text: IS 14 (XV), 2065 (XX) and 3160 (XXVIII). Those resolutions recognize that the situation is essentially colonial in nature. Council resolution 502 (1982) is faulty, too, because it has not contributed to the pro- motion of a peaceful settlement of the dispute, for the British Government has escalated the war. 162. Furthermore, resolution 502 (1982) is at odds with the letter and spirit of the General Assembly resolutions I have mentioned. It endeavours to main- tain the sfmr.s +IO rrrzte, which had been condemned by the international community precisely because it was anachronistic and colonial in nature. Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that resolution 502 (1982) was pro- posed by the delegation of the United Kingdom, that country has not abided by it. 163. But the situation I have described becomes even more serious when one realizes that another permanent member of the Security Council, which by its vote contributed to the adoption of resolution 502 ( 1982), has pledged political and material support to the United Kingdom. This position of the United States is deplorable. In addition to going against the letter and spirit of paragraph I of resolution 502 (1982), it has, with its support and co-operation, made it pos- sible for the Government of the United Kingdom to feel encouraged to carry out and capable of carrying out wide-scale armed actions against the Argentine Republic. Yet the majority of international public opinion, and even its trading allies in the European Common Market, have opposed those actions. 164. Not only because of its deep and age-old bonds with the sister Argentine Republic, but also because of its deep commitment to and firm support for the cause of peace, Peru has viewed the evolution of this crisis with growing concern. Right from the start, the constitutional Government of Peru led by 
analysis: The text appears to be a diplomatic document discussing a political conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina, and the role of the United States and other international actors in the crisis. The language used is formal and diplomatic, with no references to economic, environmental, or social issues that would typically fall under the categories of economic development, natural resources, or health, for example. The focus is on the political situation, international relations, and the actions of governments, which suggests that the most fitting category would be related to international politics.