The Permanent Mission of Argentina to the Organization of American States Presents Its Compliments to the General Secretary Mr
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Permanent Mission of Argentina to the Organization of American States presents its compliments to the General Secretary Mr. Jose Miguel Insulza, and has the honor to refer to the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to the Colonial Countries and Peoples, that took place on the United nations on June 12, 2008. On the particular topic of the intervention of the Minister of Foreign Relations, International Trade and Worship of the Republic of Argentina Mr. Jorge E. Taiana, with respect to the topic of "Question of the Malvinas Islands", as well as the "Ruda ' s Allegation" and the Resolution A/AC.109/2008-L8 "Question of the Malvinas islands". All documents are accompanied in their English and Spanish versions. We kindly ask you to distribute this note and its enclosed copies among the Permanent Missions. The Permanent Mission of Argentina to the organization of American States avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the General Secretary the assurances of its highest consideration. Enclosures: As stated. To the Secretary General to the Organization of American States Mr. Jose Miguel Insulza Washingtonn D.C. SPECIAL COMMITIEE ON THE SITUATION WITH REGARD TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECLARATION ON THE GRANTING OF INDEPENDENCE TO COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES ADDRESS BY THE ARGENTINE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND WORSHIP, JORGE E. TAIANA, June 12, 2008 I would like to express how satisfied we are to see you preside over the sessions of this Committee. Your recognized personal and diplomatic qualities guarantee the success of the work carried out by this important body of the United Nations. We know that you are convinced of the instrumental role that this forum plays in the decolonization process. Therefore, my Government is confident that, under your active coordination, we will be able to make headway in the eradication of colonial situations that still exist and maintain the necessary spirit that will allow us to continue with the noble challenge posed by the fight against colonialism and against the subjugation of the weakest. In performing this duty, you have wisely pointed out the need to consider each case according to its special and particular characteristics, as done by the Committee from the beginning, without giving way in the face of the difficulties of an untimely scourge that still subsists from time immemorial. The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), was adopted on 14 December 1960, and was supported by all the countries that rebelled against the perpetuation of colonialism, thus speaking out against the resistance of the colonial powers that in turn expressed their views voting against such resolution. In keeping with its acts, the United Kingdom voted against the resolution on that occasion. This Resolution was adopted in defence of peoples subjected to or subjugated by a colonial power. Its preamble proclaims "the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations", stating that "all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory". The UN General Assembly interpreted Resolution 1514 applying it to the specific case of the Question of the Malvinas Islands when it adopted Resolution 2065 (XX) of 16 December 1965. In such resolution, it reiterates the commitment to ending colonialism in all its forms, one of which is the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom in the Question of the Malvinas Islands, regarding which it invites both Governments to negotiate a peaceful solution, taking into account the objectives of the Charter, Resolution 1514 and the interests of the inhabitants of the islands. Resolution 2065 (XX) was adopted by 94 favourable votes, 14 abstentions and no negative votes. The United Kingdom itself abstained. However, in compliance with the Resolution, it began a process of negotiations with our country which, despite important progress which lead the parties to be even close to a solution after a few years, entered afterwards into a period of an increasing reluctance on the british part. The Question of the Malvinas Islands is a special and particular colonial case, because, as acknowledged by the UN General Assembly, it involves a sovereignty dispute. I come today to this Committee to reiterate once more before the international community the Argentine Republic's inalienable and imprescriptible rights over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, and the surrounding maritime areas. I draw on the support of the Argentine people's willingness and unanimous feeling and of a strong and uninterrupted protest stance that has been maintained by the Argentine government since 1833, without distinction, against this violence. The history of the Malvinas Islands began long before 1833. The historic events, on which I will not dwell now, but which have been accounted for at length in document A1AC.109/1 06, serve as proof of the specific and particular nature of the Malvinas Question. Any automatic attempt to liken it to other classic colonial cases distorts its own reality. All the resolutions of this Committee evidence these characteristics. These archipelagos are an integral part of the Argentine territory unlawfully occupied by the United Kingdom since 1833 by virtue of an act of force. After two failed attempts to invade Buenos Aires, Argentina's current capital, in 1806 and 1807, the British fleet expelled Argentine population and authorities under the threat of weapons, who had peacefully and actively exercised in the Malvinas Islands the lawful rights that pertained to the Argentine Republic in its capacity as heir of Spain. This act of force was carried out without prior warning, when the Argentine Republic was still consolidating itself as an independent State, and by a world power with which we maintained friendly relations. Such forceful act was a further reflection of the imperialistic policy developed by the great powers of those times in the 19th century in the American continent, in Africa and in Asia. In the Question of the Malvinas Islands, a portion of the territory of the Argentine Republic, which was already an independent and sovereign State recognized by the United Kingdom, was occupied by force by a world power against the wishes of its inhabitants. The Argentine Republic never consented to this spoliation. The usurper world power expelled the Argentine population, replacing it with its own subjects, thus preventing Argentines in a discriminatory and systematic manner - from then on and still today - from settling down or owning lands. It ultimately gave rise to a feeling of isolation and a psychological divorce from the continent. It follows that this transplanted British population could never be deemed as a population subjected or subjugated to colonial power. This population thus cannot be deemed to hold the right to self-determination. I do not need to highlight how dangerous a precedent it would be to accept that the mere lapse of time gives rise to rights in favour of a Power that occupies foreign territories, under the protest of the deprived people or in favour of its subjects who settled after expelling local populations violently. As I already said, this is a special and particular colonial case, insofar as it involves a colonial situation, but not a colonized population. In alleging the right of self-determination in favour of this transplanted British population, the United Kingdom is claiming self-determination for itself. When the United Kingdom refuses to negotiate this sovereignty dispute with Argentina relying on the self-determination principle regulated in Resolution 1514 and alleging that it will not do so as long the British occupants do not "wish" it, it attempts to get an advantage out of this Resolution, the purpose of which is precisely to end colonialism, in order to perpetuate an anachronistic colonial situation to the detriment of the Argentine people's legitimate rights. It thus violates Argentina's territorial integrity principle also referred to by Resolution 1514. For avoidance of doubt, I would like to point out that Argentina has been and still is a strong advocate of the right to self-determination of peoples whenever, to couch it in clear terms, such peoples are subject to foreign colonial domination. But we should take into account that in 1985 the General Assembly decidedly ratified the inapplicability of the self-determination principle to the Question of the Malvinas Islands when the international community overwhelmingly voted against the United Kingdom's two attempts to include references to self-determination in the Resolution on the matter. Since 1965 and still today, the UN has been reiterating its appeal for both parties to the dispute to negotiate as the only way of resolution. This Committee insists on this request every year, reiterating, and let me quote the Resolution passed by this forum in 2007, that "the way to put an end to the special and particular colonial situation in the Question of the Malvinas Islands is the peaceful and negotiated settlement of the dispute over sovereignty between the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". End of quote. Argentina has no doubts about its sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas. However, the Argentine Government has reiterated, whenever it had the chance, that it had always maintained a willingness to negotiate in order to comply with the duty incumbent on both parties to resume sovereignty negotiations with the aim of finding a solution to the dispute. Similarly, my Government is not reluctant to cooperate with the United Kingdom on practical aspects arising from the situation of fact in the South Atlantic, under the due legal protection and with the purpose of creating a suitable framework for the parties to resume the negotiations required by the international community.