On December 16, 1965 the United Nations General Assembly It was a diplomatic milestone that redefined the dispute over the sovereignty of the Malvinas Islands. With the Acceptance of the Resolution 2065The international organization laid the foundation for a modern treatment of the dispute by officially recognizing and urging the existence of a “question” of sovereignty Argentina and the United Kingdom are looking for a peaceful solution through negotiations.
This occurred against the backdrop of international pressure and an active Argentine foreign policy promoted under Argentina’s presidency Arturo Ilia. Since 1964, the Argentine government had raised the issue at the United Nations, arguing that the British occupation of 1833 constituted an act of colonial expropriation violate the principle of territorial integrity of the nation.
The diplomatic struggle and the triumph of reason
Resolution 2065 was the result of debates within the Decolonization Committee (24-member committee). Argentina presented its case on principle territorial integrity, This applies to colonial situations where the existing population has been displaced or does not constitute a people subject to self-determination, such as the Malvinas.
Authoritarians don’t like that
The practice of professional and critical journalism is a mainstay of democracy. That is why it bothers those who believe that they are the owners of the truth.
For its part, the United Kingdom stuck to the principle Self-determinationwhereby it is claimed that the will of the inhabitants of the islands (the Kelper) was the only deciding factor. However, the international community and especially the emerging countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America reacted sensitively to the argument Decolonization.
The vote on the resolution was a significant strengthening of Argentina’s position and a diplomatic setback for London:
-94 countries voted in favor the resolution recognizing the existence of a sovereignty dispute.
– Only 14 countries abstained from voting. Tellingly The United Kingdom was one of the abstentionsHe refused to vote against or for a text that forced him to sit at the same table with Argentina.
The text of the resolution was precise and marked the roadmap of the controversy that continues to this day. He urged both governments “continue the negotiations immediately“to find a peaceful solution to the problem, with due regard to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the interests of the inhabitants.”
The legacy of Resolution 2065
By passing 2065, the United Nations deprived Britain of the opportunity to ignore the dispute. For the first time, the conflict evolved from an ignored bilateral demand to one United Nations problem.
The then-President’s administration interpreted the resolution as a clear mandate to initiate a formal dialogue, and in fact Resolution 2065 became that the first of a series of resolutions (2232, 3160, 31/49, among others), which reiterated the need for bilateral negotiations and the cessation of unilateral actions by the United Kingdom.
As Milei looks to London, the Foreign Office condemns the “unilateral” exploitation of a Malvinas basin
Sixty years later, even if the 1982 war dramatically changed the scenario, Resolution 2065 remains the basic instrument at the multilateral level. It is the document that established, by consensus of almost a hundred nations, that the situation of the Malvinas Islands is not just a matter of self-determination, but rather a matter of self-determination Sovereignty dispute are subject to the obligation to negotiate. It is the living legacy of a diplomatic victory that forced London to recognize that the Malvinas issue is and always will be an open issue for the international community.
About The Author
