, the South Georgias and the sandwich Islands, principally fJ11er the establieh~nt of a strategic airbase on these islands. we feel that this strengthening of the British military presence, as well as the intention to set up a new base on Easter Island by the united States, constitute a threat to the peace and secl.1city of our region. As Central Americans, we Nicaraguans know all too well, and have felt as wounds in our own flesh, the effects of imper ialism. One of the methods of the imperialists is to maintain military bases thousands of miles from their own coasts to assault the peoples of the world or, as they would say, to -defend their vital interests-. We are aware of the meaning of these bases, as well as the meaning of the occupation of countries whose Governments have lost the concept of dignity in order to launch aggressive attacks against free peoples. As a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, Nicaragua reaffirms its support for everyone of the poi~ts regarding sovereignty over the Malvinas reflected in the Final Declaration issued by the Movement at the Ministerial Meeting held at Luanda, Angola. We reaffirm our opposition to attempts to apply to the question of the Malvinas resolution 1514 (XV) in a manner alien to its true purpose and spirit by construing it in an arbitrary and manipulative way. (Hr. Ch!lJB)rro fobra, Nicar~gua) The Malv1nas have been under illegal British occupation for more than 150 years~ this .is an Argentine t:erritory which has been settled by colonists and subjects of the Crown, which prohibits access to the isl,ands to latin Americans. In this case, an attempt is being made to apply the prirlciple of self-determination, in a manner contraty to its true spirit and purposes, in order to perpetuate a colonial situation, not to end it. Nicaragua, faithful to the principles of San Martin, Bolivar, Mart:!, Juarez and sandino, has given, and will continue to give, its militant support to the just cause of Argentina, which is the cause of latin America and of the Non-Aligned Movement, the cause of justice, until we free our continent from colonialism and imperialism. Mr. SAMUDIO (Panama) (interpretation from Spanish): Twenty years ago this Assemly adopted its first resolution on the question of the Malvinas. That historic resolution - 2065 (XX) of 16 DeceIIber 1965 - was sponsored by Panam and 14 other Latin American countries. Today, as 20 years ago, we come before this Assenbly again to reaffirll our unswerving support for the Argentine nation's just claim to the Malvinas Islands. My country, which endured on its own soil an alien colonial presence, has made the struggle against colonialism in all its forms and manifestations one of the fundamental principles of its foreign policy. The anti-co1onia1ist spirit of the Panamanian people and its resolute support of the principle of anti-colonialism are the result of its loog struggle to restore, affirm and exercise Panama's complete sovereignty over all its territory, and to do away with the odious colonial enclave which was known as the "Canal ZOne". OUr own exper ience in that struggle against colonialism has made us keenly aware of and strong opponents of the colonial injustices still being suffered by other peoples and countries. HC7iIever, the peaceful settlement of the colonial dispute between Panama and the United States of America by the conclusions of the 1977 Panama Canal Treaties also had the merit of bolstering our confidence in dialogue and negotiations as the best means for achieving just, honourable and lasting solutions to international disputes. It is therefore no ccincidence that another of the cardinal principles of Panama's foreign policy is the peaceful settlement of disputes. As we commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations, my delegation would like to emphasize the universal validity of that pdncip1e and to urge all meubers of the international community to be governed in their international conduct by it, since it constitutes a legal and moral obligation incuubent upon all States which have signed the Ckgani!at:ion' s Charter, in particular those which have the pr ivilege of being permanent tnel'lbers of the security Council. The exercise and implementation of that principle has become an inherent part of my country's foreign policy. That is reflected in Panama's efforts to bring about peace in Central ~erica and its work in the Contadora Group. We yearn for a negotiated solution in Central America and are working to bring it about, and we should like to see all other international conflicts resolved peacefully in the same way. That 'is why my country, whose solidarity with Argentina is beyond any dooot, would like to underline the extraordinary importance that we attach to draft resolution A/40/L.19, which requests the Governments of Argentina and the United ltingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the ~ans to resolve peacefully and definitively the problems pending between both countries, including all aspects on the future of the Malvinas Islands, in accordance with the Utlited Nations Charter. This .draft resolution, of which my delegation is a sponsor, is in line wi th the record of continuity and consistency that the General Assel'lbly, in six resolutions and four co."1sensus documents, has maintained for 20 years now in promoting negotiations on the Malvinas question. Their common theme or COlll1lOn demonination is a request to the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to negotiate in order to find a peacefUl solution to their disputes. The report submitted by the Secretary-General to the General Assenbly in compliance with resolution 39/6 notes the readiness of Argentina and the United Kingdom to settle their differences peacefully and their desire to enter into a substantive dialogue. My delegation hopes that that dialogue will be initiated as soon as possible, with the good offices of the Secretary-General and the support of the entire international community. (Hr. Samdio, Panama) With the solution to the question of the Beagle Channel by negotiations, the democratic Government of President Raul Alfonsin has demonstrated Argentina's sincerity in its desire to solve its international problems exclusively by peaceful means. The United Kingdom's signature of the agre.ament with the People's Republic of China with regard to Hong Kong shows that j.t is predisposed to negotiations. Let us hope that these signs of willingness on both sides will contr ibute to the peaceful solution of all their differences, including the future of the Malvinas Islands. My delegation deems it necessary to refer to the amendments to draft resolution A/40/L.19 submitted by the united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. First, we should like unequivocally to reaffirm our adherence to all the principles embodied in the Charter, in toto, without selectively invoking one more than any other. However, the United Kingdom seeks in its amendments to give pride of place to the principle of the self-determination of peoples, applying it selectively to the question of the decolonization of the Malvinas. In this connection, I would reiterate the following comments made by my delegation on this issue at the thirty-eighth session of the General Assembly: "The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples recognizes the existence of various forms and manifestations of colonialism, all of which must be ended speedily and unconditionally. It is therefore important that the specific characteristics of each colonial case be examined to determine the method of decolonization and whether the population is entitled to exercise the right to self-determination or the territory should be restored to its sovereignty. In the case of the Malvinas we are (Mr. Samudio, Panama) undoubtedly facing the second case ,because this is territory which has been illegally occupied, broken off from the territory of a sovereign State, Argentina, and inhabited by people settled there by the occupying Power. It would therefore be wrong for that population to determine the fate of a usurped terri tory which does not belong to it and wi th which it really has no legitimate bonds. "Furthermore, the spirit of resolution 1514 (XV) and the practice followed in the process of decolonization do not mean that this right to self-determination can be given to illicit settlers of the occupying Power or settlers who are carrying out the territorial occupation, much less the employees of companies from the metropolitan country. "We therefore consider that the 'kelpers' on the Malvinas do not meet the conditions or the appropriate circumstances of persons entitled to the right to self-determination. However, we consider just and appropriate the fact that the interests of the population in the Malvinas should be duly taken into consideration in the negotiating process, in accordance with the provisions of all General Assembly resolutions relating to the question of the Malvinas." (A/38/PV.57, pp. 68-71) Therefore, if put to the vote, my delegation will vote against the amendments contained in document A/40/L.20, inasmuch as they attempt to prejudge the framework for negotiations and slant their outcome in a certain direction. (Mr. Samudio, Panama) Mr. ALZAMORA (Peru) (interpretation from Spanish): In keeping with the general will of the international community, Peru has been seeking, since the debate began a number of years ago, to contribute to creating a climate and a framework conduciqe to the opening of negotiations between Argentina and. Great Britain capable of oqercoming the obstacles to a genuine rapprochement over the Malvinas problem. That concern and solidarity resulted both from the historical fraternal relations that bind us to Argentina and our ties of warm friendship with Great Britain, whose men fought alongside Argentina and our own people in the struggle for Peru's independence. That twofold tie also inspired our efforts, during the conflict, at mediation to bring about peace as the history of that process records. However, we also have a fundamental concern, in seeking the eradication of a focal point of tension and conflict in the region, whose nature and persistence affront the dignity of Latin America and confront it with a situation involving a risk to its own security, through a growing militarization which is contrary to the cause of world peace, and jeopardizes in a particular way the process of regional disarmament to which Latin America is committed and to which the First Committee has given its strong backing. The search for a negotiating framework for the Malvinas dispute is not new. The Assembly has been constantly committ~d to it in its various pronouncements. T~~ay a new approach to that legitimate aspiration is being made with the presentation of a draft resolution which is procedural in character and does not predetermine or prejudge the issues. Therefore, the international community has every reason to expect a positive response from both parties to this proposal for a resumption of dialogue and negotiations without pre-conditions, as the draft resolution provides. There has recently been a post-war relaxation of tension, with the first bilateral diplomatic contacts and a reaffirmation by both parties of their commitment to the principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes. The united Kingdom amendment undermines that, since it would frustrate the process of rapprochement and dialogue promoted and fostered by the international community, and would close the door to negotiations. Furthermore, given the circumstances in which it is being introduced, the amendment could present a great danger for developing countries if it constituted a precedent that jeopardized their territorial integrity. Many of our countries, especially the newest, still have - for a variety of reasons - islands or areas that are uninhabited or sparsely populated. There is the risk of there appearing in such places a nucleus of foreign settlers who could, after a time, pretending to have their own identity, claim the right to self-determination and separate that part of our territory from the rest, thus undermining our sovereignty, as has happened throughout history. We are already seeing in Namibia a false self-determination of that type and the establishment of a supposedly autonomous government, set up solely to prolong South African colonialism in a different guise. The delegation of Peru also believes that in the case before us the amendment would mean a dangerous distortion of the principle of self-determination if it were used only to serve the perpetuation of a colonial status, in that the settlers maintain their links with the fi~ther country. Therefore, the amendment would set a serious precedent which would do violence to the process of the affirmation of the independence and teIritorial integrity of developing countries, to which we are committed. The principle of self-determination, which is our weapon against colonialism, cannot be wielded in the service of colonialism. For those reasons, we shall vote against the amendment. (Mr. Alzamora 6 Peru) Mr. TROYANO'~r~~ (Union of Sovi~r. Socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russian): Since ancient times the h~r.ricane-forcegales and inclement w~ather of the high latitudes of the South Atlantic have earned it a dread reputation~ We must note with regret that the region is also a source of international tension. The unresolved colonial conflict there and the militarization of the region ar~ a cause of serious concern to the whole world. The General Assembly has repeatedly advocated a prompt end to the colonial status of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, which since 1963 have been included on the list of territories covered by the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. In resolution 2065 (XX), of 16 December 1965, the General Assembly confirmed the need to end colonialism in those Islands and called on the Governments of the United Kingdom and Argentina to proceed without delay to hold negotiations to seek a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter and the D~~laration on decolonization and the interests of the population of the Islands. Since then the united Nations has repeatedly reiterated its appeal for the holding and acceleration of such negotiations. The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, in its decision of 9 August this year, again stated that the only way: "to put an end to the special and particular colonial situation in the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) is the peaceful and negotiated settlement of the dispute over sovereignty between the Governments of Argentina and the united Kingdom". (A/40/23 (Part VIII), p. 4) ~he Soviet union has consistently supported, and it continues to support, those United Nations decisions, and it sympathizes with the position of the members of the Non-Aligned Movement on the problem of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands,. including their declaration of support for Argentina's right to the restoration of its sovereignty Over the Islands through negotiations. Notwithstanding the numerous resolutions of the General Assembly calling for efforts to find a peaceful solution of the Angle-Argentine dispute in respect of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, the United Kingdom, however, has continued to pursue a policy of keeping that territory under its colonial administration. A broad programme of militarization of the Islands has been set in motion and a programme for setting up on b~ose Islands of a major air force and naval base. There continues to be a large military garrison on the Islands. Judging by the nature and scope of the military installations which have been erected on the Falk: 'nd (Malvinas) Islands, and the volume of expenditures on their construction, the plans for the militarization of that territ~cy pursue far-reaching global and strab~gic objectives, a fact which creates a serious threat to the peace and stability of the entire region. All this cannot fail to alarm a broad circle of States, particularly those in Latin America. In the above-mentioned decision on the question of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, the Special Committee on Decolonization found that the militarization of that region by the United Kingdom was prejudicial to the climate of trust which is needed for the resumption of negotiations between the Uni ted Kingdom and Argentina. As a result of the United Kingdom's refusal to sit down at the negotiating table, pursuant to General Assembly resolutions, the situation in the region continues to be fraught with grave diffiCUlties. The Government of Argentina, on the other hand, has demonstrated a constructive and flexible approach and has consistently sought a solution to the question of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands through a political settlement. In his statement at this morning's meeting of the General Assemhly, the Argentine Foreign Minister, Mr. Caputo again emphasized that the democratic Government of Argentina has expresspd its firm intention of resolving this question through negotiations. That position of Argentina has been welcomed by all those who advocate the peaceful settlement of international disputes and the strengthening of the basis of international security. The Soviet delegation feels that attempts to perpetuate the colonial status of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands are inadmissible and we advoC'.ate the prompt holding of Anglo-Argentine negotiations called for by Uni:;ed Nations decisions. In the opinion of the Soviet delegatio~~ the draft resolution on the question of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, submitted by a group of countries from various geographic regions, is aimed at securing a peaceful and just solution of this question, through negotiations between the Governments of Argentina and the united Kingdom, in accordance with the Charter, which would help normalize relations between those States and strengthen international peace and security. Proceeding from the foregoing, the Soviet delegation supports that draft, in the form in which it has been submitted by the sponsors.