UN Resolution 2065, approved by the General Assembly exactly six decades ago, marked a milestone in Argentina’s quest for global recognition of its full sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands. For almost two hundred years, a sovereignty dispute persists between Argentina and the United Kingdom regarding various archipelagos in the South Atlantic, the most important of which is the Malvinas, which the British call the Falklands.
At the time of Argentina’s independence in 1816, those islands belonged to the Kingdom of Spain, which at the time was still one of the largest empires of the world. In 1833, a British naval expedition invaded and took control of the territory, expelling the Argentine Governor and much of the Argentine population in the aftermath. The remaining Argentine inhabitants were either killed or expelled from the islands when a group of Argentine peasants rebelled against the new invading British authorities in the same year of the invasion, 1833.
Being in its initial years as an independent state and struggling with nation-building tasks in its earliest stages, Argentina could do little to face the British Empire, the mightiest power on Earth, which was yet to attain the zenith of its power. Since then, Argentina has never ceased to claim its rights. But it wasn’t until the beginning of the 20th-century decolonisation process, in which, as everyone knows, India played a pioneering and leading role, that new fora and arguments would open up for our country’s demands.
In the words of British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, during the 1960s “winds of change” were blowing in Africa and the colonised world. They would also reach, in some form, the South Atlantic. In September 1964, during the Subcommittee III of the Special Committee on Decolonization debate, the Argentine Delegate, Ambassador José María Ruda, delivered a famous speech in which he articulated before the international community the defence of our sovereign rights over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands.
The Argentine envoy explained that the British arguments for controlling the Malvinas Islands were solely based on sheer force. In addition, he explained that the concerned archipelagos were in a particular and different situation compared to the classic colonial cases. Indeed, after the territorial usurpation, the Argentine authorities and population were replaced by a colonial administration and a British settler population.
The population of the United Kingdom repeatedly renews in significant proportions, under the protection of a strict immigration policy controlled by the metropolis that has systematically discriminated against the settlement of continental Argentines. Ruda’s argument maintained that there was no subjugated or colonized population on the islands, which is why the current inhabitants of them did not have the right to self-determination, as wrongly claimed by the Britishers.
Allowing the Britishers who reside in the archipelagos to decide on the destiny of these territories would amount to placing the fate of the islands in the hands of the same power that has installed itself there by force, perpetuating colonialism to the detriment of the territorial integrity of a State, and distorting the fundamental principle of decolonisation. He therefore called for the application of the principle of territorial integrity, recognised in the sixth operative paragraph of General Assembly resolution 1514, which had been violated by the British usurpation and occupation of that part of Argentine national territory.
In this decolonization process, and in application of the aforementioned resolution 1514, on December 16, 1965, the General Assembly adopted resolution 2065 -the first resolution referring exclusively to the Malvinas Question- through which it recognized the existence of a sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom and invited both countries to negotiate in order to find a peaceful solution to the controversy.
The importance of this resolution lies in the fact that it established the essential elements which juridically define the Question and, consequently, the manner in which it should be resolved.
1. The Malvinas Question is a case of colonialism to which an end must be put
2. Note is taken of the existence of a sovereignty dispute between the Argentine and British Governments
3. The Argentine and British governments are invited to enter into negotiations with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem and to report the outcome of these negotiations to the Special Committee or the General Assembly
4. These negotiations must take into account the principles and purposes of the Charter and resolution 1514, as well as the interests of the population of the islands.
It is important to note that resolution 2065 indicates that, in the framework of negotiations to find a solution to the dispute, the island inhabitants’ interests and not their wishes must be taken into account, which means that the self-determination principle is not to be applied in this particular case.
That formula was adopted in Argentina’s last constitutional reform in 1994. The first transitional clause of the Argentine Constitution provides: “First: The Argentine Nation reaffirms its legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, S Georgia Islands, and the South Sandwich Islands, and the corresponding maritime and insular spaces, as they are an integral part of the national territory. The recovery of these territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respecting the way of life of their inhabitants and in accordance with the principles of international law, constitute a permanent and inalienable objective of the Argentine people.”
This essential objective was reiterated by President Javier Milei at the last United Nations General Assembly, when he underlined that it is one of the unchangeable aims of our foreign policy. Almost 60 years after Resolution 2065, the validity of the principles established therein is stronger than ever.
The writer Amb Mariano A. Caucino is the Argentine Ambassador to India. Previously, he served as ambassador to Costa Rica and to the State of Israel.