How 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.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Decolonization needed the UN's framework to succeed Without the UN providing a structure where newly independent nations had equal status and a voice, decolonization might have resulted in continued informal empire or Commonwealth arrangements. The UN gave these countries both legitimacy and a platform to resist neo-colonial pressures.
4. The next Secretary-General selection could determine the UN's survival With the current term ending in 2025, the choice of the next leader—requiring agreement between Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping—may be the UN's last chance for relevance. Without strong leadership focused on the UN's core peacemaking function, the institution may not survive.
5. The UN worked best when it rejected Cold War binary thinking The non-aligned movement wasn't passive neutrality but active rejection of a world divided into camps. Leaders like U Thant succeeded by creating space for all parties to negotiate without choosing sides, offering an alternative to the superpower confrontation that risked nuclear war.
Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
keenon.substack.com/subscribe
