text: outset on the clear acceptance of the three operative paragraphs of resolution 502 (1982) and willingness to negotiate. If that forum proved fruitless, it was be- cause the British matched our attitude of peace and negotiation not with a like spirit, but instead with the desire for domination of the region and with the cer- tainty that they could rely on the support of the coun- try which was soon to disregard resolution I of the Twentieth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Organization of American States (OAS), adopted in Washington on 28 April [S//.5008, (//111(‘.~], and apply immediate sanctions. 40. It was in that same spirit that my Govern- ment, in a letter dated 13 April, from the representa- tive of Argentina to the President of the Council [.YCP S//#Y75,~rnizc.\-], welcomed the Peruvian truce pro- posal [S//4966, dnnc~.r], which the United Kingdom rejected. 41. We must stress here that it was precisely when Argentina was considering other peace proposals that the United Kingdom proceeded to sink the cruiser GPIWIW~ Bel,~mo , outside the exclusion zone or, rather, the blockade zone, an act without precedent, to which I shall refer later. That horrible act of aggres- sion and the attitude of the British caused the failure of these further peace moves, as has been publicly stated by the Government of the sister Republic of Peru [.V(YJ S/1.507/, cInnc.r]. 42. None the less, the British have continued to accuse my Government of being intransigent. They have also done so here in the Council. Does this mean that, for the British Government, anyone who does not accept its demands is for that reason automatically described as “intransigent” and “inflexible”? This arrogance can be seen in the efforts of the extensive British propaganda machinery to convince world 
analysis: The text appears to be a diplomatic statement, likely from the Argentine Government, responding to the actions of the United Kingdom during the Falklands War. The language used is formal and diplomatic, with references to international organizations and resolutions. The text discusses the failed attempts at negotiations and the accusations of intransigence made by the British Government. Given the context and tone of the text, it is likely that the category is related to international relations or diplomacy.