rejected the approach supported by the Council aad the negotiations between the parties and virtually struck out everything positive that had been achieved with the help of the efforts of the Secretary-General during those negotiations. He said outright that under changed circumstances his Government could net agree to the withdrawal of Argentine troops in aaY manner whatsoever being linked with a parallel &par- ture of the British troops. Once again the demands of Britain for conditions relating to the cease-fire were IO delivered in the form of an ultimatum. And I must say that once again, today, the statement of the repre- sentative of the United Kingdom was delivered in the similar form of an ultimatum. 106. Thus, the current round of negotiations, like the preceding one, has ended in failure. The reason for this is clear: it is the stubborn unwillingness of the British Government to settle the problem of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) by peaceful means, by negotiations in good faith, Disregarding a]] appeals for a peaceful settlement of the conflict, and decisions of the Council, the British Government at every stage chose to build up its armed forces in the region of the conflict and to broaden the scope of its military actions. 107. No one can doubt that responsibility for the failure of thle efforts of the Secretary-General lies with the British Government, which, as can be seen from developments in the conflict now, relied exclusively on armed force and unleashed in the South Atlantic a large-scale colonial war. London’s actions demon- strate quite clearly the insincerity of its declared willingness to resolve the dispute with Argentina over the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) by nego- tiations. The manoeuvring of British diplomacy with the adoption by the Council of the two resolutions and the ne,gotiations through the Secretary-General 
**Analysis**
The text appears to be a diplomatic statement or report, discussing the failed negotiations between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) conflict. The language used is formal and critical, indicating a high-level diplomatic communication. The focus is on the conflict itself, the negotiations, and the actions of the parties involved, rather than any specific economic, environmental, or social issue.

**Category**
International relations, Humanitarian aid and relief