Was the United Nations effective in keeping the peace?

Answer 1

Depending on the mission criteria you set for the UN, I'd say yes they have.

Bear in mind that the UN is technically unarmed, poorly funded, and has no truly enforceable mandate. As such, you can't expect total world peace as a result of UN operations.

However, within the scope of what the UN actually can do, I think they get a passing grade.

Before leaping to an alternate answer, think for a moment and ask yourself (or others!) what the UN could have done that they failed to do.

Answer 2

If one is talking about possibly helping to resolve isolated disagreements, perhaps there has been some degree of success in preventing armed conflict. But if we are talking about true peace (not just the absence of war) then it has been a failure. Since it's inception in 1945 and even going back to its predecessor (League of Nations) there has not been a period when there has not been war in one part of the world or another. This is not due to a lack of effort, but to Man's inability to rule or guide himself independent of God's direction (see Jeremiah 10:23). Daniel 2:44 speaks of a kingdom (or Government) that will bring peace to the earth and stand forever.

Answer 3

The United Nations began with 50 or so nations that wanted to work for a peaceful world following WW 2. The members held great promise that the UN could help avoid major conflicts between nations, however, it soon became a reality that such a mission would be difficult. The first major war problem began with the Korean War. The UN opposed North Korea's invasion of South Korea. Since then armed conflicts have erupted throughout the world. From the Middle East to revolution in China. Civil Wars like that in Syria continue to this day. Keeping world peace has been difficult.

Answer 4

according to me UNO is failed in preventing local wars from the world because ,there are lot of problems unsolved by UNO .America and Iran war is the most important example of this failure.

Answer 5

Not often