and through you the members of the Council, that the response of the Government of Argentina to our proposals was wholly unsatisfactory. We had no choice but to regard that response, as had been the case in the previous rounds of negotiations, as a further attempt to procrastinate in order to enable Argentina to consolidate its hold on what it had seized by force. Specifically, the Argentine Government insisted on including South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands in the agreement. This was unac- ceptable to us: these islands have nothing to do with our difference over the Falklands. They are nearly 1,000 miles away. They do not comprise an archi- pelago. They were administered from the Falklands only as a matter of convenience. They are unin- habited. Our title to them rests on totally different grounds compared with our title to the Falklands. Furthermore, the Government of Argentina insisted on an unequal process of withdrawal of forces which my Government could not accept. The Government of Argentina rejected the continuation in being, during the interim period, of the democratic institutions in the islands which have been developed over the years in accordance with our obligations under Article 73 of the Charter. Argentina was only prepared to en- tertain the possibility that “persons” who are mem- bers of the population of British origin and Argentine residents in the islands, in equal numbers, might be appointed as “advisers” by the United Nations interim administration. This was not only ,wholly unaccept- able to us in concept, as it involved the dismantling of the democratic institutions to which I have referred, but the idea of parity in numbers of “advisers” be- tween a population of about 30 and a population of about 1,800 was ludicrous. Argentina required free- 
**Analysis**
The text appears to be a diplomatic communiqué discussing a conflict between two countries, Argentina and the United Kingdom, regarding a territorial dispute over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, and the South Sandwich Islands. The tone is formal and formal, suggesting a high-level government document. The language used is technical and legal, indicating a focus on the governance and administration of the disputed territories.

**Category**
International relations, Politics