The resolution, adopted by consensus, was introduced by Chile and co-sponsored by several countries, including Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, and Venezuela . The Committee emphasized the need for a negotiated solution to end the special and particular colonial situation of the islands.
The resolution also reaffirms support for the UN Secretary-General's mission of good offices to assist the parties in their search for a solution . The Committee has been highlighting the specific nature of this "special and particular colonial situation" within the framework of the United Nations decolonization process.
In summary, the Decolonization Committee continues to urge Argentina and the United Kingdom to engage in dialogue to resolve the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas Islands, recognizing the complexity of the case and the need for a negotiated solution.
While the Decolonization Committee does not "decide" on the sovereignty of a disputed territory , it does issue a resolution reiterating the call to Argentina and the United Kingdom to resume bilateral negotiations to find a peaceful solution to the dispute over the sovereignty of the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia Islands, South Sandwich Islands and the corresponding maritime areas. This resolution, which It is approved by consensus, reaffirming that the principle of self-determination is not applicable in this case, given that the inhabitants of the islands were established by the occupying power.
Gerardo Werthein, who headed the Argentine delegation, gave a detailed reaffirmation of Argentina's sovereignty claim. In his presentation, he emphasized the official's willingness to resume "bilateral negotiations" with London, emphasizing that there are "favorable conditions to open a new stage of dialogue."
He also denounced unilateral British actions, such as the exploration and exploitation of natural resources and military exercises, which he believes affect the ecological balance of the South Atlantic and perpetuate a colonial logic. He emphasized that the Malvinas case is a matter of territorial integrity, not self-determination, due to the nature of the settled population.
The Argentine delegation was completed by the Vice Governor of Tierra del Fuego, Monica Urquiza; the Secretary of the Malvinas Affairs of the Foreign Ministry, Paola Di Chiaro; the Secretary of the Malvinas Affairs of Tierra del Fuego, Andrés Dachary; national senators and representatives; and legislators and war veterans from the southern province.
The perpetuation of colonialism
The illegitimate Malvinas legislators, Mark Pollard and Peter Biggs, insisted on their "right to self-determination," arguing that they are a settled "people" and that the issue is one of "persons," not sovereignty. They emphasized the 2013 referendum and their desire to remain a British Overseas Territory.
However, this position conflicts with the position of the UN General Assembly and the Decolonization Committee . Under international law, the principle of self-determination does not apply in cases where the population was established by the occupying power, as occurred in the Malvinas Islands following the expulsion of the Argentine population in 1833. The UN understands that the Malvinas issue is a sovereignty dispute that should be resolved through bilateral negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom, not through a unilateral referendum legitimizing the occupation.
In a global context where colonialism is sought to be eradicated, the Kelpers' insistence on self-determination is seen as an attempt to perpetuate a colonial situation, ignoring UNGA Resolution 2065/XX and subsequent resolutions that recognize the sovereignty dispute and the existence of two parties to the conflict, Argentina and the United Kingdom. The international community, far from validating the inhabitants' choice, continues to urge dialogue to end one of the last expressions of colonialism. The "prosperity" and "autonomy" mentioned by the legislators occur under the regime of a colonial power that exploits the resources of a disputed territory, which further complicates their argument for independent decision-making.
