text: true of ail South and North America. Nothing said on the current crisis or the historical claims of Argentina sets the Falkland Islands apart from the history of 72. The most recent instance, which I should like to quote, in which Argentina took a stand against the use of force in solving international disputes was the repre- sentative of Argentina’s recorded reservation on the communiquC of the Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Heads of Delegations of the Non-Aligned Countries to the thirty-sixth session of the General Assembly, held in New York from 25 to 28 Septem- ber 1981, That reservation reads, in part: “The Government of the Argentine Republic re- serves its position with regard to expressions of support for armed struggle as a means of resolving conflicts or controversies. It is not considered acceptable to resort to force, for resorting to force 6 violence and occupation of the rest of the Americas, from the north to the south. The peopling of the two continents is the result of colonial history. We do not have to be lovers of colonialism to say that it is part of our unfortunate past. Others, including those who like to rewrite history, claim it to be part of their national heritage. 69. No Argentine, living or dead, could claim to have lived under colonial rule over the last one hundred years. We were born and bred under colonialism, which we struggled to eliminate. Our own people and part of our continent are still under the vilest form of colonialism. Viewed this way, Argentina is engaged in a pure territorial claim against the United Kingdom based on history, in total disregard of the people who now live on the Falkland Islands. I am not qualified to state whether or not the claims are valid, but if we 
analysis: The text appears to be a diplomatic or political statement, focusing on the historical claims of Argentina and its relationship with the Falkland Islands, rather than a specific issue related to economic development, natural resources, or other tangible aspects. It seems to be more concerned with the political and symbolic aspects of the dispute.