Dear Editor,
The current international scenario highlights – now more than ever – the need to exhaust all efforts that contribute to the peaceful settlement of international disputes. In this context, the recent recognition by the European Union (EU) of the position of Latin America and the Caribbean with respect to the Question of the Malvinas Islands is noteworthy. The bi-regional document adopted at the III Summit between the EU and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), held in Brussels, Belgium, highlights nothing less than the importance of dialogue and respect for international law in the peaceful settlement of disputes.
Therefore, I would like to use the first paragraphs of this text to refer to the value of what was achieved by my country in particular and the international community in general, at the aforementioned Summit.
Regardless of the effect it generated among CELAC nations and EU members, the Declaration constitutes a true diplomatic milestone: for the first time in history, the EU signed a Joint Declaration with CELAC in which, in reference to the “sovereignty issue over the Malvinas Islands”, the importance of dialogue and respect for international law in order to achieve peaceful settlement of disputes is emphasized. The text was signed by 60 countries, 33 from our region and 27 from Europe.
When in diplomacy a State or group of States says that it takes note of a fact – in this case, the fact is the Latin American and Caribbean support for the Argentine position – it is not an abstract issue. On the contrary, what was agreed in the Declaration has a great projection: it means that the Malvinas Question is already part of the bi-regional agenda.
In turn, the adopted text reaffirms the fundamental commitment to all the purposes and principles enshrined in the UN Charter, such as the sovereign equality of States and respect for territorial integrity.
The unsuccessful British attempts to prevent the paragraph from being incorporated into the Declaration, and the subsequent reaction of the United Kingdom against the European Union, gives an idea of the value and weight of the diplomatic milestone reached.
Secondly, I believe it is appropriate to refer to the recent editorial in the Stabroek News newspaper, published on July 21 (of this year), in which erroneous arguments on the Malvinas Question are sustained.
The editorial published last Friday seems to argue that the Malvinas case does not constitute a case of colonialism, given that in 2013 the inhabitants of the Islands voted to keep them with Great Britain.
In this regard, I would like to point out that it is the same United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) that has established 10 resolutions of its own and more than 40 resolutions of its Special Committee on Decolonization (C24), that the Question of the Malvinas Islands is a special and particular case of “colonialism”, involving a sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom, which must be resolved through negotiations between the two parties, taking into account the interests (not the wishes) of the population of the Islands.
The General Assembly and the C24 make recommendations to advance the decolonization process. Both bodies play a crucial role in establishing the modalities for the exercise of self-determination of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, where appropriate. The fact is that no United Nations resolution on the Malvinas Question has referred to self-determination. Even in 1985, the General Assembly expressly rejected, on two occasions, the inclusion of that principle in resolutions on the Question.
The right to self-determination is not a right recognized to any human community established on a territory, but only to “peoples”. The current inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands are not recognized as a “people” by the United Nations resolutions; they are a transplanted British population, unlike the classic cases of colonialism in which a pre-existing people are the victims of the establishment of a colonial domination.
The 2013 self-confirmation exercise referred to in the editorial – called a “referendum” – was nothing more than a vote organized by the British, for the British. For them to say that the territory their forefathers usurped in 1833, and which remains in dispute today, must remain British.
Indeed, that vote was not called for by the United Nations, nor did it have its approval or oversight. After that 2013 referendum, the C24 has adopted by consensus 10 resolutions in which it continues to define the Malvinas Question as a “special and particular” case of colonialism and urges the only two parties to the sovereignty dispute (Argentina and the United Kingdom) to resume negotiations in order to find a peaceful, just and lasting solution to this sovereignty dispute as soon as possible.
Without prejudice to this, my country is committed to respecting the way of life and the interests of the inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands, as prescribed by the Argentine National Constitution and the relevant United Nations resolutions. Mainland Argentina is home to the largest community of British descendants in the region, integrated into all national activities.
On the contrary, when the United Kingdom stormed the Islands in 1833 and expelled the Argentine population and authorities that were exercising sovereignty there, it then proceeded to bring its own settlers and to tightly control the migration policy of that isolated territory, in particular against the settlement of Argentines from the mainland. In this way, the United Kingdom seeks to preserve the “Britishness” of the population of the Islands.
It is true that the United Kingdom has been in “continuous occupation” of the Islands since 1833, but it is no less true that Argentina has systematically protested against it. All the countries of the region recognize the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas as an integral part of Argentina’s national territory and express their rejection of the British occupation in the south of the continent.
The call for the resumption of negotiations has the support of the international community as a whole, expressed not only in the United Nations and CELAC, but also in the Organization of American States (OAS), the Group of 77 and China, MERCOSUR, the Central American Integration System (SICA), the Ibero-American Summits, the Summits of South America with Arab countries (ASPA) and the Summits of South America and Africa (ASA).
Yours faithfully,
Ambassador Guillermo Carmona
Secretary of Malvinas, Antarctica
and South Atlantic
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
International Trade and Worship
of the Argentine Republic