resolution, as well as those contained in paragraph I of resolution 502 (1982). But the British claim would go even further, by trying to use the means estab- lished in paragraph 4 of resolution 505 (1982) to set forth an ultimatum. In fact, the points which were submitted by the United Kingdom to the Secretary- General and transmitted by the Secretary-General to my delegation were the following: first, the primary British condition for the cease-fire is the withdrawal of the Argentine troops within a deadline; secondly, the concept of simultaneous withdrawal of troops is not accepted; and thirdly, the withdrawal of British troops would be considered only after the following 6 objectives had been attained: (N) repossession of the islands; (h) restoration of the British administration. that is to say, a return to the status LIIIO mtc; (c> recon- struction; and (d) consultation with the inhabitants, 62. The withdrawal could take place once these four stages had been met and in the context of an interna- tional security arrangement for the islands which would include the participation of United States forces. 63, Those were the British ideas. The intransigence of those ideas and their firm military objective con- tinually blocked the various alternative formulas for negotiation through systematic rejection of a cease-fire implying a cessation of military action; rejection of any form of United Nations presence in the imple- mentation of a cease-fire; rejection of the participa- tion of the “blue helmets” and of their take-over of the areas occupied by the Argentine forces upon their withdrawal-in short, rejection of the cease- fire. 64. The situation is clear: the Council, in the view of the United Kingdom, should validate the restoration of a colonial situation, with a military force to secure it, and the United Nations would not necessarily 
**Analysis**
The text appears to be discussing a political and military conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina, specifically regarding the Falkland Islands/Malvinas. The language used is formal and diplomatic, suggesting that the text is a report or statement from a government or international organization. The text does not mention any specific economic, environmental, or social issues related to the conflict.

**Category**
International relations