Assembly urges resumed negotiations on Falklands-Malvinas issue.

Assembly Urges Resumed Negotiations on Falklands--Malvinas Issue

ON 16 November, the Assembly reiterated its request to Argentina and the United Kingdom "to resume negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute relating to the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)'.

Resolution 38/12, sponsored by 20 Latin American States, was adopted by a vote of 89 in favour to 9 against (Belize, Dominica, Gambia, Malawi, New Zealand, Oman, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom), with 54 abstentions. In it, the Assembly also asked the Secretary-General to continue his renewed mission of good offices to assist the parties in complying with its request and to report next year on progress made.

In the text's preamble, the Assembly said the "maintenance of colonial situations is incompatible with the United Nations ideal of universal peace'. It reaffirmed the need for the parties to take "due account of the interests of the population' of the islands, and reaffirmed Charter principles on non-use of force or threat of force in international relations and the peaceful settlement of international disputes.

The text also took into account "the existence of a de facto cessation of hostilities in the South Atlantic and the expressed intention of the parties not to renew them.'

The resolution's main provisions are nearly identical to those of a 1 September 1983 decision of the Special Committee on decolonization. The Assembly reviewed the Committee's report (document A/38/23, Part VII), a Secretariat working paper (document A/AC.109/752) containing detailed descriptions of the land, people, economic conditions and social and educational conditions of the Territory and a summary of United Nations consideration of the Falklands Islands (Malvinas) question, and the Secretary-General's report (document A/38/532) on the question.

The Secretary-General said he had held extensive exchanges with the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom, including meetings with the President of Argentina and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to facilitate a solution to the Falklands (Malvinas) problem.

"While it is clear negotiations cannot begin unless both parties agree', stated the Secretary-General, "it is my belief that a resumption of dialogue coupled with the adoption of confidence-building measures can contribute to a normalization of the situation in the South Atlantic and open the way towards a lasting solution of the problem'. He stood ready to assist both parties in that process, he affirmed.

Debate

Argentina said the "cornerstone' of the Assembly's "doctrine' on the question of the Falklands Islands (Malvinas) was recognition that Argentina was a country affected by colonialism and that the United Kingdom must end the colonial situation by negotiating with Argentina. During the 17 years prior to the 1982 conflict in the South Atlantic, the United Kingdom had been reluctant to negotiate with Argentina on the question of sovereignty. Now, the British Government also sought to impose a military solution and was implementing a dangerous policy of increasing provocation against Argentina.

For the past 16 months there had been an effective cessation of hostilities, and Argentina had repeatedly expressed its intention not to renew them and persistently sought resumption of negotiations. A demand by the United Kingdom for "declarations of intent' was only an attempt to raise artificial barriers to solving the problem.

Establishing a military base on the islands was part of a global strategic policy that included the introduction of atomic weapons in violation of Assembly resolutions regarding military installations in colonial territories and the Tlatelolco Treaty on the denuclearization of Latin America. The United Kingdom's claim that its purpose was to defend the Islands from alleged Argentine aggression was unfounded.

The United Kingdom's Atlantic allies had to dissuade it from the "dangerous adventure' it had embarked on. The situation had been aggravated by the British decision to maintain around the occupied territories a zone of exclusion against Argentine vessels and aircraft. That had resulted in incidents in which fishing vessels had been expelled. The illegitimate exploitation of resources in the maritime areas around the Islands was a "new and serious cause of offence' to Argentina.

Argentina's new President, elected on 30 October, had vowed to use "all diplomatic means available to achieve as soon as possible a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom'. Negotiations, with the good offices of the Secretary-General, were the proper means to solve the dispute in a just and permanent way.

The United Kingdom said it wanted a resumption of the dialogue and normalization of relations between the United Kingdom and Argentina. But it could not agree to negotiate on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. It had no doubt the Falkland Islands were British; they had been in continuous British occupation for 150 years. The Falklands question was a question of the rights of people.

The Assembly's reference to taking due account of the interests of the islanders was no substitute for the essential principle of self-determination. Article 73 of the Charter stated plainly that the interests of the islanders were "paramount' and obliged the United Kingdom, as Administering Power, to promote their well-being and develop their self-government. The islanders themselves must be allowed to decide what their interests really were. It should be "by their wishes, not by anyone else's assessments of their interests, that we must be guided', the United Kingdom said.

The airfield the United Kingdom was building on the islands was not a "strategic military base', as Argentina had portrayed, but only what was necessary to counter the perceived threat from Argentina. Its long-term purpose was civil rather than military; it would boost the island's economy. Claims that it was a NATO base were "pure fantasy'.

Likewise, charges that Britain's "defensive dispositions' on the Falklands were intended as a strategic link to South Africa across the Atlantic were "malicious nonsense'. There was no change in the United Kingdom's policy of non-collaboration with South Africa in military matters.

The United Kingdom fully supported the Treaty of Tlatelolco and had scrupulously observed its obligations in not deploying nuclear weapons in territories where the Treaty was in force. It hoped to see the Treaty in force in the entire region. To achieve that, all eligible States, including Argentina and Cuba, would have to become parties to it.

Argentina's case rested partly on denial of the self-determination of the Falklanders and partly on interpretations of 18th and 19th century history. But the world was no longer living in the days of the imperial claims, the United Kingdom said.

While the United Kingdom had been trying to decide the dispute by peaceful means, the other side had launched a surprise attack. There was no excuse for the invasion. The United Kingdom urged the Assembly to remember that the United Kingdom was the aggrieved party and asked Members not to apply a double standard by supporting both the resolution and the right to self-determination.

Other Views

FIFTY-FIVE delegations expressed their views on the Falklands Islands (Malvinas) question in the course of the debate and explanations of vote.

Many Latin American countries stressed Argentina's willingness to resume negotiations. The United Kingdom was erecting barriers to a dialogue, they said.

The sovereignty question was seen by many nations as central to the conflict, which was described as a "classic colonial issue'. The United Kingdom's insistence on the right of the islanders to exercise their self-determination was considered by many as a distraction from the issue of infringement of Argentina's territorial integrity. There was "sound legal and historical support' for Argentina's sovereignty claim, according to many nations. But the Assembly's action did not "prejudge the outcome' of negotiations, some said.

Installation of military bases with nuclear potential on the islands was a major concern. Some opposed the transfer of super-Power rivalries to the region. It was suggested that the presence of military installations might affect the "confidence-building measures' recommended by the Secretary-General and, hence, inhibit the chance for dialogue.

It was widely hoped the Secretary-General would continue his mission of good offices to assist both parties in resuming negotiations. The position of the Non-Aligned Movement on the issue was cited by some in expressing support for a negotiated settlement.

A number of countries maintained the resolution adopted failed to address concerns that were essential to a solution to the conflict. While supporting the need for a peaceful, negotiated solution, some nations said the negotiations should go beyond the sovereignty dispute and cover all issues, particularly that of self-determination.

Several speakers objected to the resolution because it ignored the fact that Argentina had resorted to force in 1982. Many things had "dramatically changed' since then, it was said. It was not possible to proceed as if the invasion had never occurred. There was some disappointment that the "de facto cessation of hostilities' referred to by the Assembly had not been translated into de jure renunciation of use of force in the dispute.

These speakers felt the conflict had "unmasked the treacherous role of United States imperialism'. The United Kingdom's colonial occupation could continue only with United States and NATO support, it was said. The establishment of bases in the South Atlantic was seen by some as part of long-standing American plans to deploy forces in strategically important regions of the world. The security of Africa as well as Latin America was threatened, according to a few.