Talk:U Thant

message: Isn't "U" a Burmese equivalent of "Mr."? In that case, since we don't usually use personal titles in article titles, should it be just "Thant"? -Montréalais 18:34, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Whichever is the truth, the outcome of May 1967 played a large role in determining Israel's lasting suspicion and distrust (not to mention sometimes cynical contempt) for the United Nations -- which is why Israel has ever since insisted on U.S. truce monitors (not U.N. or multinational) wherever it could (as in the Sinai).  A significant proportion of Israelis consider that in May 1967 Israel learned the lesson the hard way that U.N. and multinational forces will never defend Israel against Israel's enemies, but will often hinder Israel's abilities to defend itself -- and fairly or unfairly, the name firmly associated with one of Israel's first big disappointments with the U.N. is U Thant... AnonMoos (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added quote from Abba Eban's autobiography which comes to much the same thing, but says it more diplomatically.  -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel and United Nations as a result of May 1967

message: Without doubt U Thant was one of the most evil & corrupt people of the twentieth century, yet he seems to have been an incredibly honest and decent person in his other work.  And he does not seem to have personally profitted from his scheme to enslave and murder a million people in the Pacific. Can anyone suggest or shine a light on this apparant contradiction? He put $200b into the hands of Robert Lovett and the Rockefeller family, and he helped Indonesia expand its reign of terror into the Pacific, but why did he do it?
First he went to the New York Times pleading for the General Assembly to make resolution 1752, then he violated his moral & legal obligations under UN Charter article 85 part 2 to tell the Trusteeship Council about the General Assembly resolution, having prevented the Trusteeship Council from being able to do its article 87 & 88 work for five years U Thant then remained silent when the Indonesian military / General Suharto sells ('67) the first illegal 30 yearing mining license to the Rockefellers and their Freeport mining company fcx.com , the next year ('68) when Indonesia is using weapons the US gave it to bomb & kill people in the Papuan highlands for the Freeport mine U Thant again remains silent. And in 1969 when his Ambassador Fernando Ortiz-Sanz is begging Indonesia to stop punishing the Papuans for pro-independence activities, and when the Ambassador begs Indonesia to allow at least some of the people to vote; again U Thant is silent.
And finally to cover-up the whole illegal mining & abuse of the territory U Thant asks the General Assembly to make a resolution 2504 to absolve him of responsibility for what he has been doing for the pass seven years. Daeron (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The evil & corrruption of U Thant 

message: Substituted at 09:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The 2004 book "Nasser: The Last Arab" by Saïd K. Aburish contains very severe criticisms of U Thant's May 1967 actions from an Arab point of view.  I don't feel like copying them down, or trying to add them to the article right now, but Aburish strongly implies that Thant's procedure of waiting for just one day (without discussing anything with international or Egyptian diplomats, or with Nasser himself, during that day), and then abruptly withdrawing all of UNEF from both the Egyptian-Israeli border and also Sharm-el-Sheikh, had the effect of greatly increasing the probability of war.  Thant's way of doing things left the Israelis feeling alone and isolated -- and with a newly-strengthened belief that United Nations assurances and guarantees were absolutely useless and worthless (see Abba Eban above) -- and it contributed to Nasser painting himself into a corner and feeling that he had to cross the Israeli "red line" of blockading the Straits of Tiran in order to keep up his respect among the Arabs, even though he may not have originally intended to do it before U Thant acted.  If part of the United Nations Secretary-General's job is to prevent wars, then U Thant sure didn't seem to be doing his job very well in May 1967... AnonMoos (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nasser asked to withdraw the UNEF. Meanwhile, Israelis didn't accept them on their border. Yet when the war broke out, BOTH SIDES blamed U Thant. Too much logic out there buddies. 98.19.45.87 (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If U Thant had withdrawn those along the Egypt-Israel border, but had left those at Sharm-el-Sheikh in place "temporarily" subject to further multilateral diplomatic discussion and negotiation, then his actions might have been less "logical", but a whole lot more effective in preventing war.  The Israeli government would not have felt that the United Nations had violated its assurances of 1957, leaving Israel isolated and vulnerable, to the same degree, while Nasser would have been less tempted to violate Israel's casus belli red line of reblockading the Straits of Tiran... AnonMoos (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of U Thant from an Arab point of view 

message: The article says he served a record term of 10 years and 1 month, but that doesn't seem to be right. It goes on to say that his term ended on 3 November 1966, and he was re-elected on 2 December. So he was out of office for at least one month (or two months if his next term started on 1 January 1967). Richard75 (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally got round to dealing with this. The 10 years and 1 month takes the vacancy into account already, although it is 3,683 days not 3,684. I added some clarification and a source. Richard75 (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duration in office