exactly the point that makes me think this aggression by the US is such a severe blow to the UN and peace.
During the Falkland crisis sanctions were imposed on Argentina, and negotiations continued throughout the conflict. When Britain presented a fait accompli, it was accepted by Argentina and the world in general.
When South Korea was invaded, the UN called on all member nations to assist. The US assistance was the most significant, of course.
Vietnam is a different matter. The US was not 'officially' there. Theoretically, there were 'a few' civilian 'advisors' invited by the South Vietnam government. So that the UN would not have to take official notice (which would have been blocked by US veto power, of course).
Again, there is no UN resolution calling for an invasion of Iraq, no matter what Bush says. And a tradition as long as the UN has been in existence that an armed attack on another country that is not sanctioned by the UN will have serious consequences mandated by the UN.
This makes it very difficult if not impossible for the UN to continue to have a legitimate effect on world conflicts. |
