text: 2105. The PRESIDENT (intcrpr~ttrtion ,fiwm Chi- I~~‘.so): The next speaker is the representative of Canada. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement, 2106. Mr. PELLETIER (Canada): I should like at the outset to congratulate you, Sir, on your assump- tion of the presidency of the Council. It is a difficult and challenging assignment which has been thrust upon you. 207. It is with the deepest regret that my delega- tion has felt obliged to request the permission of the Council members to address them once again on the question of the Falkland Islands. My regret is pro- found because my speaking today is a consequence of failure, the failure of one party to the dispute to adhere to the provisions of a decision taken by the Council on 3 April. It is also a consequence of the sad lack of success of the courageous and persistent efforts undertaken by the Secretary-General to seek grounds on which to implement Council resolution 502 (1982) and to establish a framework for direct negotiations bjetween Argentina and the United Kingdom to resolve their differences in this dispute. 208. My delegation has listened to the debate with glreat attentiveness, There have been several points n-bade which, in my view, tend to depart from the central issues of principle of which the Council is seized. I should like, therefore, to address the key plaints on which, in the view of my delegation, the Council should focus its attention before any decision is’ taken on the question at hand. 209. When I participated on 2 April last in the Coun- cil debate on the Falkland question [23&r/z ~nretirz,~], I communicated the deep sense of shock of the Cana- dian Government and people that one of the States 
analysis: This text appears to be a diplomatic speech discussing a territorial dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands. The speaker, a representative of Canada, is addressing the United Nations Security Council and expressing regret that the parties involved have not been able to resolve their differences through direct negotiations. The speech does not mention economic development, natural resources, or environmental issues, but rather focuses on the political and diplomatic aspects of the conflict.