S/PV.2362 Security Council

I should like, at the outset of this meetmg, to thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Panama, Mr. Jorge E. Illueca, for attending the Council meeting. On behalf of the Council, I extend a warm welcome to him. I. 2. In accordance with the decisions taken at the 2360th meeting, I invite the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Argentina to take a place at the Council table; I invite the representatives of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, Uruguay and Venezuela to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber. 3. The PRESIDENT (intelp,L’totiorl Ji-om c’hi- IIC~.Y~~): I should like to inform members of the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Bolivia. Canada, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Honduras, New Zealand, Nicaragua and Peru. in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the agenda. In accordance with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure.

I should like to inform members that I have just received two letters, dated 22 May, from the representative of Argentina to the United Nations. which will be distributed during the course of this meeting under the symbols S/IS 102 and S/ 15 103. 5 Mr, de PINIEs (Spain) (intr,p~c~tritifj/l .fhll - . .yl>l//li,v/l): I should like first to extend a special greeting to the Foreign Ministers who are honouring us with their presence. Regrettably, this is a true measure of the tragic hour through which mankind is living. 6. Mr. President, 1 should like to congratulate you on the skill and diplomatic flair with which you are discharging your functions at a particularly decisive and critical time both for the United Nations and for world peace. I am especially grateful for the promptness with which you have been informing us, the members of the Council. about the grave crisis which is developing in the Malvinas Islands. 7. I should like to thank the Secretary-General for his good offices in the conciliatory mission he has been carrying out with the utmost diligence, sparing neither effort, firmness, skill nor perseverance. My country also wishes to place on record the debt of gratitude we owe the Secretary-General, because we believe that had it not been for his efforts and tireless exertions the situation would have been far more critical and the positions of the two parties to the conflict would have been even further removed from the objective Spain desires: the cessation of hostilities and a negotiated understanding on the substance of the problem. Unfortunately, the Secretary-General himself felt that it was his painful duty to inform the President of the Council that the negotiations he had undertaken with the Council’s support offered no prospect of an end to the crisis or preventing intensification of the conflict. 8. The Government of Spain deeply deplores the fact that it was impossible to arrive at an understanding and a contractual arrangement which, in strict application of the doctrine of decolonization, would from the outset have spared us violence by making possible the peaceful restoration of Argentine territorial integrity. This would have prevented a war for which there is no justification and a terrible breach between two peoples belonging to the same Western civilization. 9. In the circumstances, and as is indicated in the Secretary-General’s letter to the President of the Council [S//SOUC,l. we members of the Council must be fully aware of the responsibility which is incumbent upon us under the Charter of the United Nations. The Security Council is the proper body to act effectively and to prevent an irreparable loss of human lives and the escalation of a conflict the consequences of which are becoming disastrous for world peace. A formal meeting was postponed during the last few days simply because we still hoped that the negotiations then under way between Argentina and the IO. My delegation’s attitude in regard to the Malvinas question was reflected in my statement of 3 April to the Council [235&/z nzccfin!: 1. Nevertheless, as there have been further developments, I shall try to summarize as briefly as possible the most important points of our position. I I. At the beginning of the crisis, my Government expressed its concern over the situation created in the Malvinas and pointed out Spain’s consistent position on the substance of the problem, to the effect that decolonization should take place by ensuring Argentine territorial integrity and safeguarding the interests of the population. On the other hand, the Government of Spain stated that it was opposed to the use of force as a means of settling disputes and insisted that the channels for achieving a peaceful solution through the United Nations should be kept open. 12. On I May, on being informed of the British military action, the Government of Spain warned of the dangers of unleashing a generalized and massive military action in the archipelago, which would inevitably lead to grievous loss of human life. At that time, my Government pointed out the very grave responsibility of allowing the escalation to continue unchecked and described this in advance as a serious historical mistake. That prediction and omen have unfortunately been confirmed in the intense confrontation in the American hemisphere and the distressing breach between two continents. 13. His Majesty King Juan Carlos I addressed a letter to the Secretary-General dated 5 May, from which I shall quote the following paragraphs: “I cannot remain unmoved by the confrontation between two peoples, nor can I contemplate, without deep emotion, the loss of human life which this entails. “I believe that there is a just and honourable solution to every problem through talks and peaceful measures, in a spirit of peace. without reaching irreparable consequences. “For my part, I offer with the utmost selflessness all my goodwill and assistance in order to contribute in any way which may be deemed appropriate to the attainment of peace and justice.” 14. In spite of that appeal and those of several heads of State made during those days, the conflict was aggravated and military confrontation dramatically intensified. In these circumstances, we must with the utmost urgency take a decision reflecting the neces- 13. C’cs%ltiOn of hostilities, negotiation and peace --thllSc shl)Uld 1X the priol-ities of ()iIr action. CeSSacj0il of hostilities, because too much blood has already been s;hed in this conflict, ;\ conflict that began with gin Wt of ~OKC and that, through warlike escalation ;tnd cxtcnded military action, has become a tragic histtjrica] CITUI’ :~nd is opening an ubyss of misundersli\ndilng ]?ctwecn Ibero- America and Europe that SPain. US it IRC~I~CI* of both the J&ropean and the ItWWArnerican communities. deplores more deeply thun any ather country, 16. Negotiation to put an end to the colonial situati0n in the Malvinas should be undertaken without reservations and with the determination to dispel the long absence of the negotiating spirit that cannot be ovczrlookcd when making a true evaluation of the conflict. 17. !\nd, at the end of uur effort, in which we must not give in to discouragement, peace-an honourable, nt’goti:ltcd peace, u just peace that will result from p~tcifir: i\nd concerted action and never from the imposition of military force, which is of necessity painful ;lnd l~recarious. History abounds with examples that p’rovc the stubborn sterility of violence, the ~~s~]cs~~ess of solutions brought about by war and bc;lrir:ly the seeds of death. destruction and the invasivc virus of new discords and violence. 18. ‘Nith thnt hope of achieving peace and removing the sc:l~lll’gc of war .-+, peace based on the provisions of the charter rind of United Nations resolutions-mY countl-y is prepared to support a draft resolution that, in ;1CC:C)rdance with the principles I have enunciated, kvill bring ilbl~llt a peaceful solution. 19. ,4s the Secretary-Genera] indicated yesterday in his stutement to the Council, one that we should bear very much in mind: -b It relnains my belief that an agreement along the lines developed in the exchanges over the Past tyo wceks, incorporating the approaches suggested In my i~idc-m~moire of 19 May, could restore Peace in tile south Atlantic and open the WaY for an endul.ing solution of the long-standing dispute between two Member States” [2360th lW’tin% prriw. 21 I. 3 21. The PRESIDENT fi/?tcJr’/Jl.rtolio,l fiw~r C’hi- WSC~: The next speaker is the representat& of Uruguay. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 22. Mr. AZAR GOMEZ (Uruguay) ~i/~~~~rpr.c~ttrtior~.fi’orn S/~r/li.s/zj: The delegation of Uruguay is grateful for having been given the opportunity to participntc in this meeting on a matter of such gravity and of such special concern to my Government, as a peace-loving country and as a Latin American country. 23. At appropriate times and in various international forums, Uruguay has repeatedly stated its position regarding the rights of sovereignty of the Argentine Republic over the Malvinas Islands and their dependencies, a position that we now most energetically reaffirm. 24. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Uruguay, Mr. Estanislao Va]d& Otero, at the Twentieth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Organization of American States (OAS), convened in accordance with the provisions of the Inter- American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, stated: “Uruguay and Argentina gained independent life in the first half of the nineteenth century. They come from the same noble Hispanic roots. and together they undertook to engage in i1 heroic struggle for the recovery and defence of their nationnl sovereignties, In their joint history. they have hitd to face and vanquish foreign interventions aimed at interfering with their consolidation as independent and sovereign nations. “Today, however, like our sister republics of America, we are present here, independent and sovereign. That is the lesson of history that some Governments seem unable to understand. thinking as they do that America can be a propitious ground on which to carry out their colonial nspirihls.” 25, Mr. ValdCs Otero also stated: *‘America is present and united. Colonial i\spiK\- tions run counter to the path of history and the norms of law, and any victory that might be achieved by weapons will only be the source of flittIre dfering by the civilization which we Americans and the British share-not our civilizution, but r!fthel that of our children and of future generiltll~ns. 26, Argentina’s historic;\! C!iilimS tl) Soverr’ignty over the Mn]vjn;ls lshmds and their dependencies are 27. In 1833, Britain, through an act of force, occupied the Malvinas Islands; an act of force can bestow no rights. Not only did Argentina never consent to that act of despoliation, but from that moment it began to make, through diplomatic channels, its claims fat the full restoration of its sovereign rights. 28. As we see it, the present situation must be analysed within the context of and in the light of the fundamental principle of the territorial integrity of States that is clearly reaffirmed in paragraph 6 of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), which enshrines the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and which states: “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” 29. One of the most fruitful tasks of the United Nations has been that of leading to independent life scores of nations that today occupy with supreme dignity their places in our assemblies. We now face a specific instance in that long and noble process of decolonization, and Uruguay is doing no more than applying the general principles set forth in the Declaration on fhe Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 30. We firmly support the convening of this meeting and we make a strong appeal to the Council to see that solutions permitting the restoration of pegice in the South Atlantic will emerge from it. 31. Seeking solutions through war operations, such as those now taking place, can only satisfy temporary political interests by attempting to legatize a situation of force which must be viewed as contrary to international law, and as jeopardizing-at the cost of young lives-the undertaking of negotiations that will lead us to the much desired peaceful solution of the dispute. 32. Uruguay has with great concern followed. day by day and minute by minute. the situation created by the conflict involving the Malvinas Islands and theit dependencies. In particular, we wish to state that we have in the last few days followed very closely the development of the negotiations carried out by the Secretary-General. 33. We should like at this stage to place the greatest emphasis on our profound respect for the objective, 34. We regret that that negotiating procedure. which had been tacitly accepted by both parties, \vi\s interrupted by the submission on 17 May of :I draft interim agreement on the conflict by the representative of the United Kingdom, 3s. We believe that the efforts of the Secretary- General made a substantial contribution to clarifying the basic points of difference between the positions of Argentina and the United Kingdom; both Governments, in the light of those differences, should analyse the inevitable necessity of resuming negotiations, for it is clear that the only course which can put an end to bloodshed and to the threat to world peace is peaceful negotiation to bring this dispute to an end. 36. As Latin Americans, we are pleased to see a willingness to negotiate amply demonstrated by the Argentine Government which, despite its uncontestable rights of sovereignty over the islands, agreed to begin negotiations within the framework of Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations, that is. without prejudice to the rights, claims or positionufthe parties concerned. 37. In this very forum, too, Argentina has stated its readiness to comply with the provisions of resolution 502 (1982), a willingness which it could nut put into full effect owing to the dispatch southwards. immediately following the adoption of that resulution, of a powerful fleet whose warlike preparations and subsequent warlike actions clearly violate the spirit and letter of resolution SO2 ( 1982), thus leading to a series of hostilities which had not taken pklCe at the time of the adoption of that resolution. 38. We most vigorously condemn these hostilities. which are now taking place openly in the form of iI bloody attack launched against the Malvinas Islands. 39. A formula must urgently be drawn up to put an end to the armed attacks. We call on the Council to make every effort to seek for a measure which would call for the following: I. Immediate cessation of the hostilities. Beyond the central purpose. which is that of saving many innocent young lives, this would also halt a far-reaching military escalation with unforeseeable consequences. an escalation which would make an urgent solution more difficult by further alienating the parties. 2. A formal mandate to be given to the Secretary- General to resume negotiations aiming at a peaceful settlement of the dispute. The tireless efforts made by the Secretary-General to bring about a solution of the problem, and the formulas which he submitted at

The next speaketon my list is the Minister fol Foreign Affairs of Vent~~~~ela, Mr. .fOSd Alhcrto Zombrano Velasco. I welcome him and invite him to take ;I plnce at the Cuuncil table and to m:tke his 3. Conservation of and respect for the six points on which essential agreement had been reached. In his statement to the Council yesterday, the Secretary- General informed us that in his opinion essential agreement had been reached on six points [i/>id., prrrrr. 151, which, in our view, should form the fi-amework for resuming the negotiations. Statement.

Allow me to cungratulilte you, Sir. on you1 assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of May. We are sure that your long and distinguished diplomatic career, which we Venezuelans have been particularly able to appreciate. will enable the Council, in this particularly difficult time for the Organizntion. to exercise its responsibilities in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, 40. In maintaining the positioq we have just set out, our aim is not to damage one set of interests or promote another set. 41. Uruguay is acting in defence of the principles it has always upheld. We do this, of course. with the fervour which has always marked our defence of just and noble causes. 49. Venezuela requested a hearing in the Council because of the special interest it takes, as a Latin American nation. in the crisis caused by the warlike conduct of the United Kingdom against the Argentine Republic in an area defined as a security zone by the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance. 42. Our only weapons are the constant protection of law, and freedom, which are indispensable factors for any achievement in the higher sphere of the wellbeing and coexistence of peoples. 43. At this difficult time, we must remain fuully aware that we are controlled by the world. The United Nations must act immediately, without limitations and with a sense of urgency, to find a just, peaceful and lasting solution, based on respect for the rules of international law, and to bring about an immediate cessation of hostilities, which would have a calming effect, ensure a lasting peace and normalize relations between the nations. SO. Latin America is a family of peoples. We cannot stand aloof from anything that occurs there. Any act of aggression against one of its members affects it as a whole and is therefore unacceptable. 51. The organ of consultation of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance clearly expressed the solidarity of our nations with the Argentine Republic at this difficult time in its history. 52. On the occasion of the Twentieth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Organization of American States (OAS), convened in Washington on 28 April, in accordance with the provisions of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, Venezuela criticized the procedures of the Security Council, which enabled permanent members. with their right of veto, to enjoy a system of concealment and impunity in order to wage war or to protect the warlike adventures of their allies. with the 44. That is what is expected of us now, for it is the reason for having founded the United Nations, whose very existence is also at stake. 45. In that connection, we must recall that the failure of the League of Nations. and its end, came about precisely because of its ineffectiveness in avoiding the crisis of the 1930s. All that is not so far in the past that we can forget it in the present circumstances. certainty that no sanction or warning from the Council would affect them.

I should like to inform the members of the Council that I have just received letters from the representatives of Colombia, El Salvador and Paraguay, in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the agenda. In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Chattel and rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. 5.3. The support given to British aggression by the United States has an unpredictable effect on the lift of the present regional ot-F~~nizntion--thc ()AS-+nd the hemispheric security system embodied in the Inter- American Treuty of Reciprocal Assistance. The future of these instruments cljncerns 1x11 own n;\tion:\I intcrcsts. Whilt hils occurred gives c;lusc for profound dkction, in Pal-ticulalwith reg~i to the future‘. WC think. furthcrmor-c, that world l~nlancc and intercontinental relations art’ being s~ri~)usly affcctcd by thi+, tlxgic conflict. 55. Venezuela comes to the Council in the name of peace. We wish to make our critical points of view heard. We wish to reaffirm our solidarity with the Argentine Republic. We are acting in accordance with the positions and stands which we have taken. We hope that the Council will be able to prove its effectiveness by bringing about an immediate end to the war, the essential pre-condition of any subsequent civilized effort-political and diplomatic-to resolve the crisis. 56. Venezuela has very serious comments and ob.jections to express regarding Council resolution SO2 (1982). We have described it as biased and procolonialist, with solid arguments to support OUI emphatic charge. 57. Venezuela is here as a result of a cry for peace, a yearning for peace, increasingly acute as the wal drags on and worsens. 58. Despite our criticism of resolution SO2 (1982). we think that complete compliance with that resolution by both the United Kingdom and Argentina would have made possible a peaceful settlement. 59. In the organ of consultation of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance and in the United Nations, Argentina has expressed its willingness to comply fully with that resolution provided the United Kingdom also strictly complies, but the United Kingdom has ignored the resolution, which it had proposed, and has embarked on a tragic warlike adventure which has already cost many innocent lives and which it is necessary to being to an end immediately. 60. The actions of the United Kingdom since the adoption of resolution SO2 ( 1982) constitute clear violations of,that resolution. 61. First, there was the decision to dispatch the fleet, clearly contrary to the demands of the Council, which called unequivocally on both parties to cease hostilities immediately. The British decision constitutes a threat to international peace and security. 62. Secondly, the diplomatic activities carried out by the United Kingdom within the European Community to bring about the imposition of trade sanctions against Argentina constitute an unprecedented act of economic aggression, carried out in blatant violntion of all international law. 63. The arrogant conduct of the Government of the United Kingdom has produced a split in the unity of 65. Fourthly, the declaration of a sea and air exclusion zone around the Malvinas Islands constitutes. under international law, a hostile act against not merely the other party to the conflict but the other members of the international community. Not satisfied with its declaration. Great Britain proceeded to violate its own provisions by sinking the crLIiser(;(JncJ/.~// Rr/,qr~r~~r~ outside the 200-mile area. 66. Fifthly, the United Kingdom has established another IOO-mile zone around Ascension Island, which constitutes a serious threat to civil aviation of States outside the conflict. 67. Sixthly, to confirm once and for all the falsehood of the claim of self-defence made by the United Kingdom, that country proceeded to decree a 12-mile blockade off the coast of continental Argentina, 68. The United Kingdom is seeking to justify all its breaches of resolution 502 ( 1982). which it presented itself, by invoking the right of self-defence as enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. However, that Article only endorses such a right until the Security Council has taken the necessary measures to maintain international peace and security. 69. Accordingly, since the Council had adopted resolution SO2 (1982). the United Kingdom could not. without gravely violating the Charter and the resolution of the Council, engage in all the hostile acts to which we have referred. 70. As has been said. one cannot invoke self-defence in this case as that would only apply, following the adoption of a resolution by the Council. if the state of hostilities continued without interruption. which clearly has not happened. On the contrary. the United Kingdom’s actions led to a new opening of hostilities. 71. There is no rule of international law that justifits the United Kingdom’s armed action which hi!5 brought war to the American continent. No Provlsion of the Charter can bc used to justify this irrationill conduct. 72. From tho very moment that the United Kingdom dccidcd to resort to the Security Council for the adL)P tion of the necessary mcasurcs for the maintcnanc~ of 73. The United Kingdom obtained a resolution which has come in for serious criticism. But not satisfied with that, it proceeded, on the one hand, not to fulfil it and, on the other, to allege, in clear violation of Article S I of the Charter, a supposed exercise of self-defence in order to attack Argentina. The United Kingdom resolved to act as if the Security Council had decided to impose sanctions on Argentina and had commissioned the British fleet to carry them out. The British Government has made a mockery of the world system of collective security. 80. However. once again this effort ran up against the inflexible arrogance of the British Government. What the British Government is seeking is the restoration by force of its colonial title in South America. It is an exercise in imperial doctrines which are selfperpetuating. If we follow this logic. violent occupntion dragged out for 150 years cannot hope to be reimposed except by war. 81. The same British attitude to the just and continuing claim of Argentina is not unrelated to the origins of the present conflict, Heedless and impatient. England refused to carry out its international obligation to preserve peace. Thus, we have a story of intransigence and violence by the United Kingdom. 74. The purpose of this conduct appears merely to be to use the decision of the Council as justification or an excuse for action which is shocking the world today and which has cost hundreds of human lives. 82. As President Luis Herrera Campins said: 75. While the United Kingdom was carrying out all these activities which we have described, threatening peace and security, the Council did not deem it fit. for the preservation of peace, to adopt other measures apart from those contained in resolution SO2 Il982)-neither measures that do not entail the use of armed force, referred to in Article 41 of the Charter, nor measures which do entail the use of force, pursuant to the provisions of Article 42. “While it is true that, as the Charter of the United Nations states, one may presume that the aggt’essor is the person who first resorts to force, SUL.I a conclusion is not inevitable but a mere presumption. “Violence and force adopt subtle methods in order to hold sway. The neglect, disregard, unplcasantness and, on many occasions., even contempt shown for years in the face of the proposals and claims of the weakest addressed to the most powerful are part of these subtle forms of violence. 76. The United Kingdom is thus trying to get a comprehensive right to use force on the strength of its capacity to paralyse the Council through its right of veto. “Peaceful efforts to solve the problems have come up against the indifference of the international community and the peevishness of the powerful who have normally involved themselves in these disputes. The weak nations see that the strong can use force with impunity, They are helpless witnesses of the prolongation of conflicts sustained by powerful countries, This state of affairs constitutes encouragement of the use of force.” 77. Therefore, the British action runs counter to the most elementary human rights, to the Charter of the United Nations and to all the practice of the Organization in connection with decolonization. From this point of view, it is unacceptable for an attempt to be made to justify ruthless aggression by alleging adherence to the principle of the rule of law. 83.’ The international community is witnessing with amazement and indignation acts of aggression committed by a Government which has the gall to violate the very norms which it promoted. including those which it arbitrarily established unilaterally. Indeed. the British Government proposed the text for Cauncil resolution SO2 (1982) and staked out a war zone around the Malvinns Islands which its own forces with utter treachery then procccdcd to violate. The dispatch of the aggressive fleet and the criminal sinking of the cruiser C(gnc~~*tr/ Rl~lgr~rr~o outside the exclusion zone, which, totally contrary to law, had been cstablishcd by the United Kingdom, arc clearest proof of the contempt of the present British Government fol the law and for their own stan&trds of conduct. British aggression, thcrcforo. is not ;I struggle for the defence of the rule of law, ;IS they claim. but an uttcmpt to rcstorc the law of empire. 78. This principle cannot be used to justify an injustice backed up by the USC of force, in accordance with colonial practices. That is why we have insisted that this problem must be fully analysed, taking into account the historical, geographic, political and ethical background, since if that is not done legal principle will be stripped of its fairness and reduced to the law of empire. in the twentieth century, to cover all colonialist abuses. 79. While all these events were taking place, an intense effort to find peace was being carried out by the Secretary-General. In that process. once again Argentina’s willingness to be flexible about its position in order to find a peaceful solution to the problem and to save hundreds of innocent lives was very clear. Argentina tailored its conduct to the lines set forth by the International Court of Justice in this connection; 85. The attitude of the United Kingdom seems to be that, assured of impunity for its warlike behaviour and shielded by the privilege of permanent membership of the Council, it is determined to prevent speedy and effective efforts to achieve peace. 86. The Venezuelan Government has condemned the British escalation and it condemns the new aggressions. The loss of innocent young lives, Argentine and British, in the South Atlantic because of the anachronistic political stubbornness of the present Government of the United Kingdom must be halted. 87. We dispatched a mission of solidarity and peace to Europe to inform various democratic countries in the European Community of Venezuela’s position and that of Latin America in this conflict. Our envoys have glimpsed a marked shift in European public opinion. which is noting with growing concern the possible consequences of British aggression, which bears all the signs of having been undertaken without advice from any other nation. Europe refuses to continue unconditional support for the English adventure. 88. We are sure that the countries of the third world and the members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries are becoming aware of the repercussions of this tragic adventure, which ignores the progress of history and jeopardizes the peaceful efforts to satisfy the most precious and justified aspirations to live in peace and freedom. 89. We must insist that too many hnvc died. OUI consciences as indignant and horrified witncsscs compel us to call for peace, immediate peace, an immediate cease-fire. This is the least that the Council can demand, and it should have done so sooner. 90. Mr. TROYANOVSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) finfc,‘~,‘c’ttrtif~/~ ,fi+~/n /<//.s.vitr/l): First of all. I should like to welcome the Ministers foi Foreign Affairs who have come hcrc to take part in the work of the Security Council. 92. The Security Council, to which the Charter uf the United Nations has entrusted the major responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, is duty-bound to consider the prevailinlg situation and to take the necessary measures to restore peace. In such circumstances, there is every justification for holding meetings of the Council. 93. At the meeting of the Council on 3 April [23SOr/7 rnct~ting 1, we emphasized that the issue of the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands is first and foremost part and parcel of the problem of decolonization of territories seized at one time by colonial Powers the worl:d over. The clear position of the United Nations i’n favour of an unconditional end to the colonial status of these islands has been reflected in the fact that this territory was included by the General Assembly iin the list of territories whose colonial regimes shou!ld be terminated, in accordance with the Charter and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence 1.0 Colonial Countries and Peoples contained in GCIICM~ Assembly resolution I.514 (XV). 94. The issue of the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands has been repeatedly dealt with in decisions of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. At the Sixth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non- Aligned Countries, held at Havana in September 1979. the heads of State or Government, in taking UP the issue of the Malvinas Islands, “firmly reiterated their support for the Argentine Republic’s right to the restttution of that territory and sovereignty over it and requested that the negotiations in this regard be speeded up.“’ 95. This position in support of Argentine sov~- cignty over the islands was reaffirmed in decisions of the Co-Ordinating’Bureau of the non-aligned countries, adopted after the present conflict arose. Nevertheless. the British Government has remained deuf to these appeals. disregarded General Assembly decisions. refrained from a peaceful settlcmcnt of the dispute with Argentina on sovereignty over the Malvinirs (Falkland) Islands and continued with all its encrBY to hold on to their colonial status. This is the l’ol’t c;msc of the armed conflict which has arisen in the South Atlantic. 97. As the Secretary-General stated yesterday in the Council [236&h 177~~ti~g], at the first stage some progress was achieved in bringing the positions of the parties closer together. However, at a subsequent stage the Government of the United Kingdom clearly stiffened its position, resorted to the language of ultimatums and virtually broke off negotiations, openly resorting to the use of armed force in order to restore the colonial status of the islands. These activities cast doubt on the sincerity of the statements made by the British Government to the effect that it was prepared to comply with the provisions of resolution 502 (1982). 98. The question then legitimately arises: did these statements, as weII as the very participation of the British Government in talks aimed at achieving a peaceful settlement, not serve simply as a diplomatic covei for military preparations and for an expansion of the scope of military operations? 99. As a result of the current large-scale invasion of the Malvinns (Falkland) Islands by the armed forces of Great Britain, the talks on settling the conflict have been torpedoed. Subsequently, the armed conflict has intensified. Responsibility for this is clearly borne by the Government of the United Kingdom, which has embarked upon a military solution of the issue. It is acting in the spirit of bygone colonial times, as if we were living not at the end of the twentieth century but in the times of Queen Victoria. 100. Hence, the energetic efforts of the Secretary- General have unfortunately not been able to improve matters. These efforts enjoyed the broad support of the Council, including that of the Soviet Union. 101. It is quite clear that the Government of the United Kingdom would not have embarked upon seeking a solution of the issue by armed force had there not been agreement and direct support by the United States. It should be noted that military activities were undertaken by the United Kingdom immediately after Washington openly declared its solidarity with the policy chosen in London. Other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Grganization (NATO) acted in the same spirit. The economic sanctions imposed on IO April against Argentina by the Western European countries are. among other things, in direct contradiction with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular, Article 41, which 102. The imposition of economic sanctions against Argentina by the United States and the IO mcmbcl States of the European Community demonstrates that the Governments of those countries, in violation of the requirements of the Charter, have undertaken unilateral acts without any authorization from the Council. It is quite natural that that decision taken by Western countries was interpreted by Argentina and other Latin American States as an act of economic aggression, 103. We cannot fail to note the fact that. when the issue of imposing sanctions against South Africa arises. we hear a flow of words to the effect that this is virtually impossible because of so-called existing legal difficulties and that the imposition of sanctions would involve virtually a change in constitutional law. and SO on and so forth, whereas when the issue of imposing sanctions against a developing country arises, then it becomes clear that this can be done virtually in one day and with a single stroke of the pen. 104. The NATO countries hastened to demonstrate their solidarity with the United Kingdom. They are clearly pleased by the fact that the United Kingdom is attempting to “punish” a developing country. Indeed, some observers have written that what is involved in this case is not only putting Argentina in its place but also showing other developing and nonaligned countries that the imperialist world still has an arm long enough to stretch across 16,000 kilometcrs. 105. One trusts that not only the Latin American countries but other developing countries as well will draw the necessary conclusions from this dcmonstration of imperialist solidarity. 106. The military adventures at present embarked upon by the British Government are nothing othei than a recurrence of colonial wars. to which. it had seemed, we were to return no more. However. the prcscnt conflict shows that such wars have not yet been expunged from the policy of some Western States. 107. The Soviet Union favours the speedy adontion by the Council-and I emphasize “speedy”--of i, cease-fire and a cessation of military operations in order to put the conflict on the road to ~1 peWefUl settlement. We believe that the efforts of the Secret;~ry-Gene~c~l at finding ways of overcoming tensions in the South Atlantic by 21 peaceful SdLlth to the cc)nflict shcjuld be continued on the hSiS of ir Security Council mandate. 108. As president Brezhnev stated on 4 NW: “If they arise dangerous WmpliGltklnS NId cClnflict situations in the western hemisphere. it “They do not shrink from threats and pressure, from blackmail or blockades, or from the use of arms; nor do they stop at activities which hark back to the time of colonial plunder. “Here, as in other parts of the globe, the Soviet Union bases itself on its policy of principle: the elimination of existing and the prevention of future hotbeds of tension, the inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of other States and peoples, and the settlement of disputed issues by peaceful means, around the negotiating table.” 109. The PRESIDENT firzt~~~pr.cttrticlr? jbom Chi- I~(JSO): The next speaker is the representative of Mexico. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

I wish to thank the members of the Council for their invitation to my delegation in response to the Mexican Government’s request to take part in this debate on the Malvinas Islands and the grave events that have occurred in the southern tip of Latin America, leading to a breach of the peace and dangerously threatening international security. I1 I, I am pleased to congratulate you, Sir, on YOUI assumption of the presidency of the Council and am gratified that the consideration of this delicate issue is taking place under your wise and impartial leadership. We are certain that this meeting can lead to effective and timely decisions that will put an end to the conflict and promote a just and lasting solution to this longstanding dispute. 112. I should like also to welcome the participation in this debate of the Foreign Ministers of Argentina, Panama and Venezuela, Latin American countries with which Mexico has had a long-standing, close relationship. I 13. We also welcome the presence here of the Secretary-General, who has spared no effort or risk in the fulfilment of the essential mission of maintaining the dialogue between the parties and of opening the road to negotiations to restore peace. 114. The tireless dedication and lucidity of the proposals submitted by the Secretary-General in the course of his invaluable efforts have been unanimously recognized by the international community, with explicit thanks from the two countries directly involved in the conflict. For its part, my Government has instructed me to reiterate to you, Mr. Secretary- General, our utmost respect and support. 115. Yesterday we listened to the balanced report in which the Secretary-General [ihid.] gave an account IO 116. The fact that the representatives of the Governments in dispute did turn to the negotiating table for several weeks and that they did accept the approach set forth in the Secretary-General’s aide-mimoire of 2 May constit.uted grounds for encouragement, which. notwithstanding subsequent events. did commit the parties to pursue their efforts at a negotiated solution. 117. According to the Secretary-General’s report to the Council, at the end of last week there was, in his view, essential agreement on a broad range of issues, covering the nature and duration of the arrangement, the procedures for a cease-fire and a mutual withdrawal of forces, termination of exclusion zones and of coercive economic measures, administration of the territory, and the basic outlines of a peaceful settlement of the dispute. 118. Based on these initial results, the negotiations were further encouraged when, on I9 May, the Secretary-General submitted a new aide-mCmoire, highlighting those points on which no agreement had yet been reached, The reactions of the parties to that aidemimoire led to a stalling in the dialogue, but nothing justifies the resumption of hostilities. 119. Whatever the obstacles in the path of the reaching of agreement by States on disputed issues. this new military escalation is unacceptable. It is in blatant violation of Council resolution 502 ( 1982) and of fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations. 120. The Mexican Government was distressed to hear the news that British forces had begun military operations in the Malvinas Islands, which resuhed in a breaking off of the negotiations that were under WaY in the United Nations. In those circumstances. it yesterday issued a communiqu6 which reads. in substance, as follows: first, the Government of Mexico regrets the continued use of force to settle this international dispute: secondly, it considers that there is no legal basis for a Member of the United Nations unilaterally to arrogate to itself the right to implement a Security Council resolution without having received a specific mandate to that end from the Council itself; and thirdly, the Government of Mexico appeals once again to the parties for an immediate cessation of hostilities and for resumption of the search for a negotiated solution within the framework of the United Nations. 121. The President of Mexico, Mr. Jod LGPez Portillo. has stated time and again his support fol the efforts made by the Secretary-General and ‘.-is expressed his confidence in the capacity of the United I22. The hostilities taking place in the South Atlantic must be stopped, as must all kinds of threat or coercion, which only tend to worsen the crisis in interregional terms. This conflict should not provoke a resurgence of colonial attitudes and wars of domination, which we thought were things of the past. Let us make sure that this crisis does not become a perverted and anachronistic version of the North-South dialogue. 123. In no case are there grounds for invoking Article 51 of the Charter to justify the use of force, since this would presuppose that the question of sovereignty had been resolved in the eyes of all parties and this, of course, is what caused the dispute in the first place. It is up to the Security Council and the Security Council alone to take the necessary measures to maintain or restore international peace and security. 124. The key difference between the modern international legal order, which stems from the Charter, and those that went before is the existence of a system of collective security in which the sole legitimate use of force rests with the United Nations. Outside this framework, any use offorce in relations between States is illegal, and any war is unlawful. 125. This is the position which my Government has taken with regard to all international disputes. As regards this dispute, it became clear on 6 April that Mexico had supported in the United Nations and in regional forums the validity of Argentina’s claim over the Malvinas Islands, and that continues to be OUI position. However, we would point out that States must do their utmost to settle their disputes by peaceful means, and we reject the use of force to settle this or any other conflict. 126. We said at that time that Mexico’s position was based on a sincere Latin American spirit, since in OUI region a large number of territorial conflicts are still going on which, if they were not peacefully resolved, could endanger peace in the continent and friendly relations among the Latin American republics. We stated at that time that the resolutions of the Security Council must be heeded and we appealed to the parties to the dispute to begin negotiations to allow reason and justice to prevail over military might. 127. Today, we reiterate this appeal and we reaffirm our essential solidarity with the fair claims of all peoples and nations and in particular those of Latin America, whose countries, like our own, have suffered from the violation of their rights and from all forms of colonial domination. 129. Only yesterday [iAid. l* the representatives of Argentina and the United Kingdom stated here theit willingness to continue negotiating. The Council should make use of this offer and take into account the result of the enormous efforts made up to now by the Secretary-General in order to supplement and reinforce resolution 502 ( 1982) and to specify a framework in which negotiations to end the conflict can take place. 130. The Council should immediately take the steps it deems appropriate to avoid a worsening of the crisis and to halt the useless loss of lives which is taking place. It should also encourage the negotiations which were under way and which have been interrupted and keep this matter under consideration until it is finally settled. 131. The Mexican Government addresses a respectful but urgent appeal to the countries to the dispute to end their military confrontation and to return to the path of peace in the conviction that no military victory can serve to generate rights or, in the long term, to improve their respective positions. We would only be running the risk of seeing the conflict assume unforeseeable proportions.

The next speaker is the representative of Cuba. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

In congratulating you, Sir. on you1 assumption of the presidency of the Council during the month of May, I should like to express my gratitude to you and to the members of the Council for allowing me to speak in the important debate that is now taking place on the situation in the Malvinas Islands. I feel sure that your ability and impartiality will enable the Council to arrive at a just solution, one to which ull the Members of the United Nations, and the States of Latin America in particular, aspire. 134. Little more than u week ago. President Fidel Castro addressed an urgent message to the heads of State or Government of the non-aligned countries because of what he described as “the real possibility that in the coming hours the Government of Great Britain, with the support and “A colonial war,” President Castro stated, “which. because of its nature and evolution the imperialist Powers are attempting to convert into a lesson for all the countries of the third world that, whatever their political or social regime. strive to protect their sovereignty and territorial integrity. is about to enter its most painful and criminal phase.” 135. The invasion of the Malvinns Islands by the United Kingdom, with the unconcealed support of the United States. has already begun. This shameful episode seeks to re-enact the despoliation the British Empire carried out in those same islands in 1833, when it expelled the Argentine population and its government and, in a typical act of piracy, took possession of that inalienable part of the territory of the Argentine Republic. 136. Since that long-ago date, the people of Argentina. with the support of the other peoples of OLII America. have never ceased to claim their rights over the Malvinas Islands. The international community, as proved by the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly within the framework of the historic debate on decolonization, has unequivocally pointed out the colonial nature of that British despoliation. 137. The Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries held at Lima in August 1975 was equally categorical. The Lima declaration states: “The non-aligned countries. without prejudice to ratifying the validity of the principle of selfdetermination as a general principle for other territories, strongly support in the special and particular cast of the Malvinas Islands, the .iust claim of the Argentine Republic, and urge the United Kingdom actively to continue the negotiations recommended by the United Nations in order to restore the said territory to Argentine sovereignty and thus put iIn end to that illegal situation which still persists in the southern part of the American continent.“? That firm position of principle taken by the members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries hits been ratified time and time again: at the Sixth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Havana in September 1979. and in successive ministerial meetings and meetings of the Co-ordinating Bureau held at New Delhi and in New York. 138. Over those years-and with total contempt for the opinion of Member States, for United Nutions resolutions and for the explicit will of the Argentine Government to solve the question of the Malvinas Islands through negotiations-the Government of the I2 119. Thot British obstinacy and prevurication--a combination of imperialist haughtiness and ninotcenthcentury arrogance that so singularly characterizes the present Government of the United Kingdom-finally led to the aggression that today so poignantly affects the world and is shattering peace and security in the Americas. 140. That action means a flagrant violation of the most basic principles of international law. of the Charter of the United Nations and of the terms of Security Council resolution 502 (1982). which was sponsored by the United Kingdom itself. It further implies an attempt to return to the obsolete stage of gunboat diplomacy and colonial methods that are unacceptable in our era. 141. At a time when in every part of the world there is an increasing demand that there be no break in the negotiating process with regard to the Malvinas, the British Government. with the shameless support of North American imperialism, is seeking to seize by force that which by law does not belong to it. Cuba repudiates this intolerable aggression and reiterates its solidarity with the Argentine people. who are fighting to defend their sovereignty. 142. As was stated in the I May declaration of the Revolutionury Government of Cuba: “The total hypocrisy of the so-called inter-Americnn system forged by the United States imperialists to serve their own interests is revealed now when, after a direct attack of which a country of Latin America is the victim, the North American Government *joins the aggressors and offers them its unrestricted military and political support. The true nature of the Inter-American Treaty of Rcciprocnl Assistance is thus laid bare and. once again. the peoples of Latin America and the Carribbeun are made aware of who their historical enemy is.” 143. This is the hour of Latin American solidarity. The cause of the Malvinas is the cause of the Argcntine people and, therefore, the cause of Latin Ameriw irnd of the Caribbean. 144. It is necessary to halt aggression and to impose the rult of law. It is the duty of all peoples of the world to support Argentina in its fight for sovereignty against the colonial war that those who. in recent ccnturics. tasted the bitterness of defeat in their repeated attempts to trample underfoot the homeland of San Marten arc now trying to force upon it. “It is in the interest of the defence of each and every one of our countries, and above all of humanitarian solidarity with the people of Argentina and the English soldiers being sent into combat, that we raise our voice in the strongest terms to condemn the continued hostilities and that we renew OUI appeal that a solution to the conflict be found, a negotiated political solution that will respect the sovereign rights of Argentina.” 154. On a previous occasion in this very chamber [2.%%h nwrJting), Bolivia expressed its opinion on the problem of the Malvinas IsIands, an opinion which can be summed up in two points: unconditional support for the cause of the restoration of the Argentine Republic’s sovereignty over those islands, which are a legitimate part of its tert-itory. and rejection of the use of force as a way of seeking a solution to international disputes. We reiterate both of those points. 146. My Government profoundly regrets that the negotiations undertaken by the Secretary-General with the parties to the conflict were broken off by the United Kin.gdom. We consider that the peace efforts of the Secretary-General contain the key elements for a peaceful solution. 155. We regret to have to make further remarks now condemning the ominous course of warlike events which have worsened the situation, damaging the prospects for a peaceful negotiated solution. 147. The grave situation, with the unfortunate loss of young, valuable lives, demands an immediate halt to the violence. 1.56. On 3 April, resolution 502 (1982) was adopted; it called for a cessation of hostilities and a withdrawal uf Argentine forces and urged the Governments to seek a diplomatic solution to their differences. Insisting solely on the withdrawal of the Argentine forces, but contravening the primary provision which demanded a cessation of hostilities, and thereby closing the path of negotiations, the Government of the United Kingdom announced that a powerful fleet-which included two aircraft carriers and the most modern and sophisticated weaponry-would immediately set sail to recapture the Malvinas Islands. The attack was carried out through the occupation of South Georgia Island, the bombardment of the main airport of the islands and many other warlike actions. The Rritish navy-which in other circumstances took part honourably, in those same South Atlantic waters, in military engagements which contributed to the salvation of the world from the threat of fascism-sailed this time nearly from one pole to the other to keep a less glorious engagement: to attack with n nuclear submarine and sink an Argentine vessel which was located outside the 200-mile zone of exclusion proclaimed by the London Government itself. 148. Cuba, which supports the full implementation of Council resolution SO2 (1982) in all its parts -d:espite its obvious limitations regarding the colonial nature of the problem-considers that it is now the obligation of the Council to take effective measures airried at putting an end to the hostilities and to issue a formal mandate to the Secretary-General to resume his efforts with the Governments of the United Kingdom and Argentina, so as to achieve a solution that is honourable and lasting and respects the sovereign rights of the Argentine Republic. 1451. Britain’s unilateral action, under the pretext of carrying out resolution 502 (l982), in fact violates that resolution’s terms: it seriously threatens the peace and security of the region and is a prelude to an escalation of the conflict, with unforeseeable consequences. 150. The economic sanctions imposed-also unilaterally-against Argentina by the members of the European Community constitute a serious precedent. They are not provided for in the Charter and thus lack any vestige of legality. 157. The sinking of that vessel, which was not engaged in a military action. caused the loss of hundreds of Argentine lives in the waters of the South Atlantic, not far from Amet-ican soil, but many thousands of kilometres from the seat of the British Crown. Attacks continued against Puerto Argentino and Puerto Darwin, and against the unarmed ship A!fi;r.c~ Sohrrrl and the fishing boat Nrr~-j-lrl. The nggression is now culminating in landings and massive invasion operations. I5 I. It is now for the Council to speak. The peoples of Latin America trust that, in accordance with its mandate under the Charter. the United Nations will cause reason, justice and the rule of law to prevail. 152, The PRESIDENT (inrc~p~c~t~ltioir ,fhm c’ki- 11c.s~~): The next speaker is the representative of Bolivia. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 158. There is GIWX fc>r concern in those facts because of the disproportionate use of force by a firstrank world Power against n developing republic whose military capacity is limited. There is cause for concern in that nn old colonial Power. with the co-oper- 1.5’3. Mr. ORTIZ SANZ (Bolivia) fint~Irp,.Pt~rtio,l .fi-r.w Spr~tu’.vh): Mr. President, I thank you and the I3 159. There can be no doubt that the course of events, their inter-continental characteristics, the potential collapse of major regional agreements and the lack of any progress towards peace and a permanent solution to the problem create, for the members of the Council, and especially for the permanent members, the duty to act right now and effectively, not just to adopt resolutions in favour of or against anyone, but to direct the world community and the parties to the conflict towards that lofty duty: the preservation of world peace. 160. The Secretary-General informed us yesterday [236&h nzcrtin,~] of his initiatives and efforts to find a negotiated, balanced solution. We who have heard the representative of Argentina and who are mindful of the course of events are sure that any peace effort will be doomed to failure as long as the United Kingdom persists in its equivocal stand. 161. Despite the efforts of the Secretary-General, his professional skill and his impeccable impartiality, the situation has become worse. The prospects for a peaceful settlement seem to be receding. In the last few hours rivers of blood have been shed by both sides. The news of the escalation of the conflict should move the world and mobilize all peoples in a supreme effort for peace, On the one hand there is Argentina, with its right to full sovereignty over the islands, and alongside it the whole Latin American continent, outraged by this extra-continental aggression striking at its beaches. On the other hand stands the United Kingdom, with the European Community, acting like a traditional colonial regional organism against our America, which we hope can still be called the continent of hope. 162. We listened with amazement to certain British sources, in a new attack on America’s respectability, referring to the concept of “Argentine machismo’ ’ . We regret to have to observe that the constant escalation of preparations and warlike actions by Great Britain smack far more of “machismo”, since, in order to defend an internal political position, it is striking international attitudes which do no credit to its history. I4 164. The Bolivian Government appeals, in this lofty setting, for peace; it appeals to the civilized conscience of the European peoples-including those of the United Kingdom-who in the past contributed positively to the formation of the cultural make-up of a young America and who today, because of the unacceptable stubborn determination to maintain a colonial enclave, are on the point of causing a grave and lasting breach in relations between Europe and America. 165. The time has come to end this senseless conflict, in which Great Britain’s imperial hankerings threaten to separate permanently a Europe and an America which up to now have lived in peace, cooperation and mutual benefit. 166. Why, after striking its flag in India and in so many former colonies in Africa, is the London Government persisting in seeking sovereignty over some Argentine islands at the far ends of the earth? 167. We listened with amazement also to the fallacious argument that Argentine forces must be withdrawn and that it is not possible to recognize Argentine sovereignty over the Malvinas “because aggression cannot be rewarded”. We agree: no aggression must be rewarded, but let us recall that the first act of aggression was committed by Great Britain against Argentina in January 1833, and that is the real aggression, the effects of which must now be corrected a century and a half later. It is the Argentine people that at this bitter moment in history is exercising true “self-defence”,

The next speaker is the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Panama, Mr. Jorge Illueca.

I should first like to greet you most cordially, Mr. President. We are glad that a stntes- 170, 1 should like also to greet your predecessor Mr+ Kumanda wit Kamanda, of Zaire, who preside; over the deliberations of the Council last month, 171. PWlma is particularly pleased at the presence of two Latin American Foreign Ministers, representing two countries with a great Latin American history which we respect, admire and esteem, I am referring to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Argentina, Mr. Nicnnor Costa M@ndez. and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Venezuela, Mr. Jose Albert0 Zambrano. They represent two nations whose peo- PIGS shed their own blood in the days of the struggle for independence in order to liberate other peoples. 177. It was for that reason that my country objected to resolution 502 ( 1982), adopted by the Council on 3 April. On that occasion, we made a very clear statement that the intransigent anti-historical attitude of the United Kingdom was going to cause great problems, tribulations, conflicts and painful situations fol the countries represented in the Council, the Western Powers and mankind at large, including the Socialist an’s Eastern Powers, because this is not a problem that is confined to Latin America and Argentina but rather one which is bringing the world to the brink of a conflagration. It is time to appeal for reflection, prudence and calm so that there will be no more of these punitive expeditions in which two thirds of a British naval fleet-by now I should say it is four fifths of its fleet-is dispatched, to attempt to punish. humiliate and confront Argentina, disregarding the fact that there is a Latin American continent that has historical and cultural links and that an affront or threat to Argentina is an affront and threat to the dignity. image, rights and aspirations of all Latin American peoples. 172. Behind them is the image of Simtin Bolivar and of JOSE de San Martin and the ideal of the unification of Lutin America as reflected in the Panama Congress of 1826. an endeavour not yet completed but about to be concluded. I refer to this because we truly do have a colonial question before us, as we stated at the Council’s meeting of 3 April [2.?SOth mWin,g]. 173. At that meeting I expressed my own country’s concern at the threat represented by the colonial presence of an extra-continental Power in Latin American territory. On 3 April there had been no breach of the peace, there had been no outbreak of hostilities. When the Government of Argentina carried out the occupation of the archipelago which rightfully belongs to it, it did so with great respect for peace and for individual safety which reflected great care for human life, and it caused no personal harm to any British soldier or to any civilian. 178. An attempt has been made to conceal and cloud the colonial problem, It is regrettable that countries that call themselves civilized view Latin American peoples merely in terms of their Governments, of particular rkgimes, regardless of their nature. There are peoples and nations with a history and a social structure that have permanent values. values that cannot be obfuscated, that are not negotiable. are not on the market, cannot be bargained away. Those are the values of our peoples and perhaps that is why the Anglo-Saxons do not understand Latin Americans. Those values of our peoples cannot be subjected or violated, because that would cause blood and tears for mankind. There are many such cases in the history of mankind. It will be seen that Latin America, together with Argentina, is right in this case and that the Security Council. and particularly the countries represented here, must look at the roots of this problem, which are purely and Simply COhlid. 174. It was claimed that that action by Argentina violated the legal order, but the opinion of Panama and the opinion of the General Assembly in many resolutions is that the State that was committing a breach of the peace was the State which does not belong to that continent, which did not comply with the United Nations resolutions on decolonization and which was disregarding Assembly resolution 1514 (XV). 17s. We have proclaimed here an anti-colonial law which has not been codified but which appears in many resolutions and which the colonial and neocolonialist Powers naturally do not want to see codified. Therefore, peoples that want to maintain their territorial integrity, freedom and independence must lay claim to their anti-colonial rights as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and in nufm?rous resolutions. 179. Resolution 502 (1982), in spite of our opposition, contained three elements. One was a cessation of hostilities which at that time did not exist, and that is why we had stated that the reSdUtiOn Ws ill0dc:~l. Those hostilities have now occurred with only one party to blame, one aggressor, with only one Government acting in an irrational and disrespectful way * disrespectful of the United Nations system and the system of contemporary civilization. It is lamentable to see in the newspapers that the leaders of the UnIted 176. Those resolutions emerged as Latin American initiatives at the time when Latin America constituted the strongest regional group of the United Nations and 180. We are considering here an infamous loss of life which has no reason, no possible explanation, in a civilized world-to use her own wordsa world which has reached this stage of development. 181. That same resolution talked about negotiations. It was not a matter of cessation of hostilities, because unlawful action was taken by the nation that proposed this. We have to go back to General Assembly resolution 2065 (XX), which called on Argentina and the United Kingdom to “proceed . . . with the negotiations”, To discuss what? The decolonization of the Malvinas. Why with Argentina? Because Argentina’s claim was proper in our opinion, and the United Kingdom’s was not. And the Assembly stated that account should be taken of the interests of the inhabitants, not the rights of the inhabitants. There is no right to self-determination in this case, and you should not be surprised to hear me say that there is no right to self-determination in this case, because the right to self-determination is for the oppressed, not for the oppressors. The 1,800 inhabitants of those islands are all dependants of a British colonial company with headquarters in London, which has some 700,000 sheep that are grazing in the Malvinas, and it would really be making a mockery of the right to selfdetermination if we were to say that the future of the islands must be decided by the employees of a colonial company who are of the same nationality as the oppressor nation. 182. This is the situation. Thus, it was not a simple question, in spite of the fact that that resolution was prepared by those who later were going to violate it. But in any event we do have those two elements which must be considered. 183. The United Kingdom has set itself up as the executor of that resolution, but in order to violate it, and what are those violations? On 3 April we stated here that the United Kingdom, with its obduracy in this matter, was going to provoke a crisis in the inter- American system. We stated this before the crisis ever took place, but now the crisis has occurred, and why has it occurred? The United Kingdom has decreed a maritime exclusion zone extending 200 miles from the Malvinas archipelago. That could only be done by the Security Council. We need only read Articles 39. 41 and 42 of the Charter of the United Nations to see that such a thing can only be done by the Security 184. But that is not the only thing. That maritime exclusion zone runs counter to the zone of geographical security enshrined in article 4 of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance. So it can clearly be seen that this is not a crisis that we are inventing: it is a crisis that was designed by the United Kingdom, which is disregarding the entire inter- American system. 1 am mentioning this here because the situation must be considered in depth and a solution must be found before more regrettable extremes are reached, because we are all aware of the loss of life, the damage to property and the very profound spiritual injury done to all the Latin American peoples, 185. But the violations of resolution 502 (1982) do not stop there. The Venezuelan Foreign Minister. in an outstanding and most lucid way. described those violations. One of the most disdainful acts has been committed because a major maritime Power, the United Kingdom-which should honour the propel rules, even if they are arbitrary-is taking action which the President of the Republic of Panama, Mr. Aristides Royo, has quite rightly described as a deceitful action. Why deceitful? Because the cruise1 Gotc~rtrl Brlgrn~~o. which was torpedoed and sunk by one of the nuclear submarines belonging to the United Kingdom, was outside that maritime exclusion zone. 186. If we follow the logic of that civilized people -to use its own words-well then, in a civilized way England decided that, so as not to violate its own zone. the zone should be extended to within I2 miles of Argentine continental territory. Does that exonerate England. or does it mean that England wanted freedom to act, to take justice into its own hands by might. to gain time so that the troops arriving in a luxury liner would manage to reach the Malvinas archipelago and Argentine territory‘? 187. The zone of war is being extended, and it is being extended without any declaration of war, in the knowledge that Argentina has a territorial sea of 200 miles. We, the developing countries, have greatly suffered from the actions of maritime Powers. Innocent passage is requested of us. At the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea we had great difficulties because of that obsession to keep the seas open. How many of those maritime Powers -above all, the European Powers-have protested ru’ condemned this irrational, unreasonable act on the part of the United Kingdom’? I know of only one-the Soviet Union. It must be said that the Soviet Union has stated that it cannot in any way accept the type of decision taken by the United Kingdom. But if there is any other such Power, I think it would be very helpful if it were to state here in the Council that it does not accept that type of decision taken unilater- 189. We have seen photographs. It has been said thmt it is not true, but if it is not true, I think it would be good to have repeated here in the Council that thlat type of device is not being used and will not be used, that nuclear weapons are not being used and will not be used. But we have not seen any great haste tcr make that kind of pledge. 190. The chain of violations of resolution 502 ( 1982) by the United Kingdom has created a crisis in the United Nations system of security, a crisis which worsened when other members of the European Commlunity, also in violation of the clear provisions of the Charter that it is for the Security Council alone to decide on taking such action, decided to impose sanctions against Argentina. 19 1. That crisis has now been reflected in the inter- American security system. We must look at this calmly and give it profound thought. In 1947 the American States signed the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance-the Rio Treaty. That treaty stipulates that an attack. particularly one by an extraccjntinental Power, against a signatory State is to be considered an attack against all the other States parties to the Treaty. Pursuant to the Treaty, during the first week of this month a meeting was held in Washington of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the countries parties to the Rio Treaty, An historic event occurred. The countries gathered there recognized Argentine sovereignty over the Malvinas. They decided t’o make collective representation to the Security Council and to the parties involved. They also requested a cessation of hostilities. Seventeen countries voted in favour of that decision and only four abstained. But the Treaty proved ineffective in this connection, although it envisages sanctions against the aggressor, measures to support the country against which a violation is directed and measures for the collective security of the Rio Treaty countries. 1!32. Why has it not been possible to apply the Treaty? A strategic problem arises. The question of the Malvinas invites serious reflection because, in addition to its being a colonial question-which is the r<)ot of the problem-other considerations are involved which are not ideological but involve strategic interests. The major Powers are interested in the South Atlantic sea routes. The NATO countries, of course, I7 193. It cannot be claimed that we have here a conflict between countries that belong to strategic or military alliances. But, unfortunately, we have found that in this problem of the Malvinas we now have problems of conflict of the NATO and Rio Treaty alliances. The Rio Treaty has proved ineffective and Latin America lacks a system of collective security. A distinguished United States admiral declared, in statements that were published in the press, that the United States was not obliged to help the United Kingdom because the NATO Treaty applied north of the equator and did not include the Malvinas, but that Argentina can invoke the Rio Treaty. 194. We should not like to see this matter handled from a strategic standpoint. We believe that we must go back to its essential roots, that is, its colonial nature, I say that we do not want it handled that way because clearly, in view of the fact that the United Kingdom is concentrating all its naval forces in the South Atlantic to commit this aggression against Argentina. if another NATO country replaces its tanks and planes to render service in,NATO, that is just an exchange of colours or positions. In other words. you keep your English-type planes here and we keep English planes with a flag that could be that of the United States, France or any other country, and then, obviously, we would have a State member of the Rio Treaty, with commitments in NATO. affecting another State member of the Rio Treaty in Latin American territory. 1%. There is growing resentment in Latin America against the United Kingdom and against all the nations that are lending themselves to the United Kingdom’s aggression against Argentina, and this must be put on record, Hence we consider that the root of the problem is colonial, that the United Kingdom is against the legal order of the United Nations, that in attempting to maintain its anachronistic colonial presence it is against the contemporary spirit, against the process of change which must take place in the Malvinas. and in Gibraltar also, where the United Kingdom presence is as anachronistic and undesirable as it is in the Malvinas. Indeed, it is offensive to all of US with an Ibero-American conscience, and this is something that must bc considered by the Council and by the other Members of the United Nations. above all. the pc~plc of the United Kingdom. who must rcalizc that at the 196. The Movement of Non-Aligned Countries has declared its support for the Argentine claim. Although the Group of 77 is a political group, economic sanctions caused it to be concerned about these issues. Hence its representatives in various capitals have declared their support for Argentina and their opposition to sanctions. We therefore believe that the Council should find a way of reaching some type of decision or agreement that would effectively bring about a cessation of hostilities, a separation of forces and should seek the withdrawal of that colonial presence, thereby opening the way for negotiations. 197. Indeed, as was stated by the Inter-American Juridical Committee, what we have to negotiate is the withdrawal of the United Kingdom. There is nothing else to be negotiated. And it must be negotiated so that, in the most orderly. peaceful way possible, we can restore the legal order of the United Nations, which is completely anti-colonial. 198. The efforts of the Secretary-General are to be commended. Those efforts deserve the support expressed by the Head of State of Panama, as well as the support of all members of the Council. Thus far, however. those efforts have been unsuccessful because of the intransigence of the United Kingdom. The way in which this matter has been handled by the United Kingdom leaves a very bitter taste indeed because. as events have unfolded, 1 think the very position of the Council has been affected, 199. The intensive negotiations earlier this week here at United Nations Headquarters, both in the offices of the Secretary-General and at his residence, gave us grounds for hope. One of the participants in them was Mr. Enrique Ros, whom we all know and whose human and professional qualities need no additional mention by me. Also present was the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom. Sit Anthony Parsons, who also enjoys our respect because we know he possesses excellent qualities. At the same time, we are aware that he is subject to instructions which at times, it is said, are ironclad, even though we wish they were more human. 200. Now, just when the Secretary-General’s efforts seemed headed for success and the Council had been convened, the Council began to find itself in what I believe to be a very difficult position, When the rumour WCS circulated that the negotiations, as reported throughout the world press, had broken down, the Secretary-General communicated personally with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mrs. Thatcher. According to press reports, Mrs. Thatcher had made positive signs and asked the Secretary-Genera1 to continue his efforts. Similarly, the Secrct;lry- General contacted the President of Argentina, Genera] 201. As I understand it. the Council met this past Wednesday in an informal meeting and, as also reported in the press, on the basis of that background information decided to allow the Secretary-General an additional few days in which to pursue his peacemaking efforts, efforts which. I repeat, we all commend and fully support, Indeed, we only wish he could be given a mandate to complete those efforts successfully, with, of course, the co-operation of the parties concerned. That was on Wednesday of this week. 202. The Council, as everyone knows, had agreed to give the Secretary-General a few days more to continue his efforts. However. the rebuff to the Council came not from Argentina but from the othet side of the Atlantic, because on the following day to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom appeared before the House of Commons to say that negotiations were leading nowhere and had broken down. What caused that? The United Kingdom had made some proposals and issued an ultimatum to Argentina. That also was published. And if the version that I am stating here is inaccurate, may I be corrected. It was indicated that if Argentina failed to accept those proposals as put forward, the United Kingdom, which had been involved in a process of prolonging those talks in order to prevent specific agreement, was going, as indeed it subsequently did, to begin an escalation. an escalation which is taking place right now. That. of course, leaves the Council in the position of being slighted. I believe that, by its intransigence, the United Kingdom is snubbing the Council and all its members. As I stressed in the Council on 3 April [ihid.] after the adoption of resolution SO2 ( 1982). a punitive expedition had been mounted, and the resolution should in no way be understood as authorizing the United Kingdom to use force. I said that, because a British expeditionary force was advancing towards the South Atlantic, a force of overwhelming military capability. No one here objected to the interpretation made by Panama that resolution 302 (1982) in no way authorized the use of force by the United Kingdom. Yet it has resorted to force and is now engaged in an escalation of the use of force, to the detriment of the Argentine nation and of the peoples of Latin America. 203. It has been stated in England that civilized peoples should be grateful to England for this opprcssive. aggressive, warlike. unlawful action against Argentina. What we must say is that Latin Amcricnn people are grateful to Argentina; that we are grntcful to it for its sacrifices: that the Argentine people have behaved nobly. as they did in the days of emuncipation to liberate other peoples, as Vcnczucln did with other pooplcs in all the latitudes of America. This is now moving the Latin American conscicncc towards the reaffirmation of its own ctr]tura]. politic:11 itnd economic vnlucs.

The next speaker is the representative of Canada. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement, 211. As we forecast in April and as events show so clearly, tragedy and suffering are the inevitable results when a nation fails to abide by the principles set out in the Charter and employs force to extend unilaterally its national claims. And we cannot forget that Argentina initiated the hostilities in occupying the islands unilaterally.

I should like at the outset to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council. It is a difficult and challenging assignment which has been thrust upon you. 212. We had earnestly hoped that Argentina would abide by the provisions of resolution 502 (1982), which the Secretary-General has stated provided the basis for the search for a peaceful resolution of the dispute in question. Paragraph 2 of that resolution demanded an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the islands. This has not taken place. Canada has thus been compelled to impose certain economic sanctions against that country. We did this with great regret, because Canada greatly values its friendly relations with Argentina, More important, however. we believe that respect for the rule of law throughout the world, as embodied in the Charter, is fundamental in today’s society and must take precedence. 207. It is with the deepest regret that my delegation has felt obliged to request the permission of the Council members to address them once again on the question of the Falkland Islands. My regret is profound because my speaking today is a consequence of failure, the failure of one party to the dispute to adhere to the provisions of a decision taken by the Council on 3 April. It is also a consequence of the sad lack of success of the courageous and persistent efforts undertaken by the Secretary-General to seek grounds on which to implement Council resolution 502 (1982) and to establish a framework for direct negotiations bjetween Argentina and the United Kingdom to resolve their differences in this dispute. 213. The tragic consequences of the past several days have been the inevitable result. This terrible reality has now begun to register, and public opinion in all our countries is demanding an end to violence and bloodshed and the needless loss of life and destruction of property, It must now be more clear than ever before that a negotiated solution to the problem is the only civilized course of action. Council resolution 502 (1982), calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities, coupled with an immediate withdrawal from the islands of all Argentine forces, provides the basis for seeking a diplomatic settlement. 208. My delegation has listened to the debate with glreat attentiveness, There have been several points n-bade which, in my view, tend to depart from the central issues of principle of which the Council is seized. I should like, therefore, to address the key plaints on which, in the view of my delegation, the Council should focus its attention before any decision is’ taken on the question at hand. 209. When I participated on 2 April last in the Council debate on the Falkland question [23&r/z ~nretirz,~], I communicated the deep sense of shock of the Canadian Government and people that one of the States Members of the United Nations, a country with which Canada has traditionally enjoyed friendly relations, slhould resort to the use of armed force in order to resolve a dispute, not only in fundamental violation of the Charter of the United Nations but also at a time when bilateral negotiations were being conducted in a clivilized spirit with another Member of the United hlations. 214. Canada has not made any judgement on the substance of this question, which is the conflicting claims to the sovereignty of the islands. Canada has always maintained that this a matter to be settled by negotiation between the parties directly concerned, due regard being paid to the wishes of the islanders themselves. How tragic it is that great suffering must be endured, families separated, blood spilled and lives lost because of a dispute whose settlement should and could still be reached by peaceful means. 215. My Government has been greatly heartened by the courageous efforts over the past days of the Secretary-General, who, taking resolution 502 (1982) as the basis of his work, attempted persistently to 2 10. Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter is quite explicit concerning the requirement for Member States to settle their disputes by peaceful means so that I9 2 16. The people of Canada have watched the escalation of violence with growing concern, and they will applaud and support any and all efforts that lead to a peuccful settlement. But that must be based on justice and the rule of law. Settlement must be achieved before further lives are lost and before the conflict becomes more widespread. Let no time be wasted or efforts spared in returning to the precepts of resolution 502 (1982).

I should like to begin by expressing to you. Mr. President, the appreciation of my Government for your judicious and skilful leadership of the affairs of the Council in this deeply truubled time, as we seek a solution to the tragic conflict under way in the South Atlantic. 218. We desire also to express in this public arena our gratitude to the Secretary-General for his tireless and determined efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina. The Secretary-General knows, as we should like the world as well to know, that he enjoyed the active support and co-operation of the United States in his search for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. 219. This conflict poses a particularly acute problem for persons and nations that love peace and also for this international body, whose very raison d’ctre is to promote and ensure the peaceful settlement of disputes. 220. The United States stands behind the principle that the use of force to settle disputes should not be aIlowed anywhere, and especially in this hemisphere where a significant number of territorial disputes remain to be solved diplomatically. For the United States, the Falkland crisis has been and still is a particularly agonizing, tragic event. As the whole world knows, we have a long-standing alliance and, beyond that, the closest relations of friendship with the United Kingdom, the country from which our political institutions. law and language derive. But we have not forgotten for a moment our close geographical, eco- 221. That is why the United States tried so hard to avoid the conflict on the Falklands, why we are hoping so intensely to reduce and isolate it and why we are eager and ready to back any realistic diplomatic initiative that will put a just end to it. And we especially mean to stay in close touch with our Latin neighbours while efforts are made to solve this tragic conflict in order to restore peace with honour so that once again we can concentrate our efforts on the resolution of our problems in the hemisphere. The quicker we put this tragic conflict behind us, the quicker we can begin building our future. And there. as always. Latin America will find how deeply the United States is committed to the cause of peace and prosperity in our hemisphere. 222. As the fighting intensifies and the cost in lives mounts in the South Atlantic, I think we all share a sense of anguish that it has not yet been possible to prevent this tragic conflict. 223. We have all come to appreciate how deep the roots of that conflict are. Britain, in peaceful possession of the Falkland Islands for IS0 years. has been passionately devoted to the proposition that the rights of the inhabitants should be respected in imy future disposition of the islands. Na one can sny that that attitude. coming from a country that has granted independence to more than 40 peoples in a generation and a half, is a simple reflex to retain passession. 224. Yet we know too how deep is the Argentine commitment to recover islands they believe were taken from them by illegal force. This is not some sudden passion, but a long-sustained national concern that also stretches back 150 years and is heightened by the sense of frustration at what Argentina feels were nearly 20 years of fruitless negotiation. 225. From the start it has been widely rccognizcd that the conflict engages basic principles without which a peaceful international order cannot st:md. Unless the principle is respected that force must not be used to settle disputes. the entire intcrni\tionili community will be exposed to chaos and suffering. And unless the right of self-dcfcncc is granted, only those countries that use force first will huvc the protcction of law. 226. The Council wi\s profoundly right to rcassc‘rt those principles in resolution SO2 ( 1082). which fr)rm\ 22’7. For the United States, the conflict continues to have il SPeci~ll poignancy. We do not take, and have never taken. any position on the underlying claims. 13rit:lin is iI country to which we are bound by unique ties of friendship, values and alliance. And Argentiil:I is also iIn old friend. a country of immigrants and QZttlcrS like 0111‘ own. :I country with which we share the enormous human and national potential of the New LV/orld experience. 2%. That ;I conflict of such dimensions should take pl~e and that it should occur here in the western hcmisphcrc. whose countries have long shared a partic\llar commitment to each other, to their mutual welfare :lnd to pence. causes us the deepest concern. This conflict, however urgent, cannot be permitted 1~) obscure the common engagement of all American States to the rule of law and to the well-being of this hcmisphcrc. 235. The United Nations record in dealing with this conflict is, we believe, commendable. The Council responded rapidly to the Argentine seizure of the islands. The fact that both parties accepted resolution 502 (1982) proves that it was a constructive response. 229. It was natural that the United States should make :I particular effort to help Argentina and Britain find ;I solution. That effort began before 2 April, when we offered to the two sides our good offices to help find a solution to the South Georgia incident. 236. The Secretary-General’s determined and imaginative efforts were, of course, fervently welcomed by all of us. Again the elements of settlement seemed to be present, or nearly present. Again peace eluded us. I believe the institutions of the United Nations have functioned in this crisis in the mannel foreseen by its founders and its Charter. We can be proud of it, proud especially of the Secretary-General. :!30, After 2 April, both President Galtieri and Prime Minister Thatcher asked the United States to see whether it could be of assistance. At President lieugan’s direction, Secretary of State Haig undertook two rounds of intense discussions in both capitals. Finally, on 27 April, as prospects for more intense hostilities arose, we put forward a proposal. It represented our best estimate of what the two parties could reasonably bc expected to accept. It was fbundcd scluarcly on resolution 502 ( 1982) by providing fbla cessation of hostilities, withdrawal of forces and n political settlement of the dispute. 237. We have already heard his account of his search for a formula that could resolve the conflict. I think all of us have been deeply impressed by the skill and sensitivity, by the judgement and fairness. that the Secretary-General brought to this task. That his effort has not so far succeeded does not mean thnt it has not realized important gains, notably in the establishment of a mutually acceptable concept of negotiations. The United States will whole-hcartedly 23 I . The British Government indicated that it would :;criousIy consider our proposal, although it presented (:cI*t;lin t-c;11 difficulties for it. However, the Proposal wns not acceptable to Argentina. support any initiative that can help Argentina and Britain make peace with honour. 238. But, despite all our efforts. the problem is not solved. Young men die in icy waters, On fnX%I beaches. :!32. Ilnmcdiately afterward, President Belalinde of I?eI-u, after consultation with Secretary Haig in ordel t:o be brought ~1, to date on his initiatives. undertook the initiative to put forward a much simplified Peace plan. also drawing on the fundamental elements of resolution 502 (1982). 239. The dispute that appeared to many to bc simple has proved extraordinarily difficult to resolve. But we must not abandon the effort. Resolution 502 (l982), with its concept of linked and SimUltancous cessation of hostilities. withdrawal of forces. and :!33. On 5 ~~~~~ a draft text was forwarded by Peru 1.0 Buenos Aires; we forwarded the same text to Len- (jon. Britain made it clear that it could SeriouslY con- !;ider the pl~opos~~l. Argentina chose not to conside it, asking instead that the Secretary-General use his negotiations. must remain the framework of the search for peace. The problem is too impo!tant-for the rule of law, for the future of the Americas. for many of us friends of Britain and Argentina-not to make 241, Mr. DELPRBE CRESPO (Guatemala) fintc’rprcrcrtion from Sprrnish): The delegation of the Republic of Guatemala wishes to thank the Coundil for inviting it to participate in the discussion on the situation in the Malvinas Islands and the conflict which has arisen between the United Kingdom and the Argentine Republic. 242. As this is the first time that I have spoken in the Council this month, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. President. Your personal virtues, talent, skill and prudence are guarantees that the Council’s deliberations will be conducted in such a way as to ensure their success. 243. Guatemala regrets the deadlock in the negotiations between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom on the Malvinas conflict, because we have always believed, as a matter of principle, in the peaceful settlement of international disputes, which is the very corner-stone of relations among the States that make up the international community. We have always considered it an overriding duty to abide by the norms governing the United Nations, 244. Guatemala appeals to both parties to return to the negotiating table in good faith to find a peaceful solution to the conflict which is having such a decisive effect on peace in this continent, and possibly throughout the world. 245. We also appeal to the parties to support with a constructive attitude the admirable and tireless work of the Secretary-General in the mediation efforts he has undertaken. In them he has demonstrated his faith in the United Nations, its purposes and principles, its procedures and the paramount importance which the maintenance of peace and security should be accorded by the nations which, as we know, have sought to act in this affair that is causing such distress to all the countries of the world. 246. The Government of Guatemala wishes to reaffirm its solidarity with its sister, the Argentine Republic, as it has done before, and with the noble purpose of its Government to safeguard the territorial integrity of the Argentine nation. 247. It is inconceivable that the colonialist system, which is fortunately in its death throes throughout the world, including our continent, should have sprung to life, allowing a colonialist empire to impose its interests upon our America to the detriment of a Latin American country, whose right to sovereignty over 249. If this does not come about, Latin America will continue to believe that this action against Argentina is a serious threat also to it and shakes confidence in the rest of the world among those who might suffer similar treatment if an attempt were made to subject them to similar circumstances. 250, The Government of Guatemala, thrc?ugh me, expresses its confidence in this important body and its conviction that, in the face of the situation created by the breaking off of negotiations, it will fulfil its lofty mission effectively and efficiently, by finding 01 encouraging the parties to find a peaceful and just solution to this conflict that is causing us so much concern. 25 I, The PRESIDENT fhtrrpr.c’tatiol7 fio/?z Chinrsrd): In view of the lateness of the hour, I intend to adjourn the meeting now. The remaining speakers on today’s list will be heard when the Council continues its consideration of the item on the agenda. Some other speakers have also asked to make statements at tomorrow’s meeting. I shall now call on those representatives who wish to speak in right of reply.

This afternoon’s debate has contained few surprises to my delegation. Obviously we expected Latin American speakers. for reasons of regional solidarity+ to support the position of Argentina. Obviously we expected certain delegations to express their views, however unwelcome to us in substance, with sobriety and moderation, Obviously we expected other delegations to give vent to atrociously offensive. confused and ill-directed rodomontades against my country, even including objectionable personal observations about the leadership of my Government. The For&n Minister of Panama even went so far as to imply that there might have been some difference between mY own judgements and recommendations and the instructions I received from my Government. Nothing -nothing. Mr. President-could be further from the truth, I repeat, nothing, nothing could be further from the truth. 253. We also expected to hear the heavy tread of the dinosaur, stirring the dust of long-extinct political slogans. Again, we have not been disappointed. 1 am referring, of course. to the bizarre animadversions we have heard about colonialism and imperialism. 254. There are still a few very small dependent territories of the United Kingdom which have, like the Falklands. decided of their own free, democratic choice not to seek full sovereign independence because of the size of their populations and the limitations of theil. resources. This is their free choice, not a consecluence of such preposterous nonsense as colonial oppressiiin. 255. None of the Latin American speakers today hils uttered cries of rage because, for example, there :lre still islands in the Caribbean which fall into this cutcgory. It seems that their objurgations apply only to n territory which happens to be claimed by Argentinn. I have listened carefully for any, any serious, mention of the people of the Falkland Islands. I have heard none. The Falklands are not uninhabited rocks. They contain a people, small in number put peaceful, harmless and homogeneous. They have chosen to rcrnain British of their free, democratic choice, That is the right which we are protecting, and which we shall continue to protect. 256. I now turn to the question of self-defence. I think I dealt adequately in my statement yesterday [2.16Ur/z rnc~li,zg] with other issues which have been rnised today, such as the question of who was responsible fc>r breaking off the latest negotiations, who has shown flexibility and who has been rigid. I will only stirte again that it was not my Government which brought the last round of negotiations to an unsuccessful conclusion and that my Government has throughout shown the maximum flexibility consonant with the firm maintenance of principles which we will not itbandon. 257. First, we are dealing with a simple case of cause and effect. The cause of the present crisis is the invasion of the Falklands by Argentina and Argentina’s refusal to obey the mandatory demand of the Security Council to withdraw unconditionally. The effect is the hostilities which are causing such concern to the international community. Remove the cause, Argentine illegal occupation of the Falklands, and the effect, the hostilities, will disappear. 258. 1 should Iike to say a few words about Article 5 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, and 1 shall addl-ess my remarks in response to the statement made ta the Council yesterday by Mr. Ros, the *Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs of the Argentme Republic [i/pid.]. He advanced his argum.ents in Plain language, unadorned by abuse or rhetorrc. and 1 shall tllerefore address my remarks to him. 259. It has never been the contention Of the United Kingdom that we were authorized by resolution So2 260. Mr. Ros also argued that there is an obligation to suspend self-defence once the Security Council, under Article 51 of the Charter, “has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”. He went on to say that: “The determination of whether such measures have been effective must be reached objectively and cannot be left to the arbitrary judgement of the . . , United Kingdom” [ikid., pmo. 551. 261. The United Kingdom accepts that the determination must be an objective one. It must be reached in the light of all the relevant circumstances. 262. What are the facts? 263. By resolution 502 ( 1982) the Council demanded the immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands. Argentina did not withdraw any of its forces: it did quite the opposite. Argentina increased considerably the number of its forces in the days following the adoption of the resolution, 264. The resolution determined that there was a breach of the peace as a result of the Argentine invasion. This is made clear by a reading of the preamble. The results of that invasion were Argentine occupation, Accordingly, the breach of the peace still subsisted despite the adoption of the resolution. How. then, can it seriously be maintained that resolution 502 (1982) amounted to a measure “necessary to maintain international peace and security”? 265. In my letter to the President of the Council dated 30 April, I pointed out that the reference in Article 51 of the Charter to measures necessary to maintain international peace could “only be taken to refer to measures which are actually effective to bring about the stated ohjective. Clearly, the Security Council’s decision in its resolution 502 (IY82) has not proved effective. The United Kingdom’s inherent right of self-defence is thus unimpaired.” [See S/15016.] 266. The Council has not, of course, adopted any measures under Articles 39, 41 and 42 of the Charter. The argument of Under-Secretary Ros that the exercise of self-defence is not available ~CC~USC the Council adopted resolution 502 (1982) would lead to absurd results. A State which has committed an act of aggrrssion is t&l by the Council to stop its aggreSSic)n and 267. A moment’s thought would lead any fairminded observer to conclude that the Charter could not have been intended to produce that result and that the Council could not have produced that result by resolution 502 ( 1982). 268. The Under-Secretary also argued that selfdefence could be exercised “only as an immediate reaction to protect essential interests” [236&h mctirz,g, po~tr. 581. The essential interests of the United Kingdom include the protection of British territory and British nationals. The Falkland Islands are British territory on the basis of history from the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. We have occupied and administered the islands in all three centuries and continuously since 1833. The people of the Falkland Islands are British subjects who have chosen to maintain their present way of life and political institutions in free and fair elections. 269. Can there be any doubt in the mind of anyone that the United Kingdom is entitled to protect its territory and its people? 270. A further argument of Mr. Ros was that “the United Kingdom could not allege any imminent and grave danger” [ihid., po/‘rr. 501. The Argentine invasion of 2 April not only posed an imminent and grave danger but it was determined by the Council to have caused an actual breach of the peace. It flies in the face of reason that there was no imminent and grave danger. There was an actual and grave dangel to the people of the Falkland Islands: that they would continue for ever to be governed by an alien rkgime which they most decidedly and unanimously did not want. 271. It was also argued that the United Kingdom was not entitled to exercise self-defence because the Falkland Islands are 14,000 km from Great Britain and that the islands are a colonial dependency. My answer is that the Falkland Islands are British territory and that. in accordance with Article 73 of the Charter, we have accepted the obligation to promote, “within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants”-in this case, of the Falkland Islands. This means that the United Kingdom is perfectly entitled to resist the illegal use of force by Argentina, contrary to the fundamental principles of the Charter, peaceful settlement and non-use of force, by exercising the inherent right of self-defence. Distance is irrelevant. Dependant status is irrelevant because Article 73 extends to the people of dependencies the full protection of the Charter regarding the maintenance of international peace and security. 273. Finally, I believe that the Foreign Minister of Panama suggested that wc might be introducing nuclear weapons into the area. I only have this to say: it is absolutely inconceivable that Britain would use nuclear weapons in the dispute with Argentina over the Falklands. 274. Mr. ROS (Argentina) (intrl.~,.[‘ttrtic,rl .fiWl Sl~trni,sh,J: 11: was not the intention of my delegation to prolong this debate in any kind of personalized wily, but the representative of the United Kingdom has opted for this system; obviously we have to act as if we were embarking upon a bilateral dialogue. 275. The fact is that hc has made known his points of view, and while he was speaking I was reading resolution SO2 (IY82). but I could not see in that [‘es+ lution any authorization for the United Kingdom to send its fleet and to begin hostilities. So no matte1 how much we debate, in no way does this resolution authorize the United Kingdom to become the world’s policeman and to use force in the way it is doing. 276. The reprcscntative of the United Kin&m tells us that we are not complying with resolution 502 (IY82). I should like to recall that the Government of Argentina immediately manifested its intention to comply with the resolution as a whole, because the resolution cannot be applied one paragraph today 01 another when it suits the United Kingdom. Obviously it is an integral resolution and it must bc wholly complied with. 283. Instead of looking at things in their true light, we keep on looking at peripheral details. Today there is one crisis, tomorrow another, but we nevet come to the substance, to the crux of the matter. The crux of the matter is that the United Kingdom and the Argentine Republic have to find an intelligent answer to this problem, and if the Secretary-General’s good offices could help us to find such a solution, we would be extremely grateful. This very day, the Argentine Foreign Minister has been to see the Secretary-General to ratify our wish to continue negotiating within the framework of his good offices, within the framework of the Charter and within the framework of the resolutions of the United Nations-resolutions which were approved by the General Assembly and which are the voice of this house-calling for a negotiated solution in terms which are indicated. 278. Since intransigence was mentioned, I should also like to point out that my country’s desire to find a peaceful solution to this conflict has been amply Proved by the very great patience with which we have tried to continue to find a negotiated solution to this dispute which was not begun by the Argentine Republic but precisely by this British fleet which, in a full upsurge of British imperialism, came to our coasts, expelled our authorities, imprisoned our inhabitants and expelled them to Montevideo. This was the act of force which gave rise to this problem. It is not a problem of today, it is a problem which goes back a long way. My country never signed a treaty, never accepted any declaration. On the contrary, it constantly protested against this usurpation of its territory, of a piece of our territory on which a colonial rCgime was imposed, and today it is claimed that we should accept it as if it were a fact which all Argentine generations have constantly rejected. 284. Three resolutions of the General Assembly have been adopted and the three resolutions have borne no fruit, although there was a call to accelerate the negotiations. There was recognition of the efforts of Argentina over the last 10 years to assist the development of these islands, to facilitate communications and demonstrate our goodwill. 279. A little logic should be applied to this problem when an attempt is made by a stroke of the pen to ignore a truth shared by all the peoples of Latin America-it is part of our territory and colonial imperialism came to impose a colonial system on it. In passing, I should like to r’ecall that we are talking about a colonial settlement with a handful of people, about 800families, and this is presented to us as if this were a people, a nation, with all the attributes of a State practically on the brink of independence. 285. Why did these negotiations not prosper? Because of a combination of monopolistic interests, plus typically colonial legislation which made it possible to maintain in the islands a kind of artificial cocoon, suspended in time and space, preserving a kind of Victorian policy which suited some, but was rejected by the whole continent, particuiarly by our nation. 280. This exaggeration of the principles concerned is a ,way of obscuring the truth, and this is what we want to say. 286. I do not want to add much more, because sometimes words only complicate problems more, but I should like to say now that this is not really a reply but an appeal to the intelligence of those of us who are responsible for this matter, and also a request for participation on the part of the Council not only in trying to find a solution to the dispute in which we find ourselves, but also in acting as a kind of interpreter of the will of the General Assembly in the search for an ultimate solution of this dispute. It is our hope that the Council will encourage the Secretary-General and give him a clear-cut mandate to resume negotiations so that we can truly work in an atmosphere of peace in the search for an intelligent and honourable solution. 28 1. I should also like to recall that the wish of my country has been made clear: within the framework of the negotiations a solution was suggested which permitted an honourable outcome and opened the way towards a final solution of this long-standing controversy. However, we did not find in the exercise the same goodwill on the part of the United Kingdom. On the contrary, we found a constant stretching of legal terminology to cover all the possibilities of a reply which could really provide an intelligent and reasonable solution, a solution which would take care most generously of the concerns of the islanders by means of a statute that would be part of this same agreement and would be presented to the United Nations. What better guarantee than a statute that generously takes care of their interests and enjoys the protection of this international body? The meeting rose (It 7.45 pm. NOTES 282. However, all these references were ignored, because, we must conclude, the defence of this principle of self-determination is just a pretext to continue 1 A/34/542, annex, Political Declaration, para. 168. J A/ 102 I7 and Cow. I, annex, Political Declaration, para. 87. ’ United Nations, Tw~ty Soirs, vol. 634, No, 9068, p. 326. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies sent en vente dans les librairies et les agences depositaires du monde eniier. Informez-vous aup& de votre libraire ou adressez-vous ~3 : Nations Unies. Section des ventes. New York ou Genkve. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estdn en venta en librerias y casas distribuidoras en todas partes del mundo. Cons&e a su librero~g dirijase a: Naciones Unidas, Seccibn de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra. Litho in United Nations, New York 00400 88-60989-October l&9-2,050