I should like to begin by congratulating the
President on his election to the high office he
has been asked to fill at this session of the
General Assembly. His contribution as President
of this forum will undoubtedly be invaluable in
achieving the success we hope for in the tasks
with which we have been entrusted, especially in
the fulfillment of the principles and purpose of
the Charter.
233. My country would also like to greet,
through him, the friendly nation of Hungary, with
which we have a very close and productive
relationship.
234. Nor can I omit to take this opportunity
to recall the outstanding performance of Mr.
Kittani of Iraq, and to reaffirm our appreciation
of the ability and effectiveness with which he
carried out his task at a particularly difficult
session of the General Assembly.
235. Finally, before I reach the substance of
my statement, I should like, as Minister for
Foreign Affairs of a Latin American country, to
greet most warmly the first Latin American
Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar,
to whom my country is deeply indebted for his
earnest efforts during the South Atlantic crisis
to reach a solution to the conflict.
236. This year my country had to deal with a
grave international crisis rooted in the fact
that even today, on the eve of the twenty-first
century, there remain forms of colonial
domination in the world, despite the efforts of
the Organization and of the overwhelming majority
of its Member States to eradicate them. The
crisis to which I am referring, which resumed in
an armed confrontation between Argentina and the
United Kingdom, would not have taken place had
colonialism and its vestiges been completely
eliminated from the face of the earth.
237. The conflict which took place in the
South Atlantic, comprising the Malvinas Islands,
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands,
shows that there is as yet no end to the efforts
of the United Kingdom to cling to its colonial
possessions and to maintain its privileges,
something possible only in an international state
of affairs which is based on the existence of
unequal relations, supported in the main by the
crude domination of force.
238. The Government of the United Kingdom has
attempted to obscure the very clear rights of the
Republic of Argentina to claim territories of
which it was divested by force; but the General
Assembly is well aware of the historical
background of the matter and the stubborn British
attempts to distort it have come to naught.
239. Existing cartographic proofs offered by
maps of that time demonstrate that the Malvinas
Islands were discovered by Spanish navigators in
the first half of the sixteenth century. Then,
since the beginning of the seventeenth century,
they were explored by French navigators until
1764, when Louis de Bougainville established the
Port Louis settlement, now Soledad Island, a
situation which gave rise to a Spanish protest
and a subsequent recognition by France of the
sover¬eignty of Spain over these territories. In
1766 Port Egmont was established in the islet of
Trinidad, the only territory occupied by the
British in the Malvinas Islands, from which they
were also expelled by the Buenos Aires Government
on 10 June 1770.
240. Subsequently secret diplomatic
negotiations led to the precarious restitution of
those settlements to the British on condition
that at a later date they would have to withdraw
from them definitively, a commit¬ment which the
United Kingdom fulfilled in 1774. Since then the
United Kingdom virtually forgot all about the
islands until it took them by force in 1833.
241. In the period between 1767 and 1810, a
year when Argentina started on its road to
independence, the Malvinas were administered by
20 governors appointed by the Spanish Crown. The
Republic of Argentina, having become independent
from Spain, then succeeded Spain in all its
rights, including the rights of sovereignty over
the islands which belonged to Spain. By virtue of
this, until 1833, the administra¬tion of the
Malvinas was exercised by six Argentinean
governors, under whose government my country had
the peaceful and exclusive occupation of the
archi¬pelago, without any discussion by the
European powers of our claims, titles and rights
to these territo¬ries. What must be emphasized,
because it is a decisive point, is that the
United Kingdom in 1825 recognized that the
Republic of Argentina was a sovereign State, and
at that time entered into a treaty of friendship,
trade and navigation with Argentina and did not
then voice any reservation with regard to its
alleged rights over the Malvinas Islands or any
other adjacent terri¬tories. This most clearly
demonstrates that the United Kingdom was aware of
the fact that it had absolutely no right over the
Malvinas Islands and archipelago, whose
sovereignty it questions today.
242. On 3 January 1833, eight year^ after
Argentina was recognized as a sovereign State,
and after the signing of the treaty of
friendship, trade and naviga¬tion, British troops
occupied the islands by force, bringing down the
Argentinean flag, expelling Argentinean
authorities and Argentinean citizens, residents
of the area and forcing them to go to Montevideo.
The Argentinean population was thus completely
replaced by a British military garrison.
243. On 15 and 22 January of that same year,
the Government of Argentina sent a protest to the
Charge d'affaires of Great Britain in Buenos
Aires, and on 17 June the Argentine Minister, Don
Manuel Moreno, voiced the most energetic protest
in London. Thus began an uninterrupted series of
Argentinean protests against the British
occupation and in all cases these were
arbitrarily rejected by the Government of the
United Kingdom.
244. The Republic of Argentina never agreed to
the British occupation, nor did it ever give up
its sover¬eign rights over the territory of which
it was divested by force. All this is more than
enough to show the inequity of any claims of
acquisition by the United Kingdom.
245. Let the Assembly compare the historic and
con¬sistent stand of my country with the silence
of Great Britain in 1825 and its ominous
aggression of 1833.
246. Let us come back now to our times.
Following the creation of the United Nations the
treatment in the Organization of the item of
decolonization brought with it the adoption of
the well-known General Assem¬bly resolution 1514
(XV), which deals with decoloniza¬tion, as well
as resolutions 2065 (XX) and 3160 (XXVIII) and
31/49, which is specifically applicable to the
case of the Malvinas.
247. It was thus decided, first, that there
was recog¬nition of the existence of a dispute
over sovereignty between the Republic of
Argentina and the United Kingdom, secondly, an
invitation to those Govern¬ments to continue
forthwith negotiations to achieve a peaceful
solution of the matter, bearing in mind the
provisions and objectives of the Charter, as well
as the interests—not the wishes—of the population
of the islands; thirdly, the recognition of the
efforts made by the Republic of Argentina to
facilitate the decolonization process and to
promote the well-being of the population of the
islands.
248. Starting in 1966 negotiations began
between the two Governments but these
negotiations did not lead to any result because
of the indifferent attitude and dilatory tactics
displayed by the British.
249. Acceptance by the United Kingdom of the
invita¬tion to negotiate on the matter of
sovereignty, for¬mulated in resolution 2065 (XX),
was embodied in the communications of Foreign
Ministers Zavala Ortiz and Stewart,'3 as a result
of the visit of the latter to Buenos Aires in
1966. Clearly this acceptance was encouraging for
it reflected, apparently, the beginning of a
change in the British position, which up to that
time had rejected all negotiations on the matter
of sovereignty of the archipelago.
250. Later the terms of reference of the
negotiation were formally set out in the joint
communique of 26 April 1977," which stated
specifically that it would include the matter of
sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South
Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. That
agreement between Argentina and the United
Kingdom was explicitly recognized in the parallel
notes addressed in June 1979's by the Per¬manent
Representatives of my country and of the United
Kingdom to the Secretary-General, informing him
that from 21 to 23 March 1979 the representatives
of the Governments of both countries had held the
fourth round of negotiations on the Malvinas
Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich
Islands, within the framework established in the
aforementioned communique of 26 April 1977.
251. Nevertheless, the obligations undertaken
by the United Kingdom in those documents and 17
years of negotiations failed to convince the
Government of the United Kingdom to deal with the
matter of sover¬eignty fully and in good faith.
That was an arbitrary attitude which could not be
explained in the light of the clarity of the
commitments entered into.
252. On the contrary, my country continued to
demonstrate at all times its sincere resolve to
settle the dispute. Further proof of that was the
letters addressed to the Secretary-General in
1971 by the Permanent Representatives of
Argentina and the United Kingdom^ on opening up
communications between continental Argentina and
the archipelago, for that statement demonstrated
in fact the declared intent of Argentina duly to
take into account the interests of the
inhabitants of the Malvinas.
253. Thus the supply of fuel, the
establishment of regular maritime and air
services, free medical atten¬tion in hospitals on
the continent, the granting of fellowships in
educational institutions and the supply of
foodstuffs are some of the many indications of
the sincere desire of Argentina to continue to
improve considerably the standard of living of
the inhabitants of the islands, which up to that
time had been isolated and had suffered
shortages, which Argentina—not the United
Kingdom—tried to make good in the best interests
of the inhabitants of the Malvinas.
254. One should bear in mind also that along
with this, and from the beginning of the
negotiations, my country repeatedly oHered to
grant guarantees and safeguards under the
protection of the United Nations in order to
preserve the lifestyle of the inhabitants of the
Malvinas, as well as their traditions and
customs, with the idea of considering their
interests, an idea which is contained in General
Assembly resolution 2065 (XX).
255. Nevertheless, despite all the efforts of
succes¬sive Argentine delegations in the rounds
of negotia¬tions, which were once again renewed
at the last meeting in February 1982, it was not
possible to get from the British delegations,
which also included islanders, a list of the
guarantees and safeguards which they required for
the protection of their interests.
256. The positive attitude demonstrated by
Argentina in presenting to the United Kingdom in
February of this year a new proposal for settling
the dispute between the two countries met with
complete silence on the part of the British
Government. That proposal provided for a
machinery to speed negotiations over sovereignty
and achieve concrete results in the form of a
system of monthly meetings, with a
pre-established agenda, the venue of the meetings
established in advance, presided over by
officials at the highest level.
But, as already stated, in accordance with the
usual practice of Britain in matters of
negotiation with our country, we were not able to
obtain a reply to this reasonable initiative by
Argentina, despite the requests made by our
Government.
257. We come now to the episode which
unleashed the present crisis. Argentina received
the British ultimatum to withdraw a group of
civilian workers who had landed on South Georgia
to fulfill a private contract, which was known to
the British authorities, under the threat of the
use of force if their demand was not heeded. That
intimidation was accompanied by the movement
towards that area of various naval units,
including nuclear submarines.
258. Thus the bloodless occupation of the
Malvinas Islands by Argentina was a justified
reaction in the face of the British decision to
strengthen its colonial domination over a
territory which by law belongs to my country and
in flagrant contradiction with the provisions of
General Assembly resolution 31/49. I should like
to emphasize that the recovery of the islands was
achieved without the British suffering a single
death or injury due in any way to the intentions
of Argentina, a country which preferred to
sacrifice many of its own soldiers for the sake
of not causing any victims among the British
occupying forces or the population.
259. Furthermore, I should like to recall that
imme¬diately and without any pre-condition the
Republic of Argentina returned all British
military personnel, along with their flags, in
order to avoid further prob¬lems in trying to
reach a peaceful solution.
260. The recognition by Argentina of the
authority of the Security Council in this dispute
was made quite clear in many statements by my
Government in favor of an effective and full
implementation of Council resolution 502 (1982).
In his statement at this session the President of
Brazil, stressing the importance of the General
Assembly's consideration of the question of the
Malvinas, stated that the first step towards a
solution must be the full implementation of
Security Council resolution 502 (1982), adding:
"It is time for those who so vigorously condemn
the use of force in the solution of controversies
to demonstrate the consistency and sincerity of
their designs".
261. My Government spared no effort in order
to obtain immediately a negotiated settlement of
the crisis, accepting at all times the good
offices offered to us; but we wonder about the
possibility of arriving at a legitimate agreement
when the United Kingdom, seeking no result other
than a military victory and the maintenance of
the colonial situation, brought its fleet into
the South Atlantic unlawfully, invoking Article
51 of the Charter, and arrogated to itself the
right to act, no matter what the consequences, by
taking all sorts of hostile measures.
262. The generous offer made by the Secretary-
General on 2 May this year, to be considered by
both Governments, did not achieve the solution
called for by the serious crisis.
263. The Government of Argentina from the very
outset had full confidence in the role which the
Organization, and especially the
Secretary-General, could play in these grave
circumstances, to help with the maintenance of
international peace and security and to eliminate
all vestiges of colonialism in the world; but the
United Kingdom adopted an extremely rigid
position with regard to the ideas which were
being discussed, an attitude that was closely
related to the increase of its military potential
in the area.
264. Later came Security Council resolution
505 (1982), and a British veto on a draft
resolution'? in the Security Council^ which, if
adopted, would have made possible an immediate
cease-fire, thus avoiding loss of life on both
sides. This was the clearest proof of the lack of
political will on the part of the United Kingdom
to find a peaceful negotiated solution. The only
thing which the British Govern¬ment was
interested in was a success by its punitive
fleet, to consolidate its imperialist presence in
the South Atlantic and improve its damaged
domestic political situation. The facts show that
from the very beginning military action was the
only solution which the Conservative Government
of the United Kingdom seriously considered.
265. I am revealing no secret when I say that
the British Empire only reluctantly gave up its
colonies. Many of the nations represented here
have at one time in their history been colonies
of the United Kingdom and know that their present
situation as sovereign States is not due to any
gracious conces¬sion on the part of that Power,
agreeing m a gesture of generosity to grant them
independence. On the con¬trary, every case of
liberation was the result of a very difficult and
cruel struggle by the oppressed peoples, or of
the final inability of the United Kingdom to
continue exercising its control over those people
in the face of the irresistible force of the
great movement of history leading to decolonization,
generated essen¬tially by the United Nations.
266. The United Kingdom, which today attempts
to act as the champion of self-determination, is
pre¬cisely the colonial Power par which in
many cases raised all kinds of obstacles when the
United Nations tried to assist the just process
which made it possible to liquidate most of its
Empire.
267. Thus, in the specific case of the
Malvinas Islands, the practice of the United
Kingdom thus far has been to pretend to fulfil
the requirements estab¬lished in the resolutions
of the General Assembly, requiring it to
negotiate in the dispute over sover¬eignty, while
in reality sabotaging any serious attempt to make
progress on that important problem. It proceeded
throughout with no sense of haste or urgency,
while striving only to protect its special
private interests, and the monopolistic
exploitation of its colony.
268. The United Kingdom has proclaimed that
Argentina resorted to action in the midst of the
negotiations about the islands. No statement
could be more false. That process has been
frustrated precisely by the dilatory tactics and
delays used time and again by the British
Government, quite apart from its complete failure
to reply to the last proposal made by Argentina
in February 1982.
269. Moreover, I wish to state categorically
that throughout the 17 years of fruitless
negotiations imposed upon the United Kingdom by
the will of the
General Assembly in 1965 in its resolution 2065
(XX), the administering colonial Power of our
Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich
Islands never gave any indication of trying in
good faith to reach a solution to the dispute
over sovereignty which exists between that
country and Argentina, refusing to discuss the
only subject that justified those negotiations
and made them necessary: precisely the question
of sovereignty.
270. Among the basic principles which it sets
forth for the fulfillment of the purposes of the
United Nations, the Charter, in Article 2,
paragraph 2, states that "All Members, in order
to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits
resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good
faith the obligations assumed by them in
accordance with the present Charter". But the
attitude of the United Kingdom constitutes a
flagrant violation of this commitment to which it
subscribed when it signed the constitutional
statute of the Organization, and its actions and
omissions have shown how little importance it
attaches to the resolutions of one of the basic
pillars of the relations in the international
community.
271. Furthermore, if any doubt remained, the
attitude of the present Government of the United
Kingdom is full confirmation that its objective
has always been to continue its usurpation of the
Islands and to accept only those superficial
changes which serve to conceal the true colonial
nature of its domination over them.
272. And if the existence of colonies is an
affront to the dignity of the peoples and a
shameful blot on the name of an international
community which claims to be civilized, even more
shameful is the attempt to invoke the principles
of decolonization to prolong the life of the
ill-omened remnants of an era that fortunately
has come to an end. The Government of the United
Kingdom is trying to whitewash the guilt of its
unlawful occupation by invoking the right to
self- determination of the inhabitants of the
Islands. In so doing, it is attempting to justify
their plundering by invoking the principles that
are generally accepted in the United Nations in
the hope that the nations represented here will
forget all the times when these principles were
ignored or denied by the same United Kingdom
which now invokes them.
273. For if the United Kingdom states that it
is a nation which respects the right of
self-determination, we are faced with a true
historic paradox. How are we then to explain the
struggle for independence and national
sovereignty of India under Gandhi's leader¬ship,
human symbol of anti-colonialism, peace and
justice in our century? How can we forget the
wars of liberation in Africa against British
imperialism ever since the end of the Second
World War? How can we explain the subjugation and
domination suffered by the peoples of Asia at the
zenith of the United Kingdom's imperial
expansion? Could we perchance forget that he
United Kingdom not only violated the true
self-determination of the peoples, but it also
made illegal use of force, violating the most
elementary rules and principles of international
law and ethics? Why did the United Kingdom,
claiming to be such a staunch defender of the
self-determination of peoples, displace by force
the population of the island of Diego Garcia, to
make over that territory for the establishment of
a military base in the Indian Ocean?
Cotild it be perhaps because they were not white,
but Macks and people of mixed Mood?
274. Obviously, it is no mere historical
coincidence that some of the major leaders of the
developing world and champions in our day of the
freedom and independence of peoples—men such as
Nehru, Nasser, Kenyatta, Nyerere and Archbishop
Makarios, among others—had to confront at various
times in their political struggles the colonial
or neo-colonial domi¬nation of British
imperialism.
275. These facts show that when the U „
Kingdom claims to be defending the right to
determination of peoples, that is not only a way
vt concealing the truth about the nature of its
illegal colonial possession of the Malvinas
Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich, but
also a cynical attempt to adjust its position to
the world of today, in order to perpetuate its
last ties of political and economic domination;
in other words, its intent is to seem to change
things so that they can remain the same. The
right to self- determination is basically a
collective right, recognized for all peoples,
nations and States. That right assumes a
legitimate relationship between those who are to
benefit and the territory to be decolonized, but
the territorial link cannot be of any type,
because the right to self-determination can never
be used as an instrument to split up a territory.
276. For example, the settlements established
by Israel in the occupied Arab and Palestinian
terri¬tories—in contradiction of the rights of
the countries and populations affected, and of
the Geneva Con¬vention on the Protection of
Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August
1949, and in flagrant violation of the
resolutions adopted by the Security Council and
the General Assembly—are a clear example of a
policy infringing the right of territorial
integrity. The international community has
rightly condemned such policies, since the
perpetuation of these illegal situations at the
expense of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and the
Palestinian people year after year has become a
constant source of tension and violence,
endangering not only the Middle East but
international peace and security.
277. Therefore, recognition of the right to
self- determination of a population implanted by
force, after the forced expulsion of those who
were legiti¬mately living in the area earlier, is
a mockery of the efforts of the Organization to
put an end to colonialism, and can lead only to
the renewal of colonialism in the guise of a
settlement freely consented to. The relation¬ship
between those who claim freely to exercise the
right to self-determination and the territory in
which they live must come from a justifiable
situation that existed before the occupation.
278. The clear and maked truth is that the
United Kingdom has established a colony in part
of Argentine territory, and the definitive
solution must be the restitution of that
territory to its legitimate owner, in keeping
with the right of territorial integrity, which
clearly applies to this case, in conformity with
resolution 1514 (XV). Otherwise, I must give
warning that to legitimize the illicit origin of
British pos¬session would be to establish a
dangerous precedent for legitimizing future
seizures of territory, based on the use of force,
yet subject, it would be claimed, to
legitimization by the passage of time.
279. The recent crisis in the South Atlantic prompted the Government
of the United Kingdom not only to seek to
consolidate its colonial domination, this time
quite openly, over the Malvinas Islands and their
dependencies, but also in violation of General
Assem¬bly resolutions, to establish an
extra-continental military base on the islands,
with nuclear submarines and nuclear weapons in
the area.
280. This provocative attitude has clearly
introduced a focus of continuing tension into the
South Atlantic, which is unacceptable both to the
Republic of Argen¬tina and to Latin America. We
must therefore put an end to that state of
affairs. There has been a de facto end to the
hostilities in the area, as everyone knows, and
my Government does not intend to take the
initiative in changing that situation. But
following the cease-fire the United Kingdom
carried out an armed attack on the Argentine
scientific station "Corbeta Uruguay", established
six years earlier in the South Sandwich Islands,
imprisoning the staff, who were carrying out work
of a strictly peaceful nature. That unjustifiable
act of aggression was recently condemned by the
Second World Conference On Cultural Policies,
convened in Mexico by UNESCO.
281. Furthermore, my country has many times
brought to the attention of the Organization acts
of harassment by British vessels and aircraft
against Argentine fishermen, even outside the
exclusion zone which the United Kingdom continues
to impose around the islands for Argentine civil
and military vessels and aircraft. Although
technically limited to an area of 150 nautical
miles, this illegal and arbitrary measure has in
fact been extended by the British Government to
waters outside the area, where Argentine fishing
vessels are constancy subject to intimidation.
This is a serious matter that should be of great
concern to us, since we all recall how during the
recent conflict a British nuclear submarine did
not hesitate to torpedo and sink the Argentine
Republic navy cruiser Genera/
which was sailing outside the exclusion zone
established and defined by the United Kingdom
Government itself—a completely illegitimate and
brutal action which was no source of pride for
British public opinion or any of its allies.
282. The facts that I have just described, as
well as the stand taken so far by the British
Government, opposed to any genuine negotiation,
show clearly the need for the international
community, through a decision by the General
Assembly, to support the Latin American
initiative to resolve the present situation and
the dispute over sovereignty between Argentina
and the United Kingdom by substantive
negotiations carried out in good faith.
283. Latin America is today writing a page in
its history marked by its spiritual umty and its
heroic role, reaffirmed recently by the Panama
Canal issue, and today by the Malvinas question.
284. This unity will be demonstrated in the
forth¬coming meetings of Latin American heads of
State proposed by Uruguay, Panama and Colombia,
in all of which my country will take part. It
will also be demonstrated next year at a meeting,
convened by Venezuela in Caracas, of heads of
State and other representatives of their peoples
to commemorate the bicentenary of the Liberator,
Simon Bolivar, who conceived of our continent as
a federation of nations striving, through the
strength of their common ideals and
determination, to bring about a world of justice
and freedom. With this dream, to which our
Liberator, Jose de San Martin, made his
outstanding contribution, were associated all the
national heroes of Latin America, with a slogan
that we have not forgotten, and are determined
not to forget, calling for respect by the
international community for our demands, today
and for ever.
285. Latin America, united today by the
Malvinas, and tomorrow by whatever other equally
just cause may affect any of the countries
comprising it, calls for a response that will
meet its legitimate demands.
286. Latin America shall not be a
breeding-ground for colonial adventures. The
countries of the hemi¬sphere fought hard to win
their independence and therefore have a long tradition
of rejection of colo¬nialism. Those ideals of the
founding heroes of the Latin American homeland
inspire the actions of the Governments of the
region, with whose decisive assistance and
support the Hrst decolonization ini¬tiatives
prospered in the United Nations. It is in that
spirit that Latin America has demonstrated its
whole¬hearted support for the fraternal
initiative taken by Mexico, which calls for
consideration of the question of the Malvinas
Islands during the current session of the General
Assembly.
287. I emphasize with pride and appreciation
that the question of the Malvinas Islands is no
longer in the Organization the private cause of
my country but has become the cause of Latin
America, as happened also in the case of Panama.
In their letter to the Secretary-General, the
Latin American nations made the following points,
among others:
"The persistence of this colonial situation in
America and the dispute between the Argentine
Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over
the Islands, on which the General Assembly has
expressed itself in resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160
(XXVIII) and 31/49, have led to serious armed
con¬flict in the South Atlantic and constitute a
situation that affects the Latin American region
in particular.
"The countries of America, which are peace-
loving and anxious for a peaceful settlement of
the conflict, consider that the negotiations
between the Argentine Republic and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
should be conducted under the auspices of the
United Nations/' [Sep
288. That initiative earned the gratitude of
all the Argentine people, for which the cause of
the Malvinas is a national goal which takes
precedence over partisan differences and binds
together citizens of all sectors.
289. We extend the same gratitude to the
non-aligned movement, which in its successive
statements has categorically endorsed Argentina's
claims.
290. I wish to express similar appreciation to
all countries which have extended to us their
support and have recognized the legitimacy of our
claims.
291. The events in the South Atlantic have
taught us some hard but useful lessons, which
will have an impact on our future as a region and
hence on our international relations. We have
felt the warmth of solidarity and the bitterness
of frustration, depending on the reaction to the
legitimate claim of our peoples.
292. We shall never forget those who acted as
our friends. As to those who did not so act, we
shall re-examine in the future their earlier
positions, bearing in mind the circumstances of
that time, which for many were unclear or
distorted. But the positions they are taking now,
will have to stand up to the closest scrutiny by
the Argentine people and by all those who agree
with the very clear principles which the
inter¬national community has committed itself to
defend. Their conduct will be judged not by
Governments, which are temporary things, but by
peoples, which are permanent. History, which is
incorruptible, will be a court of last resort.
The Argentineans and all Latin Americans are
convinced that it will be our ally, not to be
suborned.
293. We firmly believe that negotiations in
good faith between the parties provide the only
possible path to peace. Hence we are prepared to
heed the call of the General Assembly to begin
negotiations to find a peaceful solution to the
dispute over sover¬eignty which will take into
account the relevant resolutions of the General
Assembly and the Security Council, with the
assistance of the Secretary-General, in whom my
country has sincere confidence.
294. Argentina has never expanded its
territory through the use of force. On the
contrary, it has traditional resorted to peaceful
methods and negotiations to resolve its
territorial disputes. In this spirit our country
is committed to the peaceful settlement of its
territorial dispute with the Republic of Chile in
the southern part of the country, with the
invaluable participation of His Holiness Pope
John Paul II as mediator. The people and Government
of Argentina wish to express here their deepest
gratitude to His Holiness for his tireless
mediating activities and his guidance of the
negotiations with the Republic of Chile. Great
importance has been attached by the Holy See to
these activities, which resulted in the agreement
signed on 15 September last at Vatican City. That
agreement is an unequivocal confirmation of the
complete confidence which the two countries have
placed in the Supreme Pontiff and in his judgment
as to the best way to settle the dispute. For our
part, we reaffirm our belief that through
mediation we will reach a final agreement
acceptable to both parties which will put an end
to the dispute once and for all, thus
consolidating the traditional links between the
two peoples.
295. The world situation is so serious, and
the situa¬tion as regards the Organization's
ability to fulfill its purpose of maintaining
peace and acting as a useful forum for
negotiation among its Member States has become so
difficult, that the Secretary-General felt
compelled in writing his exemplary report to
abandon the usual practice of reviewing the broad
range of issues involved in the work of the
United Nations and to concentrate on the central,
vital problem of the chances of achieving the
aims which 37 years ago prompt J the creation of
the United Nations, after the six years of agony
and destruction of the Second World War.
296. In the year since the last regular
session of the General Assembly the deteriorating
trend of inter¬national relations has been
confirmed. The tensions stemming from the
traditional confrontation between the
super-Powers have been aggravated by fighting
resulting from long-standing conflicts which
remain unresolved as a result of the lack of
political will or an intransigent refusal to
confront the problems intelligently and in a
forward-looking way.
297. Thus the lack of trust between
antagonistic blocs or States at the international
level provides the political opportunity for
serious regional crises, and the military pacts
among the great Powers encourage their allies,
whether or not they are in the right, in
exaggerated confrontations or punitive operations
reminiscent of the nineteenth century, although
they use the ultra-sophisticated arsenals of the
late twentieth century.
298. Furthermore, the developed nations, are
en¬trenching themselves m positions of privilege
and when they agree to a dialogue with other
States which are not members of their club they
do so only on their own terms. Fear of change
makes them more inflexible and the climate of
international tension, instead of making them
outward-looking as regards the rest of the world,
makes them turn inward, which is a futile flight
from the collective responsibilities they should
shoulder. Those nations close their ranks to
defend the advantages they gained in the past,
although the injustice of these is obvious. This
is all clear evidence of a process of
international political involution which augurs
ill for the future.
299. We cannot but affirm emphatically here
that if there remains any chance of justice and
right prevail¬ing, it can only be within the
framework of the Organi¬zation, which has the
necessary ways and means to assist nations in
conflict, provided those nations are really ready
for dialogue and negotiations to settle their
disputes. Hence, the international community must
turn towards the United Nations in search of a
reply and for attitudes which encourage the
preser¬vation of world peace.
300. We all know that one traditional way is
through disarmament but, unfortunately, the
present session is taking place in the shadow of
the failure of a few months ago of the second
special session of the General Assembly devoted
to disarmament. The international community had
great hopes in that session, which it expected
would consolidate and develop the achieve¬ments
made in the four years since the first such
special session.
301. But the time is coming when all the
countries, and in the first place the great
Powers, will be unable to ignore the fundamental dilemma
any longer: they must either make sincere and
serious efforts to bring under control the
massive increase in weapons, in particular
nuclear weapons, or we shall be embarking upon an
uncontrollable escalation of which we shall be
the prisoners and probably the victims.
302. The recent events in Lebanon constitute a
further tragic manifestation of the permanent
threat stemming from the perpetuation of unjust
and serious situations not resolved by the
international system, which has once again failed
in Its primary task, established under the
Charter—^namely, that of maintaining
international peace and security. Too many years
have passed during which the people of Lebanon
have had to suffer as a result of successive
violations of their territorial integrity,
independence and sovereignty. This unjust
situation has been com¬pounded in recent weeks by
the barbarous acts perpetrated in the refugee
camps of Sabra and Shatila. This provoked the
unanimous condemnation of the international
community, in which my Government joined first
with a communique issued in Buenos Aires and then
by our vote at the seventh emergency special
session, on Palestine. There can be no doubt of
the responsibility of the Israeli Government
which invaded the city of Beirut in violation of
the agreement reached and on the pretext of
preventing chaos.
303. The Government and people of Argentina
are convinced that ajust and lasting solution of
the question of the Middle East can be achieved,
as my country has argued repeatedly in recent
years, only if there is recognition of and
respect for the inalienable right of the
Palestinian people to self-determination and
national independence and to establish their own
sover-eign Statu; acceptance of the right of
Israel and all countries of the region to live in
peace within inter¬nationally recognized borders;
Israel's withdrawal from all the Arab territories
occupied since 1967 and, in addition, recognition
of a special regime for the Holy City of
Jerusalem, in accordance with the relevant
resolutions of the Security Council and the
General Assembly.
304. Many other situations are subjects of
grave con¬cern to us. The persistence of the
hateful apartheid regime in South Africa and the
unjustifiable delay in the inexorable process of
independence for Nami¬bia, the decolonization of
which must not be further postponed, are just two
of these. South Africa cannot continue to resort
to new and arbitrary excuses to preserve a
shameful and unjust status quo the pur¬pose which
is to deny the Namibian people the true exercise
of their right to self-determination and national
independence in accordance with Security Council
resolution 435 (1978) and with full respect for
its territorial integrity. The international
community must use its best efforts to put an end
to this colonial situation, which is marked by
economic exploitation and racial discrimination.
The people of Namibia must be assisted in their
just struggle to put an end to South African
domination, which flies in the face of the most
elementary principles of justice and equity
accepted by the overwhelming majority of the
States Members of the United Nations.
305. Another grave situation which for reasons
of regional brotherhood concerns us profoundly is
the instability and violence prevailing in
Central America, which prompted the promising
initiative of an offer of good offices by the
Presidents of Mexico and Vene¬zuela, with a view
to reducing tension and ensuring peace. Of
course, my Government has already expressed its
full support for those efforts.
306. I know that it is not original to refer
to the crisis in international economic relations
or to emphasize that the high cost is being borne
by the developing countries. However, despite the
attempts made by those countries to ensure the
establishment of more just economic and political
relations which ensure a proper place and
equitable participation in the international
sphere, some developed countries are working to
prevent these through economic policies that
undermine multilateral co-operation in general
and co-operation for development in particular.
307. There has been a resurgence of
protectionism in the major decision-making
centers, accentuating further the economic and
social difficulties on the periphery.' Selective
and discriminatory policies have been
established, based on concepts of so-called
graduation, which establish arbitrary and harmful
differences for developing countries. By
increasing emphasis on bilateralism in
international economic relations there has been
an erosion of the multilateral framework of
international co-operation.
308. As if all this did not constitute a
sufficiently discouraging picture, we now see a
tendency for certain developed countries to use
economic means for political ends, by trying to
bring pressure to bear on developing countries to
subordinate the exercise of their sovereign
rights.
309. The non-aligned movement has emphatically
condemned such behavior and the Charter of
Eco¬nomic Rights and Duties of States adopted by
the general Assembly in 1974, is also emphatic on
this point.
310. Within the Latin American framework, at
the regional level, it was understood from the
outset, as confirmed by decisions 112 and 113 of
the eighth meeting of the Permanent Council of
the Latin Amer¬ican Economic System, that Latin
America must reduce its vulnerability to the
concerted pressures of the developed world.
311. Nevertheless, in the midst of this
disturbing picture there are on the horizon some
positive facts, such as those originating in the
Group of 77 and the recent statements made in the
Economic and Social Council by some
industrialized countries, which lead us to hope
that global negotiations can begin shortly in an
attempt to revitalize the North-South dialogue.
312. As regards co-operation among developing
countries, the recent meeting in Manila showed
the realities and potential of this broad range
of co-oper¬ation and solidarity.
313. I cannot conclude my statement without
saying that my country accepts the existence of
this real and regrettable world political
panorama because it is a matter of plain fact.
However, we also believe in the absolute need to
overcome this grave situation, because we are
sure that the instinct of self-preser¬vation will
compel all the peoples in the world to unite
their efforts to change this picture of real and
potential conflicts. But we also firmly believe
that that primary objective cannot be attained
through vague declarations and pious words, but
only through specific action and a healthy
political determination, which, by establishing
good faith in international relations and
encouraging progress and wealth, will make
possible the emergence of new protagonists on the
world scene. There must be new presences capable
of restor¬ing a balance threatened today by the
magnificent development of some nations at the
expense of the stagnation or the slow development
of others.
314. I should like to conclude my statement by
referring once again to the Malvinas question,
which is so vitally important to my country. The
world knows Argentina's devotion to peace and
that we have lived through more than a century
without any periods of war. If a peaceful people
felt it necessary to take up arms to defend its
cause, in an unequal battle, it was solely as the
result of the justice of that cause. Our forces
consisted entirely of Argentineans who were
fulfilling their patriotic duty. In our struggle
we did not turn to foreigners boastful of their
bloodthirsty ferocity closely tied to the
degrading exchange of money.
315. Our martyrs, sacrificed in the desolate
lands and frigid waters of the South Atlantic,
will be constant witnesses to Argentina's
unwavering sovereignty over the Malvinas, a cause
whose defense brooks neither concessions nor
hesitation. The hours of sacrifice of our
combatants, as well as the blood and the lives
laid down by so many of them, were not in vain.
The cry that went up then and that will lead us
steadfast to our goal will not fade from the
conscience of mankind.