In order to be as effective as possible in promoting and maintaining international peace and security, and in order to "save face" and not foolishly over-extend its limited powers, the United Nations must carefully apply those powers according to the circumstances of each individual crisis. The Falkland/Malvinas crisis was from the start an event which precluded any military or even economic steps on the part of the UN. Events escalated quickly in the crisis, and the isolated region of the conflict made it unlikely from the start that the UN would take a crucial role in resolving the crisis.

After the crisis deepened quickly in a few days and it became clear that Great Britain and Argentina were on a collision course over the possession and fate of the islands in dispute, the Secretary-General of the UN appealed to both nations for restraint. The Security Council met and made the same plea. Argentina invaded the islands to enforce its territorial claim, and Britain responded by offering Resolution 502, which demanded Argentine withdrawal. At the same time, the UN had in other resolutions generally accepted that B

Perez de Cuellar's statement underscores the limitations of the UN. Its greatest power is the power which nations can squeeze out of it in individual cases for their own purposes. The UN has moral clout which nations can manipulate. Argentina blundered in that it lost its moral advantage (with respect to control of the islands) by using military force.

Once Resolution 502 was adopted, the British felt justified in taking the islands back militarily, claiming that Argentina was not obeying that resolution by withdrawing.Here again, the UN's power to resolve conflict is limited. The UN was not going to send in a military force to oust the Argentines from the islands, while the British were able and willing to do so. The nations involved often interpret UN resolutions differently, and that was the case in this crisis. The B