|
UN Resolutions
Press Release - 18 June 2004
Decolonisation Committee says
Argentina and United Kingdom
should renew efforts on Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Question
Resolution
Seeks Peaceful Solution to Sovereignty Dispute,
Reiterating
Commitment to Help Parties Comply with Assembly Request
The Special Committee on Decolonisation this morning adopted without a vote a draft resolution on
the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),
requesting the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to resume
as soon as possible a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute over
the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). Under the terms of the
draft, the Committee reiterated its firm commitment to assist the parties
in complying with the request made by the General Assembly in its
resolutions on the question of the Islands.
Speaking before the
adoption of the draft resolution, Rafael Bielsa,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Argentina, recalled that British forces had
expelled the Argentine inhabitants and authorities of the Malvinas
Islands
on 3 January 1833, thereby establishing their illegal occupation of the Islands. Noting that disruption of the national unity and territorial
integrity of any country was incompatible with the purposes and principles
of the United Nations Charter, he said the United Kingdom’s
nineteenth-century violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of the independent republic of Argentina meant that the principle of
territorial integrity must prevail over that of self-determination. Since
continental Argentines had been prevented from settling on the Islands since their expulsion in
1833, granting the Islands' inhabitants the
right to self-determination would allow the colonial power to justify its
usurpation of territory. Mr. Bielsa
further stressed that the people of
Argentina
remained fully committed to the peaceful settlement of the dispute and
urged the Committee to continue to support the prompt resumption of
negotiations on sovereignty.
Petitioners representing
the Falkland Islands Government called on the Committee to grant the
people of the
Falkland Islands
the basic right to self-determination - the right to pursue their own
political ambitions and choice of sovereign status. The draft
resolution before the Committee did not take into account the wishes and
ambitions of Falkland Islanders and did not respect their right to
determine their own future, said Roger Edwards, Legislative Councillor of
the Falkland Islands Government. He said Falkland Islanders did not
wish to see a change from British sovereign status and he, therefore,
urged all delegates not to adopt the resolution.
Mike Summers, Legislative
Councillor of the Falkland Islands Government, added that his country was
not a colony, that the people neither felt they lived
in a colony, nor did the Government of the United Kingdom
treat the
Falklands
as a colony. The
Falkland Islands
(Malvinas) were geographically, geologically, culturally, linguistically
and historically different from Argentina.
The international community, he said, must not tolerate those who
pursued territorial disputes, while manifestly ignoring the wishes of the
people inhabiting, developing and caring for the environment and
communities in those territories.
Another petitioner,
Alejandro Betts, a former resident of the Falkland Islands
(Malvinas), said that although the United Kingdom
had been in possession of the
Falkland Islands
(Malvinas) since their invasion of the Islands in the nineteenth century,
it was a legal fact that possession alone did not give legitimacy. He
said the Committee must work to help the United Kingdom
to put aside its opposition to negotiation on the status of the
Islands, stressing that Argentina’s claim to have her legitimate sovereign rights
recognised fell
perfectly within international law.
The representative of Cuba, having introduced the draft resolution, said serious negotiations
allowing for the definitive and peaceful solution of the question of the
Falklands/Malvinas Islands should be undertaken as soon as possible and
that any situation in which tensions could rise in the
South Atlantic
should be avoided.
Henrique
Valle of Brazil, speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, reiterated the Group’s support
for the work of the Committee to put an end to colonialism, based on
Resolution 1514 (XV). It was essential for the two parties to resume
negotiations towards a peaceful, just, and lasting solution to the
sovereignty dispute, in accordance with resolutions of the General
Assembly and of the Special Committee.
Terumi
Matsuo De Claverol of Paraguay, speaking on behalf of the Southern Common Market
(MERCOSUR), Bolivia
and
Chile, said the MERCOSUR members continued to support the draft resolution, as
well as Argentina’s sovereign rights over the Malvinas (Falkland
Islands).
Filimone Kau
of
Fiji
said his delegation supported self-determination as the first principle of
decolonisation, adding that the Committee would at some point have to
respect the Islanders’ right to self-determination.
The representatives of Uruguay, Peru,
Bolivia, Venezuela,
Grenada, China,
Syria,
Indonesia,
Congo,
Tunisia,
Sierra Leone, Ethiopia and the
Russian Federation
also spoke.
Background
The
Special Committee on Decolonisation met this morning to consider a draft
resolution on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), which requests the Governments of Argentina and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume as soon as
possible a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute relating to the
Falkland Islands (Malvinas). Under
the terms of the draft, the Special Committee reiterates its firm support
for the mission of good offices of the Secretary-General in order to
assist the parties in complying with the request made by the General
Assembly in its resolutions on the question of the
Falkland Islands.
Also
before the Committee is a working paper on the
Falkland Islands
(Malvinas) prepared by the Secretariat in April 2004.
As noted in the report, the Government of Argentina continues to claim
sovereignty over the Malvinas
Islands. According to the Government of Argentina, its exercise of
sovereignty over the Islands was interrupted in 1833, when British forces
occupied the Malvinas Islands, expelling the Argentine population and
authorities settled there and replacing them with others of British
origin, an act to which the people and Government of Argentina never
consented.
In a
statement on
22 September 2003, during the general debate of the fifty-eighth session of the General
Assembly, the President of Argentina said his Government had advocated a
peaceful settlement of the sovereignty dispute and expressed its
willingness to negotiate in order to conclusively settle the dispute.
It urged the United Kingdom
to agree to resume bilateral negotiations to resolve the issue.
A
representative of the United Kingdom, in a statement on
6 October 2003
during the second meeting of the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly,
said a number of significant developments had taken place during the year.
In accordance with the British Overseas Territories Act adopted in 2002,
which granted all citizens of those Territories full British citizenship,
more than 14,000 passports had been issued by August 2003. The
representative added that the United Kingdom
had the impression that there was no strong desire in its Territories to
choose the path of independence, even though his Government had made it
clear that it would give encouragement where independence was an option.
The key, therefore, was to try to reconcile the desire in the Territories
for greater autonomy and self-government with the United Kingdom’s responsibility to ensure good governance.
The
working paper further notes that at its 56th plenary meeting,
on
5 November 2003
, the General Assembly decided to defer consideration
of the
Falkland Islands
(Malvinas) and to include it in the provisional
agenda of its fifty-ninth session.
Statements
ROGER EDWARDS, Legislative
Councillor of the Falkland Islands Government, said the
Falkland Islands
(Malvinas) enjoyed a level of independence that many nations would be
proud of and that it managed a robust economy with a high standard of
living, a good educational system and excellent health services. The
only two areas it did not control were foreign policy and defence, which
were both provided by the British Government. A strong defence, he
added, was important as they lived close to a neighbour whose aggressive
stance against the Falkland Islands
(Malvinas) had been demonstrated over many years.
Noting the positive
economic and commercial developments in the
Falkland Islands
(Malvinas), he said revenue had been raised by licensing foreign fishing
vessels and charging fees for trans-shipment of cargoes. Tourism had
increased, bringing in additional income. New schools had been
built, there was an international airport, and roads had spread across the
Islands, opening up new opportunities in trade and commerce.
He said the relationship
with Argentina
had become much more strained following the last change of government in
that country.
Argentina
had attempted to interrupt and interfere in almost every aspect of
development in the Islands. It had attempted to disrupt the fishing
business and had prevented charter flights through its airspace.
Nevertheless, the Islands’ economy had been assisted by a reconstruction
fund and by development assistance, and since 1990 had been economically
self-sufficient in all areas other than defence.
He called on the Committee
to grant the people of the Falkland Islands
the basic right to self-determination - the right to pursue its own
political ambitions and choice of sovereign status - a right that had
been recognised by the United Nations in every resolution of
Non-Self-Governing Territories other than the
Falkland Islands
(Malvinas). He said the draft resolution before the Committee was
asking the Committee to support a change of sovereignty. Falklands
Islanders, he said, did not wish to see a change from British sovereign
status. He therefore urged all delegates not to adopt the resolution
as it did not take into account the wishes and ambitions of
Falklands Islanders and did not respect their right to determine their own future.
MIKE SUMMERS, Legislative
Councillor of the Falkland Islands Government, said his country was not a
colony. The people neither felt they lived in a colony, nor did the
Government of the
United Kingdom treat the Falklands
as a colony. The world, led by the United Nations, must not tolerate
those who pursued territorial disputes while manifestly ignoring the
wishes of the people of those territories. The people of the
Falkland Islands
had been devising and implementing strategies for the political, economic
and social development, and strengthening the internal self-government, of
their country for many years.
Since the 1982
Falklands
war, he said, the Islands
had seen reinvestment in infrastructure and the advent of new economic
opportunities in deep sea fishing, while tourism had brought a new reserve
of self-belief and entrepreneurial spirit to the people. The
community was peaceful and well regulated, free of corruption and
prejudice, and benefited from an equal distribution of wealth among the
population. There was no poverty, deprivation or exploitation;
migrant workers enjoyed economic opportunity and benefits equal to the
permanent community. There was no movement for independence, or for
a change in political allegiance, among the people of the
Falkland Islands. Every member of the Legislative Council had been elected on a
mandate of continued allegiance to and close cooperation with the United Kingdom, with no concessions to Argentina
on sovereignty.
In contrast, the
Government of Argentina had declared that any solution to the
Falklands
dispute would respect the “interests” - not the wishes - of the
Islands
’ people, he stressed. The Argentine Foreign Minister had publicly
stated that the views of the
Islands’ people were “irrelevant”. It had been claimed that the
principle of self-determination did not apply to the Falkland Islands, but should be overridden by that of territorial integrity. Yet,
the concept of decolonisation through the application of the principle of
territorial integrity had no place in United Nations doctrine.
The
Falkland Islands
were geographically, geologically, culturally, linguistically and
historically different from Argentina, he concluded, and self-determination for the people of the
Falkland Islands
must be the guiding principle for the United Kingdom
and Argentina, as well as for this Committee. There could be no negotiation on
sovereignty, as such would imply a willingness to change or concede which
did not exist. Thus, the resolution, which called for a negotiated
solution to the Falklands/Malvinas question, had no place before the
Committee.
The representative of Cuba
said the statement by the representative of the Falkland Islands Government (Malvinas) reflected a lack of knowledge of the Committee’s
work and he regretted the shortage of adequate information. He said
the comments could contribute little to the Committee's discussions as
they lacked a knowledge of the resolutions adopted year after year by the
Committee.
ALEJANDRO BETTS, a former
resident of the
Falkland
(Malvinas) Islands, said the present discussion had a colonial origin that resulted from the
invasion of the Argentine territory by the United Kingdom
in the nineteenth century. Although the United Kingdom
had been in possession of the Falklands
(Malvinas) since the invasion, it was a legal fact that possession did not
alone give legitimacy. Bearing in mind that in 1833 the Falklands
(Malvinas) had been in the possession of Argentina, they had not constituted a vacant land open to occupation. The
principle of self-determination could not therefore legitimately be
applied, as the community implanted by the United Kingdom
since the illegal ousting of Argentina
had benefited from the use of resources in a manner not approved by
international law.
Moreover, he said, due to
the excessively severe migration policy, which had been in place since
1983, Argentine citizens had been unable to move to the
Islands
or to own land there. There had also been a refusal to re-establish
contact or to resolve issues related to aviation and fishing with the
Government of Argentina, or with other territories such as Patagonia. That refusal was intimately related to the above-noted illegal
foreign exploitation of resources, facilitated by the illegal distribution
of fishing licenses. In conclusion, he noted
that the United Kingdom
continued to assert that the status of the
Falklands
(Malvinas) was not open for negotiation. The Committee must work to
help the United Kingdom
to put aside its opposition to negotiation on the
Islands’ status. Argentina’s claim to have her legitimate sovereign rights
recognised fell
perfectly within international law.
MARIA ANGELICA VERNET,
Director of the National
Historical
Museum
of the Buenos Aires Old
Town Hall
and May Revolution, said her great-great-grandfather Luis Vernet, the
appointed Political and Military Governor of the Malvinas
Islands
(Falkland Islands) from 1829 to 1832, had
legitimised Argentine sovereignty over the
territories within its jurisdiction. He had applied the rules of the
Act on Regulation of Fisheries and Hunting of Amphibians along the Patagonian
Coasts
and Adjacent
Islands, passed by the Government of Buenos Aires in 1821, to prevent the
predatory action produced by British and North American ships. He
had firmly asserted the Argentine Government’s control of the
archipelago.
She said that as a
descendant of Vernet she was convinced that, like other settlers, Vernet
had legitimately settled in the
Malvinas Islands (Falkland Islands) and contributed to their prosperity. The Argentines who arrived on
the Islands to work for their progress obtained concession of their lands
legitimately from the Government of Buenos Aires, which had jurisdiction
over the territory. Vernet, along with fellow inhabitants of the
Malvinas (Falkland Islands), were ousted from the territory and stripped of their possessions by the
British act of force of
3 January 1833. She asked the Committee to urge and promote a constructive
dialogue between the Argentine Republic
and the United Kingdom
to solve the ensuing sovereignty dispute between them, in accordance with
United Nations decisions.
RAFAEL BIELSA, Minister of
Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Culture of Argentina, recalled that British forces had expelled the Argentine inhabitants and
authorities of the Malvinas
Islands
on 3
January 1833, establishing their illegal occupation of the Islands, as well as a colonial situation unlike any other. The General
Assembly, and the present Committee, had recognised in numerous
resolutions the special nature of this situation, determining that the
“Malvinas Question” referred to the controversy between Argentina and
the United Kingdom regarding sovereignty over the Islands, which dispute
rested exclusively between those two parties and whose solution must be
negotiated, taking into account the interests of the Islands’
inhabitants.
Recalling that resolution
1514 (XV) affirmed that “any attempt aimed at the partial or total
disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of any
country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of
the United Nations”, he stressed that the United Kingdom’s
nineteenth-century violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of the independent republic of Argentina meant that the principle of
territorial integrity must prevail over that of self-determination.
Furthermore, as
continental Argentines had been prevented from settling on the Islands since the
1833 expulsion, which situation had facilitated the
establishment of a population of British origin, giving the Islanders the
right to self-determination would allow the colonial power to justify its
own usurpation of territory. Such was undoubtedly not the United
Nations’ interpretation of the right to self-determination, which
properly applied to people different from those of the colonial powers and
who were subject to foreign domination.
The occupation of the
Malvinas had been immediately protested, he added, and had never been
accepted by Argentina, which had consistently called for recovery of the
Islands. The
long British occupation had not impaired Argentina’s rights. The claim to sovereignty of the
Islands was felt deeply
by the nation, and had been enshrined in the 1994 Constitution.
However, all Argentines remained fully committed to the peaceful
settlement of the dispute. Aware of Argentina’s willingness to negotiate the
Islands’ status, and the United Kingdom’s obstinacy in delaying negotiations, the Committee must continue to
support resumption of negotiations on sovereignty, as soon as possible.
Since 1989, provisional understandings on issues related to the
South Atlantic
had been concluded under the sovereignty formula. However, those
understandings must not be interpreted as acceptance of the pretended
status quo in the region, nor as a definitive solution to the dispute.
HENRIQUE R. VALLE
(Brazil), speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, said the Group wished to
reiterate its support for the work of the Committee to put an end to
colonialism, based on Resolution 1514 (XV). While progress had been
considerable since the Committee began its work in the 1960s, its goal had
not yet been achieved. The spirit of reconciliation regarding the
question of Malvinas and the solution of the sovereignty dispute was
outlined in resolution 2065 (XX) and other resolutions of the General Assembly.
It was essential for the two parties to resume negotiations so they could
find a peaceful, just and lasting solution to the sovereignty dispute in
accordance with resolutions of the General Assembly and of this Committee.
He added that Brazil
wished to reiterate its support for the rights of Argentina
in the sovereignty dispute over the question of the Malvinas (Falkland
Islands) and hoped the climate of cooperation between the two parties would lead
to a peaceful resolution to this long-standing controversy. The Rio
Group supported the draft resolution and hoped that the resolution would
be adopted without a vote.
TERUMI MATSUO DE CLAVEROL
(Paraguay), speaking on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR),
as well as Bolivia and Chile, noted that Argentina had reiterated its
willingness to undertake the negotiations requested by the Committee year
after year. She also reiterated the ongoing commitment of the
MERCOSUR members to support for
Argentina’s sovereign rights over the Malvinas, and stressed that the question of
the Malvinas constituted an ongoing hemispheric interest. Every
member of MERCOSUR was represented at the present session and stood in
solidarity with Argentina
and reiterated its support for the present draft resolution. It was
to be regretted that the issue remained unresolved despite numerous
appeals from the international community. The international
community should renew its appeal for the resolution of this pending,
South Atlantic
issue.
FELIPE PAOLILLO (Uruguay) said his delegation was of the view that patience played an essential
role in achieving a fair solution to the conflict of the Malvinas
Islands
(Falkland Islands). The patience put to the test on this occasion was not only that
of the Argentinian people; the people and Governments of the entire
continent continued to watch the United Kingdom exercise a de facto
sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands (Falkland Islands) as an anomaly
which must end. It was an anomaly born from the violation of the
territorial integrity of Argentina and justified subsequently by wrongly invoking the principle of
self-determination. This principle had been erroneously interpreted
to assign to the inhabitants of the Malvinas
Islands
(Falkland Islands) the curious right, with no precedent in history, to live under the
sovereignty of a state in the territory of another state. He said it was the
exercise of patience that brought his delegation to attend the Committee
meetings year after year. It did so with the conviction and
expectation that negotiations between the two parties would resume.
The absence of negotiations could be interpreted as a consolidation of the
status quo or as proof that the conflict did not exist any more. The
conflict was alive and
Uruguay
would continue to call for its settlement until the Malvinas
Islands
were returned to its legitimate sovereignty.
OSWALDO
DE RIVERO (Peru) endorsed the statements of Brazil, on behalf of
the Rio Group, and of Paraguay, on behalf of MERCOSUR and related States,
and recalled that his country had always supported United Nations efforts
to eliminate colonialism and to recognise the inalienable rights of people
to determine their own future in accordance with the provisions of the
Organization’s Charter and relevant General Assembly resolutions.
The right to self-determination had always been defended by
Peru
as a basic principle of international law and of the Organization. Nevertheless,
he continued, Peru held that the present issue must be resolved as
provided for by General Assembly resolutions 2065 (XX) and 3160 (XXVIII),
and must include recognition of Argentina’s legitimate right to
sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and the South
Sandwich Islands, as well as the surrounding maritime areas. This
position was based upon historic, geographical and legal criteria,
inferred from the right of property of the Malvinas
Islands
as part of Argentina, inherited upon independence. The parties must resume negotiations
aimed at finding a peaceful and lasting solution to the controversy, as
soon as possible, he concluded.
XIE YUNLIANG (China) said it was the consistent position of China
that territorial disputes between countries should be resolved through
peaceful means. It was China’s hope that the Governments of Argentina and the
United Kingdom
would continue their constructive dialogue and work towards a prompt,
peaceful and just solution to this dispute. It was in this spirit
that his delegation supported the draft resolution.
FAYSSAL
MEKDAD (Syria) said he supported the present draft resolution and held that its
adoption by consensus would reaffirm the role to be played by the
international community in the dispute’s resolution. The
resumption of dialogue and meetings between Argentina
and the United Kingdom
would lead to a proper and mutually acceptable solution to the issue of
sovereignty over the Islands.
REZLAN
ISHAR JENIE (Indonesia) said his delegation was deeply concerned that the question of the
Falkland Islands
(Malvinas) remained unresolved despite efforts by the international
community to assist the parties in seeking a solution to the dispute.
It was essential that the status of this Non-Self-Governing Territory be
resolved expeditiously. Indonesia
remained hopeful that negotiations would resume as provided by the
relevant General Assembly resolutions in order to bring a just, peaceful,
and definitive solution to the problem. In this spirit, his
delegation hoped it would be possible for the Committee to adopt the draft
resolution by consensus.
ADRIANA
P. PULIDO SANTANA (Venezuela) said she subscribed to the statement of Brazil
on behalf of the Rio Group. However, as a co-sponsor of the present
draft resolution, she also wished to note her country’s unequivocal
support of
Argentina’s right to exercise sovereignty over the Malvinas
Islands,
South Georgia
and South Sandwich Islands, as well as the surrounding maritime areas. Negotiation remained
the best means of resolving the dispute, within the context of bilateral
dialogue between Argentina
and the United Kingdom. All efforts must aim to overcome the obstacles that had in the
past prevented both parties from resolving their conflict.
ARANIBAR
QUIROGA (Bolivia
) said his delegation supported the draft resolution and endorsed the
comments made by the representative of
Brazil
on behalf of the Rio Group and the representative of Paraguay
on behalf of MERCOSUR. It was relevant to state that the special
declaration on the Malvinas Islands (Falkland Islands) adopted at the 10th
summit held in Santa Cruz in his country had reaffirmed the need for the
Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to resume as soon as
possible negotiations aimed at finding a prompt resolution to the question
of the Malvinas Islands (Falkland Islands). In this regard, Bolivia
was convinced of the need for the two parties to resume negotiations in
order to find a peaceful, just and lasting solution to the dispute.
LAMUEL STANISLAUS
(Grenada) asked when the two disputants would create an environment
conducive to allowing the people of the Falklands (Malvinas) to decide
their own destiny and answered that it would likely be when the two
parties sat down to negotiate. Could the international community not
ensure that the
Islands’ people had the best opportunity to decide their own future and avoid
leaving them to dry up like a raisin in the sun? For the moment,
negotiations between the parties should concentrate upon the issues
uniting the parties.
ORLANDO REQUEIJO GUAL (Cuba) said his country held that serious negotiations allowing for the
definitive, peaceful and satisfactory solution of the question of the
Falklands/Malvinas should be undertaken as soon as possible and that any
situation in which tensions could rise in the South Atlantic
should be avoided.
The representative of the Congo
urged both Argentina and the United Kingdom
to resume negotiations for a lasting resolution to the conflict, as there
were no real obstacles preventing such a resolution.
The representative of Tunisia
said his country also supported the resumption of negotiations for a
peaceful, just and lasting solution to the question of the Falklands
(Malvinas).
RUPERT DAVIES (Sierra Leone
) said his country had consistently maintained that the present question
should be resolved through peaceful means and, therefore, called upon
parties to engage in dialogue aimed at achieving a final and just
solution. During that dialogue, the interests of the Islanders must
be taken into account, as any solution that failed to do so would not be
lasting. The Islanders right to
self-determination must be respected.
FILIMONE KAU (
Fiji
) said he supported self-determination as the first principle of decolonisation. Noting that the recent past had seen the cooperative
relationship between Argentina
and the United Kingdom
interrupted, and it had taken several years to normalize relations under
the sovereignty umbrella arrangement, he nevertheless cautioned that the
Committee would at some point have to respect the Islanders’ right to
self-determination.
YURI RUDAKOV (Russian Federation) said he was convinced the Committee would show it wisdom by adopting the
present draft resolution on the basis of unanimity, as in previous years.
It was essential that the solution to this question be founded upon
the basis of negotiations.
TERUNEH ZENNA (Ethiopia) said the question of the
Falklands
(Malvinas) should be resolved through negotiations, which was the
long-held position of his Government.
Action on Draft - Draft
resolution A/AC.109/2004/L.8 was adopted without a vote.
Speaking after the
adoption of the draft, Mr. Bielsa, Argentina’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, said the attitude of the countries of
the region ratified the fact of the strategic position of integration and
demonstrated that the brotherhood among nations was not just rhetorical.
Copyright: United Nations
Source: www.un.org
|
