Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman s speech at the UN Special Decolonisation Committee, 20 June 2013

Transcription

1 Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman s speech at the UN Special Decolonisation Committee, 20 June 2013 " I come before this Committee on the occasion of the consideration of the Question of the Malvinas Islands to express the Argentine Republic's sincere recognition to the attention this prestigious body of the United Nations have given -and continues to give under your able guidance- to the Question that affects an important part of my country's territory. I come here to urge once more the United Kingdom to comply with the obligation imposed to it by international law and address a new British attempt to manipulate a reality that the United Nations have defined decades ago as a special and particular colonial situation. One hundred and eighty years ago, a colonial dispute began, which is to date unresolved. A British naval force expelled, on January 3rd 1833, the Argentine legitimate authorities and population of the Malvinas Islands. It represented an act of unjustified aggression by the British Empire to a rising Latin American republic with whom it had held peaceful diplomatic relations since It was a treacherous military move -within the framework of the expansionist policy carried out by the United Kingdom in Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa and Asia- that disrupted the Argentine Republic territorial integrity. It represents colonial remnants that persist, unbelievably in the 21st Century, in the far south of the American continent, 14,000 km away from the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom had no choice but to resort to the use of force as the only way to compensate its total lack of sovereign titles. Quoting just one example of this behavior, it should be recalled that back in 1829 the Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington, of all people, in his letter to Sir George Murray (officer with the Foreign Office) expressed: "I went through all the documents related to the Malvinas. It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed sovereignty over the islands. The Agreement does not go beyond reestablishing Port Egmont (sic) to us, that we abandoned almost sixty years ago". Argentina gained independence with the Malvinas as part of its territory. Suffices to say that the Great Liberator, General José de San Martín, already back in 1816 (17 years before the invasion by the British Empire) wrote a letter to the national authorities requesting reinforcement from the Malvinas Islands for the Army that he was organizing with the objective of liberating the sister nations which are nowadays Chile and Peru. Half a century has elapsed since the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples -United Nations General Assembly

2 Resolution 1514 (XV) - that guided the decolonization process -one of the highest achievements of mankind in the last century. However, 17 cases of colonialism remain unresolved, amongst them the Malvinas Question, in spite of what resolution 1514 (XV) proclaimed "the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations". It should be recalled that the United Kingdom abstained in the adoption of this resolution. Within the framework of decolonization, 48 years ago, the United Nations General Assembly applied through resolution 2065 (XX) the above mentioned declaration to the specific case of the Malvinas, defining the controversy as a sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom and reiterating its commitment to put an end colonialism in all its forms. Furthermore, it invited both Governments to negotiate a peaceful solution, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the United Nations Charter, resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the inhabitants of the Islands. This obligation was renewed further in 39 subsequent resolutions of the General Assembly and this Committee. Therefore, there are 40 resolutions pending compliance. The British refusal to negotiate not only ignores the abovementioned calls of the international community, but is also contrary to the obligation to peacefully resolve international disputes incumbent upon all the Members of the United Nations. The status of the United Kingdom as a Permanent Member of the Security Council does not relieve it from its international obligations; rather, that seat and its inherent privileges places a special responsibility upon it regarding the maintenance of international peace and security, a responsibility from which the United Kingdom deserts by refusing to negotiate with Argentina. The refusal to engage in dialogue by fallaciously invoking the principle of self-determination conceals a disproportionate and unjustified British military presence in the South Atlantic, as well as the illegitimate appropriation of renewable and non-renewable natural resources, in open contradiction with the provisions of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 31/49 which urges the Parties to refrain from introducing unilateral modifications into the disputed area. All of these situations give rise to growing concern on the part of the international community. In spite of the time elapsed and the countless invitations to engage in dialogue extended by the Argentine Republic, the United Kingdom refuses to resume the sovereignty negotiations. Those negotiations, in compliance with Resolution 2065 (XX) of the United Nations, since 1966 and during 17 years, had led the Parties to consider different alternatives to resolve the dispute. Back then, London did not hesitate to negotiate substantive subject matter of the dispute with Argentina, even in periods where my country was ruled by cruel dictatorships. Therefore, its refusal to go back to the negotiating table with successive democratic Governments is beyond understanding. Argentina is open to dialogue, let that be clear, but under the same terms as such bilateral dialogue took place in the past and to which the United Kingdom had agreed, since 1966, in compliance with the resolutions of the United Nations on the Question of the Malvinas Islands.

3 Argentina is not alone in its claim. Many fora have raised their voices in support of Argentina with the unanimous approval of their members. This has been the case with the OAS, the first hemispheric organization to support my country, and which has recently referred to this Question on 6 June. CELAC is yet another example. Since its inception, this organization, which defends like no other the common interests of Latin America and the Caribbean, has taken up the cause of supporting the legitimate rights of Argentina over the Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas. This position had already been adopted by UNASUR and MERCOSUR, which, in line with the position that the islands are being unlawfully occupied, have adopted concrete measures to counter any illegal exploration and exploitation activities with respect to the natural resources belonging to Argentina in the South Atlantic. As another noteworthy token of regional solidarity, last March, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Cuba and Uruguay and the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru, representing the Pro-Tempore Presidencies of CELAC, MERCOSUR and UNASUR, respectively, expressed their strong support for our sovereign rights to you, in your capacity as Chairman of the Special Committee on Decolonization, to the distinguished Representatives of the Member States of this body and to the UN Secretary-General. My country also received the invaluable support of the African nations, who joined South- America in the historic recognition of Argentina's sovereign rights in the Declaration of Malabo adopted in February In addition, as recently as January 2013, in Montevideo, we received the support of the countries with which we share the coasts of the South Atlantic in our shared endeavour of consolidating our Zone of Peace and Cooperation in that area bringing us together and defining our identity. Likewise, the Third Summit of South American and Arab Countries (ASPA) of 2012 adopted the Lima Declaration calling upon the United Kingdom to resume sovereignty negotiations with Argentina and rejecting the unilateral exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons carried out by Great Britain in the waters surrounding the Malvinas Islands. Today, it is clear that the anachronistic colonial conflict and obstinate refusal to heed the call for dialogue is irritating more and more countries that express themselves in different international fora and that the usurpation of territories is offensive not only to Argentina but also to the region as a whole, which embraces the cause as its own. The Americas, Africa and Asia, whose States have freed themselves from colonialism are the main allies of Argentina in the dispute with the United Kingdom. I wish to express the pride of the Argentines to count on the unanimous support of the heroic peoples of the Americas, Asia and Africa, true makers of the victories against colonialism and in favour of the principle of self-determination.

4 In the face of this situation, Britain has no excuse to continue avoiding dialogue and has therefore made a new attempt to manipulate the Malvinas Question, seeking to present the colonial occupant as the victim and the country dispossessed of a part of its territory as the attacker. It has done so through a poll in the Islands with the foregone results. On 10 and 11 March this year, some 1500 British citizens residing in the Malvinas Islands voted in favour of the continuity of the colonial situation. The organizers called it a "selfdetermination referendum". This was actually a poll conducted by the British government for a handful of British citizens to affirm that they want the territory under military occupation to be recognized by the world as British. The United Nations did not call nor approve the initiative. No country in the world sent officials as observers, despite the enormous efforts of Britain s diplomacy. What is indeed paradoxical is that, seeking to legitimize this illegal strategy, the United Kingdom invokes the self-determination of peoples. However, this principle so highly respected by Argentina, which has enabled the liberation of 80 old colonies, many of them British, in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Oceania, with more than 750 million people, must not and cannot be manipulated in order to perpetuate of a situation conceived and masterminded by a colonial power. At the same time, the right of self-determination of peoples is not a right recognized to any human community established on a territory, but only to peoples, and it does not apply to the detriment of the political unity and territorial integrity of a State. Neither Resolution 2065 (XX), which defines the Malvinas Question within the framework of the United Nations, nor any of the subsequent 39 resolutions adopted by its General Assembly or Decolonization Committee on the Question of the Malvinas Islands have ever referred to the principle of self-determination. The United Nations General Assembly expressly rejected, on two occasions in 1985, British proposals to include the principle of self-determination in the draft resolution on the Question of the Malvinas Islands. Allow me to reiterate that the United Nations has defined almost half a century ago the Malvinas Question as a violation of the territorial integrity of my country. And it has always reaffirmed that self-determination is not applicable as the Malvinas Question does not involve a colonial people under alien subjugation, domination and exploitation. It is this specificity that has led this Special Committee to characterize the Question as a "special and particular" colonial situation vis-à-vis the rest of the classic cases of decolonization, because it involves a sovereignty dispute between two Member States, insisting on the application of the "case-by-case" approach and the necessary conformity with "relevant" resolutions of the United Nations as the way of addressing the specificity of the Malvinas Question. When the United Kingdom occupied the islands in 1833, it expelled the Argentine population and authorities that were exercising sovereignty there. It then implanted its own colonial settlers and tightly controlled the migration policy. It is the metropolis that has until this very day decided the composition of the population of the territory. It is a small

5 population whose demography does not grow naturally, but depends on the economic and administrative needs of the "government" of the Crown on the islands. Only residents of the islands can acquire land. Non-residents are required to apply for a permit from the illegitimate British governor on the islands to do so". Indeed, Britain's alleged adherence to the principle of self-determination was evidenced a few weeks ago when, at the United Nations General Assembly, it refused to support the Polynesian people in its initiative eventually approved by consensus to re-inscribe the case of French Polynesia in the list of non-self governing territories examined by the C24. Self-determination was also of little importance to the United Kingdom in the case of the Chagos archipelago, whose thousands of native inhabitants were forcefully uprooted and deprived since 1967 of their right to return to their land. All of this, after having disrupted Mauritius' territorial integrity, contravening UNGA resolution 2066 (XX). This decision has been recently upheld by the High Court in London, which supported the creation by the British Government of a marine reserve in the area, with the intention of depriving Chagossians of their only possible means of livelihood, thus making their return impossible. It should be noted that the man in charge of implementing this strategy then Director of Overseas Territories Colin Roberts has been appointed by London as the next illegitimate "governor" of the Malvinas Islands, a position he will assume in This is evidence of an shameless manoeuvre consisting in appealing to the protection of the environment against the right of self-determination of the Chagossian people. It is revealing that who implemented this Machiavellian strategy the then Head of Overseas Territories Department of the FCO, Collin Roberts- has been appointed by London as the next illegitimate governor of the Malvinas Islands, position he will take up in Also in the case of Gibraltar the United Kingdom put forward in without United Nations' backing- a referendum, not achieving any modification in the status of the territory. In fact, the General Assembly rejected such referendum by the administering power, calling it upon to continue negotiations with Spain on the decolonization of the territory taking into account the interests of the inhabitants. Years later, in 2002, the then British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had no qualms about condemning a referendum organized by the settlers of Gibraltar without London's blessing, as it hindered the negotiations between Spain and Great Britain taking place in Madrid. The British Foreign Secretary qualified such referendum as an eccentric initiative. As you can see, London whimsically arms and disarms votes according to its strategic circumstances. Also, we all remember that the British Government did not consult the inhabitants of Hong Kong when returning the territory to its legitimate owner, the People's Republic of China. Neither did it take into account the will of the democratically elected authorities of Turks and Caicos Islands when, in 2009, it suspended the local administration to transfer it to the

6 governor from the Crown residing in the territory, in exercise of the powers conferred by the modern colonial administration. In open contrast, the Argentine Republic has supported each and every one of the peoples that came to the United Nations to stand for their rights against colonial powers. As a country that attained independence by breaking free from a colonial power, Argentina firmly defends the right of self-determination of peoples in all cases where such right is applicable. All countries that got independent recognize Argentina's continued solidarity with their fights against colonial powers. From the historic libertarian revolution in Haiti to the heroic struggle of the African peoples, there is no doubt as to what position Argentina and the United Kingdom respectively adopted regarding the fights against colonialism and self-determination. It is worth examining how the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom have voted regarding questions relating to colonialism and self-determination. With regard to the 15 territories currently under examination by this Committee -excluding Gibraltar and Malvinas-, the United Kingdom did not support 88% of the resolutions adopted. In sharp contrast, Argentina supported 81% of those resolutions. If we examine in particular the resolutions on the 8 cases where the United Kingdom is the colonial power -again excluding Gibraltar and Malvinas- the United Kingdom did not support 90% of those resolutions, whereas Argentina supported 80% of them. And now the United Kingdom intends to deceive the world by presenting itself as a champion of self-determination. Poor self-determination having defenders such as the United Kingdom. Moreover, the United Kingdom did not support the creation in 1961 of the Committee on Decolonization. Another interesting piece of information is the position of the United Kingdom with regard to the former British colonial territories which, being today independent countries, are Members of this honourable Committee. While the United Kingdom did not support any resolution of the General Assembly based on the recommendations of the Committee on Decolonization on those issues, Argentina never voted against. I believe no additional information is necessary to demolish the British aspiration of speaking on behalf of the self-determination of peoples. With no arguments, British diplomacy designed a strategy to make the islanders themselves justify the occupation. Aware of this political manoeuvre, the countries of the region rejected this illegitimate poll through strong declarations. MERCOSUR, UNASUR and ALBA indicated that this manoeuvre does not alter the essence of the Malvinas Question and that its outcome does not put an end to the sovereignty dispute.

7 The Government of the United Kingdom does not speak about the sovereignty dispute with Argentina; it will not speak before this Committee on Decolonization; it does not either cooperate with the Secretary General regarding his mission of good offices entrusted to him by the General Assembly. Nevertheless, its silence and its absence show the international community its refusal to comply with the resolutions of the United Nations by hiding itself behind an alleged will of the inhabitants that it artificially implanted in Argentine territory. The absence of the colonial power reaffirms its imperial disdain and its lack of respect for the mandate of this Committee, whose existence it questions and with which it has decided not to cooperate officially over the last 30 years, despite being the so-called administering power of 10 of the 17 territories the Committee considers. On this occasion, I ask this Committee that -in the framework of its firm support to the mission of good offices of the Secretary General- it requests him to contact the United Kingdom in order to urge it to duly cooperate and to involve in the mission of good offices aimed at assisting the parties to comply with the request of the General Assembly contained in its resolutions on the Question of the Malvinas Islands. I also avail myself of this opportunity to request the Chair to inform me whether a representative of the United Kingdom is present in the room, in order to convey to him, with all of you as my witnesses, my willingness to resume dialogue right now. I deeply regret that my colleague, the Foreign Minister of the United Kingdom, always ready to come to the United Nations to seek approval for interventionist policies, does not have the same readiness to attend this Committee whose aim is to put an end to colonialism. Argentina particularly values the noble work of this Special Committee, and we actively cooperate with it. The historic participation in 2012 of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, was the first one of a Head of State in this forum and a clear expression of the significance we attach to the work this Committee does against the scourge of colonialism. It is necessary to bear in mind two items: 1. The United Kingdom is a colonial power, while Argentina is a modern democracy respectful of human rights, represented in this forum by the delegation accompanying me today, which comprises Governors and Legislators from the most diverse political backgrounds in my country. Mainland Argentina is a democracy that is home to a vibrating British community -the largest and oldest in Latin-America-, whose rights, traditions and way of life have always been respected and safeguarded and form an active part of Argentine society. Many of them did not hesitate to go to defend the land of their ancestors

8 at the United Kingdom's most difficult hour when it fought against Fascism and Nazism. Those who survived that heroic fight went back to live in Argentina, because that is where they had decided to build together with the rest of Argentines- their future. 2. The Question of the Malvinas Islands is a matter of territorial integrity, not a matter of self-determination. It is a sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom comprising over three-million square kilometres of disputed territory and maritime areas. This area is twelve times the size of the United Kingdom and most of it is uninhabited. As the Members of this Committee can see, it is no small territory. Great Britain occupies the Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas due to their strategic value and for the illegitimate appropriation of their natural resources. Those -and no other- are the true reasons for the British military presence in the South Atlantic. The sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas is not only a bilateral dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom, but also a regional and a global cause. We are sure that the call for a peaceful solution of the sovereignty dispute will be heard one day, and that one day that colonized territory will cease to be a militarized enclave of an extra-regional power in the southernmost part of America, and that no more nuclear submarines will be sent from British bases to the South Atlantic. My country is already at the negotiating table. The United Nations has been calling for the peaceful resolution of the dispute for almost half a century. The peoples of Latin-America and the Caribbean, Africa and Asia have expressed themselves on multiple occasions. Two Permanent Members of the Security Council, the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation, will again make a statement before this Committee. The General Assembly of the United Nations has already requested the Secretary General to renew its mission of good offices between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, the end of the dispute is hostage in London. Argentina reiterates its solemn commitment to solving the Question dealt with here today through dialogue between two democratic governments and respecting the mandate of the United Nations resolutions. I wish to conclude by expressing the instructions received from President of the Argentine Republic, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, to once again make the offer to resume such dialogue right now with Secretary William Hague, without preconditions or demands.

9 May the Government of the United Kingdom take before this Committee, the United Nations and the peoples of the world, responsibility for its actions and for its silence. Thank you."