{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","provider_name":"Transistor","provider_url":"https://transistor.fm","author_name":"Keen On America","title":"When the United Nations Actually Mattered: Remembering the Burmese Schoolteacher who Ran the U.N. in its Glory Days","html":"","width":"100%","height":180,"duration":3383,"description":"\n\nHow to bring peace to Gaza and Ukraine? Maybe the United Nations can help. Or, sadly, maybe not. But there really was a time, in the second half of the 20th century, when the United Nations could help bring peace to supposedly insoluble wars. The U.N.'s glory days were in the Sixties when it was run by a former Burmese school teacher called U Thant. His incredible story is told by his grandson, the Cambridge University historian Thant Myint-U, in a new book appropriately called Peacemaker. Thant Myint-U reminds us of a halcyon time when the UN Secretary-General could summon presidents at will, mediate between nuclear superpowers, and command respect from Castro to Kennedy. Today's forgotten history reveals how U Thant's intervention during the Cuban Missile Crisis helped prevent nuclear war—a role not-so-surprisingly airbrushed from most American and Soviet accounts. Yes, even in the glory years of the Sixties, the bureaucratized U.N. was far from perfect. But under a dedicated peacemaker like U-Thant it could help bring ceasefires to seemingly endless wars. Like in Ukraine and Gaza.\n\n\n\n\n1. U Thant's crucial role in preventing nuclear war has been erased from history During the Cuban Missile Crisis, U Thant provided the face-saving framework that allowed both Khrushchev and Kennedy to step back from the brink. He articulated the missiles-for-no-invasion deal, gave Khrushchev a neutral party to respond to instead of American ultimatums, and bought Kennedy time against his hawkish advisors. Yet this intervention barely appears in American or Soviet accounts.\n2. The UN's decline stems from lost enthusiasm on both sides The UN's marginalization wasn't inevitable. It resulted from America's disillusionment after Vietnam-era challenges to its power, combined with a new generation of Third World leaders less interested in the global stage than their predecessors like Nehru, Nasser, and Nkrumah. Both superpowers and smaller nations stopped investing in the institution....","thumbnail_url":"https://img.transistorcdn.com/bCpvkYgrorWYCv4ujOodZ7o-xqCKvQH-YHlEI5E7zpw/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:400/h:400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS83NDM2/MGJjOTYyNjBkYzJi/ZDVhMTUwZDgwMWE3/ZDk3OS5wbmc.webp","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":300}