U Thant was a Burmese diplomat and the third Secretary-General of the United Nations. He assumed the role following the death of Dag Hammarskjöld in a plane crash in the Congo in 1961, and soon became one of the most consequential players in international affairs for over a decade.

Thant's contributions to some of the key global challenges of the era were widely celebrated at the time but have since been overlooked—until now. A brilliant new biography, Peacemaker: U Thant and the Forgotten Quest for a Just World, places the former Secretary-General at the heart of several crucial moments of the 1960s, including the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, post-colonial struggles in the Congo, and much more.

The book is written by Thant Myint-U, a historian who has worked at the United Nations—and who also happens to be U Thant's grandson. In our conversation, Thant describes how his grandfather went from being a schoolteacher in rural Burma to, just 15 years later, playing a key role in mediating the Cuban Missile Crisis as UN Secretary-General. We also discuss Thant's efforts to end the Vietnam War before it escalated, and his work confronting a fascist regime in a breakaway region of the Congo. More broadly, we explore the lessons that the current UN system and its Secretary-General can draw from U Thant's remarkable tenure.

Thant Myint-U is the author of Peacemaker: U Thant and the Forgotten Quest for a Just World.

My interview guest today, Axel Marschik, is a veteran Austrian diplomat who has thought extensively about how the General Assembly can play a more robust role in peace and security when the Security Council fails to do so. In a paper that was widely discussed around the UN, Ambassador Marschik proposed that the General Assembly craft pre-authorized sanctions that would be automatically triggered if the Security Council is "unable or unwilling to act to confront some of the most serious violations of international law, including aggression and mass atrocity crimes."

Under his proposal, the General Assembly would design a suite of sanctions in the abstract that would become very real—and automatically imposed on the offending party—through a General Assembly vote should the Security Council fail to take meaningful action.

In our conversation, Ambassador Marschik fleshes out this idea, including what sorts of sanctions he has in mind and how to translate this concept into a General Assembly resolution creating such a mechanism. Ambassador Marschik currently serves as Austria's Ambassador to Germany and previously served as Austria's Permanent Representative to the UN from 2020 to 2025.

This episode of Global Dispatches is produced in partnership with Lex International Fund, a philanthropic initiative dedicated to strengthening international law to solve global challenges. It's part of our ongoing series highlighting the real-world impact of treaties on state behavior, called "When Treaties Work."

On October 29, Tanzania held national presidential elections — and lo and behold, incumbent President Samia Suluhu Hassan "won" with a staggering 98% of the vote.

Everyone knew what was going on. The election was a sham from the start: her main rival is sitting in prison awaiting a treason trial, and the election commission that certified her landslide is stacked with loyalists.

Election hijinks aren't new in Tanzania, which has effectively been a one-party state for decades. What was new this time was the public reaction. Tanzanians — who don't have the same protest culture you see in nearby Kenya — poured into the streets in massive demonstrations demanding political change. For a moment, it felt like something was shifting. And then, just days later, security forces violently shut it all down, killing an unknown number of people.

My guest today, Constantine Manda, an assistant professor at UC Irvine, helps unpack what happened and why this moment matters. We start with the political logic behind Samia declaring herself the 98% winner, then dig into what these protests and the crackdown reveal about Tanzania's political future.

2025 marks 50 years of the Biological Weapons Convention. Back in 1975, the treaty entered into force, and by banning biological weapons worldwide, it became the first global treaty to prohibit a particular weapon of war. The Biological Weapons Convention is widely adopted — 189 States Parties have pledged to never develop, produce, stockpile, or use biological weapons. And thankfully, these weapons have not featured much in modern conflict. But over the last 50 years, profound advances in the life sciences and bio research have emerged which, according to my guest today, pose a distinct challenge to this treaty.

Jaime Yassif is the Vice President for Global Biological Policy and Programs at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit global security organization focused on reducing nuclear, biological, and emerging technology threats. We kick off by discussing the history of this treaty, including why the time was right 50 years ago for it to come together. We spend most of our conversation, though, exploring the ways in which this treaty might be strengthened to adapt to a changing landscape of potential biological weapons risks today.

This episode is produced in partnership with Lex International Fund, a philanthropic initiative dedicated to strengthening international law to solve global challenges. It's part of our ongoing series highlighting the real-world impact of treaties on state behavior, called "When Treaties Work."

About a year and a half ago, I published an episode of Global Dispatches titled "A Genocidal Massacre Is Looming in Darfur." At the time, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces had conquered nearly all of Darfur, in western Sudan, except for its largest city, El Fasher. The RSF was laying siege to the city in preparation for an assault, and everything we knew about how this group operates suggested that if El Fasher fell, a mass atrocity would follow. Earlier this month, as it became apparent that the RSF was poised to launch its final assault, I published another episode explaining what was at stake.

On October 27, El Fasher fell.

And now, hundreds of thousands of civilians trapped in the city are being systematically killed. What is happening in El Fasher today was both predicted and predictable. The RSF are the rebranded Janjaweed—the same militia that carried out the first Darfur genocide twenty years ago. And since Sudan's civil war began in April 2023, every city in Darfur that has fallen to the RSF has become the site of ethnic massacres and credible accusations of genocide. Now the largest city in the region and last bastion of resistance has fallen and a major mass atrocity event is underway.

My guest today, Mutasim Ali, is the same person I interviewed for that episode a year and a half ago. He is from El Fasher and serves as a legal advisor to the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights. We kick off discussing the significance of El Fasher in the context of Sudan's civil war and discuss the RSF's history of violence before having a long discussion about events ongoing in El Fasher today and what needs to be done to stop this violence. It's a heavy conversation, but worthy of your attention.

Support our coverage with your paid subscription

https://www.globaldispatches.org/40percentoff

Cameroonians went to the polls earlier this month in national elections, and on October 27th, a constitutional commission packed with loyalists confirmed that 92-year-old incumbent Paul Biya had won an eighth consecutive term in office. If he serves out his term, Biya will be 99 years old.

After 43 years in office, Cameroonians are used to the electoral shenanigans that have kept Biya in power. But this time, things feel different, according to my guest today, Tony Vinyoh. He's a Cameroonian writer who spoke to me from an undisclosed location in Cameroon. There are protests underway throughout the country, and people are being detained by security forces for questioning the official election results (hence the need for this security protocol.)

We kick off discussing the volatile political situation in Cameroon right now, with two politicians claiming victory. Tony Vinyoh then explains why the prevailing mood in the country is profoundly different compared to the aftermath of previous (rigged) elections. He lays out where the unrest is headed and why Cameroonians are clamoring for outside mediation.

Please support our global reporting with your paid subscription

https://www.globaldispatches.org/

North Korea has been extremely repressive for a very long time. But over the last several years, the crackdowns have gotten worse. New reporting from The Economist shows how the regime is clamping down on South Korean cultural influences, strengthening its border to prevent escape, and sharply curtailing what were already limited free markets. My guest today, Patrick Foulis, calls this the "North Koreafication of North Korea," and it comes after a period of relative easing.

Patrick Foulis is the foreign editor of The Economist. We kick off by discussing the various ways in which these crackdowns are happening before having a longer conversation about why Kim Jong Un's North Korea is tightening repression — much of which has to do with its changing relationships with Russia, China, and even the United States.

The Security Council is deep into negotiations around authorizing an international stabilization force for Gaza. But even if the Council approves such a mission, will it actually deploy? In this episode of To Save Us From Hell, Mark and Anjali share their doubts. Also up: the Trump administration blew up a global deal to put a price on carbon in international shipping — a move that would have pushed the industry toward zero emissions. Mark and Anjali break down this latest clash between Washington and the U.N. But first, Anjali and Mark sit down with Heba Aly, director of a new coalition called Article 109, which is taking on a bold mission: reforming the U.N. Charter itself. Article 109 is a little-known provision of the Charter that enables member states to review and revise it — but it's never been invoked. So, is now the right time to open up the U.N. Charter to review? What would that actually entail? And is it even a good idea? Listen and learn!

The full episode is available for our paying subscribers. https://www.globaldispatches.org/40percentoff