text: peace to the region, which all of us so devoutly wish. In particular, the key lies in paragraph 2 of that resolu- tion-the unconditiona1 demand for the immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands. 106. My delegation will certainly co-operate fully with the Secretary-General in his renewed mission, but, in the light of certain statements made by delega- tions in the debate and in explanation of vote this afternoon, I must make it clear, so that there is abso- lutely no misunderstanding, that for our part the only acceptable condition for a cease-fire is that it should be unequivocally linked with an immediate com- mencement of Argentine withdrawal. 107. The history of the past two months has done nothing to create British confidence in the Govern- ment of Argentina. First, Argentina invaded the Falk- land Islands without warning while negotiations were still in progress and in defiance of the Council’s appeal of 1 April [22345,/r nlccti,!~, pnra, 741. Secondly, we have exerted ourselves to the utmost in six rounds of negotiations for a peaceful settlement of the crisis brought about by the Argentine invasion. In every instance we have found at the end that we have travelled in a circle, or rather that we have never left the point of departure. Hence, a simple verbal agree- ment by Argentina to withdraw its forces would not be sufficient for a cease-fire. This must be on the basis of an Argentine commitment to practical and irrevocable arrangements for immediate withdrawal, 108. In the light of other statements made this afternoon, the Council should also be quite clear on another point. The situation has changed since the Secretary-General reported to the Council on 21 May [236&h nweting]. Paragraph 2 of resolution 502 (1982) is plainly stated. We are talking about Argen- tine withdrawal. We cannot now accept that Argentine 
analysis: The text appears to be a diplomatic statement addressing a conflict between two countries, specifically the Falkland Islands crisis between Argentina and the United Kingdom. The language used is formal and technical, indicating a discussion of international relations, politics, and governance. The text does not mention any specific economic, environmental, or scientific issues, but rather focuses on the resolution of the conflict.