Global Dispatches -- World News That Matters

I wanted to share with you a new podcast that I've had a hand in supporting. Houston at Large is a show produced by Rice University Master of Global Affairs students Luisa Tolda and Dante Garcia. The podcast aims to analyze Houston's role in international matters such as immigration, energy, and trade. The first episode of this series, presented today, features Dr. Tony Payan, Director of the Claudio X. González Center for the U.S. and Mexico at the Baker Institute at Rice University. In this episode, Dr. Payan discusses a range of issues, including how immigration impacts Houston and how current events, such as the Iran conflict, have affected Houston, a major energy hub. Congratulations to these students for bringing this podcast to life! Now here are Luisa Tolda and Dante Garicia.         

Days of Love and Rage: A Story of Ordinary People Forging a Revolution by Anand Gopal takes readers to the Syrian city of Manbij before, during, and after the civil war. Against all odds, the people of Manbij evicted the Assad regime from the city and built a democracy from scratch, even as civil war raged throughout the country. This experiment in self-rule was complex and inspiring, but ultimately short-lived: the Islamic State eventually took over the city, destroying the trappings of democracy that the women and men of Manbij had built for themselves. Days of Love and Rage is one of the best books I have read in a very long time, and I was thrilled to speak with Anand Gopal about Manbij's democratic experiment and what it means for societies facing state collapse.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is the most important and impactful global agreement on nuclear weapons. 191 counties have joined the NPT since it entered into force in 1970, with just a few notable exceptions, including India, Pakistan, Israel and South Sudan. The NPT has three essential pillars: countries that do not have nuclear weapons cannot acquire them; countries that do have nuclear weapons need to work towards disarmament; and countries should have the ability to access civilian nuclear technologies, under proper safeguards. Every five years, the parties to the NPT come together for what is known as a Review Conference in which they assess progress towards these three pillars and discuss ways to enhance the treaty. The NPT RevCon, as it's known, is one the major multilateral conference on nuclear security, and it is taking place at UN from April 27 to May 22. Joining me to discuss the significance of this NPT Review Conference is Kelsey Davenport, Director for Nonproliferation Policy at the Arms Control Association. We kick off with a discussion of the NPT itself, and it's impact over the decades and then have a long conversation about the key storylines, diplomatic intrigues and key policy debates that will unfold over the next three weeks at the UN. Consider this episode your curtain-raiser for the most important global gathering on nuclear security of the half-decade. A few notes. This episode is produced in partnership with Ploughshares, a foundation committed to reducing and ultimately eliminating nuclear threats. I'll have a follow up episode at the end of conference that discusses what exactly happened during the NPT RevCon. Also, I'll be attending much of the RevCon in person. I'll be serving as something akin to a "pool reporter," covering this conference in support of dozens of international journalists who report on nuclear security issues and feeding them news and insights from the confab. This project is backed by the Stanley Center for Peace and Security Developing Story Project, an initiative to support, strengthen, and sustain reporting on nuclear weapons and related issues. I'm looking forward to this. If you are around the UN, say hi.

On Tuesday and Wednesday this week, the four candidates for UN Secretary-General made their case at the UN General Assembly. Across twelve hours spanning two days, they took questions from UN member states and civil society groups eager to learn more about their priorities, proclivities, and leadership styles should they become the next UN Secretary-General on January 1, 2027. It was a marathon — and my To Save Us From Hell co-host Anjali Dayal and I watched it all! In today's episode, we tell you what we learned. To kick things off, we explain how the process for selecting a UN Secretary-General works — and how these hearings fit into it. We then break down what we heard from each of the candidates: Michelle Bachelet, Rafael Grossi, Rebeca Grynspan, and Macky Sall, bringing you the key highlights and takeaways. Consider this your curtain-raiser for a year of public campaigning and backroom dealmaking that will result in the selection of the next UN Secretary-General in the coming months.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is causing a surge in food prices around the world — particularly in places already in the midst of a humanitarian crisis. And it's about to get worse. This is the planting season for much of Africa and Asia, and fertilizer shortages mean that farmers are cutting back. Come this fall, crop yields will be reduced. One of the epicenters of this trend is Sudan, which, after three years of civil war, is the site of the world's largest humanitarian emergency. This is where I caught up with my interview guest, Kate Philipps-Barrasso, Vice President for Policy and Advocacy at Mercy Corps, a large international humanitarian relief organization. She spoke with me from Port Sudan, on the Red Sea, where she describes the immediate impact that the war in Iran has had on access to food and water. Mercy Corps recently released a report showing how fuel, fertilizer, and shipping disruptions have affected Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, Ethiopia, and Myanmar, including the kinds of decisions farmers are making right now. The war in Iran's impact on global food prices has thus far been on the periphery of commentary about the conflict — but as this conversation shows, there is great urgency in understanding the cascading humanitarian consequences that are already unfolding.

Today's episode was recorded live at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, for the annual Lewis & Clark International Affairs Symposium. The theme of this year's symposium was Crumbling Pillars: The Age of Authoritarianism. For this live episode, I speak with Lewis & Clark professor Kyle Lascurettes about how democratic backsliding and authoritarian resilience are impacting the United Nations and other international institutions. Kyle Lascurettes and I speak for about 25 minutes before a really interesting question-and-answer session with students. A huge thank you to the students for both their great questions and for organizing the whole thing. This was the 64th annual Lewis & Clark International Affairs Symposium, which is entirely student-run. I had a great time meeting many of the students and spending the day on this gorgeous campus. 

As I am recording this on Friday, April 10, JD Vance is en route to Islamabad, Pakistan, for negotiations over a ceasefire announced on April 7. This ceasefire is shaky at best. It is clear that there was never a common understanding between Iran and the United States about what might be included in a ceasefire, but American and Iranian delegations are headed to Islamabad to discuss these details. My view is that this will likely be a long and drawn-out process with limited chances for meaningful progress in the near term. Still, the level of violence in the region is reduced from what it was before the ceasefire, and that is a good thing. There has been some reporting that China played a backroom role in helping convince Iran to come to the negotiating table, which I find interesting given the wide range of views among the Chinese foreign policy elite about how Beijing should approach this conflict. My guest today, Jacob Mardell, is Lead Analyst at Sinification, a Substack that tracks these very debates in Chinese foreign policy. He scours Chinese publications, blogs, and official statements to help the rest of us get a pulse on foreign policy debates in China. We have a long conversation about the contours of Chinese thinking about the war in Iran and the broader Middle East, including whether China might be willing or able to step in as a credible mediator, as well as the risks and opportunities China sees if the U.S. gets bogged down in another war in the Middle East.    

Pandemic Risk Assessment is an emerging scientific toolkit designed to assess how pandemic risk is evolving over time. Rather than predicting the next outbreak, it integrates evidence across scientific disciplines to identify the drivers and estimate the probabilities of pandemic outbreaks. And in so doing, it can help policymakers prioritize prevention and preparedness investments before crises emerge. Pandemic Risk Assessment is still an emerging field, but there is growing momentum to institutionalize it, with discussions exploring a range of possible models, including options inspired by bodies such as the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the UN-backed scientific body that regularly updates policymakers on the latest findings on climate change. Joining me to discuss why pandemic risk assessment is needed, what a robust scientific process might look like, and how to make it a permanent feature of our global pandemic preparedness landscape are Serina Ng and Ben Oppenheim. Ben Oppenheim is a non-resident fellow at the Berkeley Risk and Security Lab and at the Center for Global Development. Serina Ng is a Director at the World Health Organization and Executive Head of the G20 Joint Finance Health Task Force Secretariat, which is hosted at the WHO. Today's episode is produced in partnership with the United Nations Foundation as a part of a series called Before the Outbreak, which examines the role of disease surveillance in stopping the next pandemic

Many of our best surveillance tools today that were originally built to target specific diseases like polio and malaria have become critical infrastructure for outbreak response and early warning across a wide range of pathogens. This includes laboratory networks, diagnostic tools, and community health workers—all of which play vital roles in broader outbreak preparedness. In today's episode, two experts who have helped create platforms to monitor and respond to specific diseases explain how those systems have been leveraged to detect and respond to outbreaks of all kinds. Hamid Jafari served as Director of Polio Eradication for the World Health Organization's Eastern Mediterranean Region, and Krystal Burungi Mwesiga is an entomologist at the Uganda Virus Research Institute, where she works as a research and outreach associate with the Target Malaria, a not-for-profit research consortium. We kick off by discussing how these disease-specific surveillance platforms work, then broaden the conversation to how they've been adapted to respond to other outbreaks—and what can be done to make these tools even stronger. This episode is produced in partnership with the United Nations Foundation as part of a series called "Before the Outbreak" that examines the role of disease surveillance in stopping the next pandemic.

Robust disease surveillance systems are the foundation of strong public health systems and are essential to preventing, detecting, and responding to health threats before they escalate. Commitments to and investments in quality disease surveillance systems are key to smart, cost-effective public health decision-making, which is needed more than ever. Before the Outbreak is a three-part podcast series produced in partnership between Global Dispatches and the United Nations Foundation, in which we explore how the world sees, anticipates, and prepares for current and emerging health threats. Through stories and science, this series highlights the critical functions that protect us – before the outbreak begins. Our debut episode features the expertise of Dr. Ciro Ugarte, Director of Health Emergencies at the Pan American Health Organization, and Dr. Pardis Sabeti, a professor at Harvard University's School of Public Health. We begin by defining our terms—that is, what do we mean by disease surveillance? We then discuss how disease surveillance works in practice and what can be done to strengthen our global defenses against the next pandemic.

Today's episode is produced in partnership with the Global Challenges Foundation. The foundation is dedicated to raising awareness of global catastrophic risks and strengthening global governance to address them. The Global Challenges Foundation's 2026 Global Catastrophic Risks report outlines five of the biggest risks facing humanity today, including weapons of mass destruction, the topic of this episode. You can find the report at globalchallenges.org/gcr-2026. Two of the authors of the chapter on weapons of mass destruction are my guests today. Wilfred Wan is director of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and a researcher in earth system governance at the University of Oslo. Michael Wernstedt is head of Common Security at the Global Challenges Foundation. We kick off by discussing how geopolitical and military trends are increasing the risks surrounding weapons of mass destruction, before turning to a longer conversation about how to strengthen international cooperation and global governance to prevent the use of WMDs—and the catastrophe that would entail.

One year ago, in 2025, former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was extradited to The Hague to face charges of crimes against humanity and murder for orchestrating a campaign of extrajudicial killings against people he deemed to be involved in the drug trade. Over the course of several years while he was president, thousands of people were killed by police and hit squads. Now, he faces justice at the International Criminal Court. Nearly one year to the day after his extradition, Duterte faced his first major court proceeding: the confirmation of charges against him. This is a major moment for the Philippines and the International Criminal Court. Joining me to discuss the case against Rodrigo Duterte is Diane Desierto, Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School and Professor of Global Affairs at the Keough School of Global Affairs at Notre Dame. We begin by discussing the specific charges against Duterte before having a broader conversation about the significance of this case for both the Philippines and the future of the ICC.  

For the first time in nearly 70 years, it looks like there may be major political changes afoot in Cuba — driven by the United States. The Trump administration has been ratcheting up pressure on the island, including by imposing an oil embargo that is strangling the country's energy supplies. On Monday, March 16, Cuba experienced a complete collapse of its electric grid, triggering a nationwide blackout. Meanwhile, Cuba's erstwhile major patron was Venezuela, which, since the ouster of Maduro, no longer provides the support on which Havana once relied. Recent reporting also indicates that Washington and Havana are now engaged in direct talks, even as the Trump administration is explicitly seeking the ouster of President Miguel Díaz-Canel. Trump has also publicly suggested he could "take" Cuba. So will Cuba go the way of Venezuela? What role does the U.S. war in Iran play in Washington's policy toward Cuba? And might the Cuban regime survive after all? My interview guest today, James Bosworth, answers these questions and more. He writes the Latin America Risk Report on Substack, and we kick off with a brief overview of seven decades of U.S.-Cuba relations before having a longer conversation about where things stand today — and where they may be headed. https://www.globaldispatches.org/40PercentOff

Earlier last last week, he United Nations reported that around 300,000 Lebanese had been displaced since Israel opened a new front in southern Lebanon amid this widening regional conflict. Yesterday, that figure surged to more than 800,000 people forced from their homes in just a matter of days. Lebanon is where the humanitarian crisis stemming from the Iran war is most urgent at the moment—but the fallout is rapidly spreading across the region. In Gaza, humanitarian aid has dropped dramatically following Israel's decision to close a major crossing. Pakistan is bracing for refugees even as it is in the midst of its own war with the Taliban, and in Iran itself, more than 3 million people are reportedly displaced. But according to my guest today, the impact of this conflict on some of the world's most vulnerable people will be felt far beyond the region. Scott Paul is the Director of Peace and Security at Oxfam America. We begin by discussing the various crises this war has sparked across the region before turning to a broader conversation about the impact this conflict will have on humanitarian operations worldwide. In short, the ability of local and international humanitarian organizations to meet the basic needs of millions of people around the world has just become substantially more difficult because of this war. https://www.globaldispatches.org/40PercentOff

Today's episode is produced in partnership with the Global Challenges Foundation. The Foundation is dedicated to raising awareness of global catastrophic risks and strengthening global governance to address them. Global Challenges Foundation's 2026 Global Catastrophic Risks report outlines five of the biggest risks facing humanity today, including catastrophic climate change, the topic of this episode. You can find this report at globalchallenges.org/gcr-2026.  Two of the authors of the chapter on catastrophic climate change are my guests today. Manjana Milkoreit is a researcher of earth systems governance at the University of Oslo. Eva Mineur is head of climate and sustainability at Global Challenges Foundation.  We kick off by discussing what we mean by catastrophic climate change and examining examples of this phenomenon already underway around the world, before turning to a longer conversation about how to strengthen international cooperation and global governance to prevent catastrophic climate change—and the catastrophe it would entail.  

We cover a lot of ground in this week's episode of To Save Us From Hell! There are two new entrants to the race to succeed António Guterres as the next UN Secretary-General; Cindy McCain announced she is stepping down as head of the World Food Programme, meaning there will soon be a vacancy at the top of one of the largest UN agencies—one typically led by an American; and we dissect a bizarre Security Council meeting earlier this week chaired by…Melania Trump. But we begin with an extended discussion of how the new war in Iran is impacting diplomacy at the United Nations—and what role the UN may play as this conflict evolves. The full episode is immediately available after the fold for our paying subscribers. You can use the discount link to get 40% off a subscription, or, if you'd prefer, support Global Dispatches and To Save Us From Hell at full price. https://www.globaldispatches.org/40PercentOff

Things are obviously moving very fast in the Middle East. When I caught up with my guest today, Dalia Dassa Kaye, the war was in its second day. Bombings in Iran and throughout the region continued at a rapid clip, and there was little sense of when, if, or how it might end. Regular listeners of the show are no doubt familiar with Dalia Dassa Kaye. She is a senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations and the author of a new book on U.S.–Iran relations, Enduring Hostility: The Making of America's Iran Policy. She has researched and written extensively about escalatory dynamics in the region—how Iran, Israel, the United States, and Gulf countries may respond to being attacked. Now that this dynamic is clearly underway, I thought it would be useful to get her perspective on what we are seeing unfold. We kick off by discussing why the United States and Israel launched this war, given that Trump has never really articulated his motivations as the U.S. moved massive military assets to the region. We then discuss where this may head—and what might inspire de-escalation in the near future. This conversation will give you useful context as this crisis continues to develop. https://www.globaldispatches.org/  

Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth held a high-stakes meeting with Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and, according to several news reports, delivered an ultimatum: either Anthropic drops the safety guardrails built into its AI model, Claude, or it faces potentially punishing consequences—including invoking the Defense Production Act to effectively seize Claude, or banning Anthropic outright by declaring the company a "supply chain risk." At issue are Anthropic's terms of service for Claude, which prohibit the model from being used to develop or deploy lethal autonomous weapons systems—so-called "killer robots" that can identify and strike targets without meaningful human oversight. The Pentagon wants a free hand to potentially use Claude to develop these systems; Anthropic wants to prevent Claude from doing so. The outcome of this dispute is highly consequential—potentially even for the future of humanity. So-called swarms of drones and other military hardware could operate autonomously, coordinating among themselves to kill with impunity. The Pentagon worries that if it doesn't develop these systems, China might. Anthropic considers these systems an ethically abhorrent line it does not want to cross. Joining me to discuss the details of this clash between a leading AI company and the Pentagon is Anna Hehir, head of Military AI Governance at the Future of Life Institute. We kick off with a discussion of how AI systems are already integrated into the U.S. military, before turning to a longer conversation about the vast implications of whether Anthropic complies with the Pentagon's ultimatum. We also discuss how this incident illustrates the need for international agreements on lethal autonomous weapons systems, including a potential treaty now being hashed out at the United Nations.

Ethiopia is on the brink of a war that could turn into a major regional conflagration. Over the past several weeks, military forces have been moving into position across the region in a conflict that would pit the government of Ethiopia and some allied militias against Eritrea and a rebel faction from Ethiopia's northern Tigray region, among others. There are several concurrent forces driving the region toward conflict: lingering resentments and unresolved disputes from Ethiopia's civil war from 2020 to 2022; a move by the government of landlocked Ethiopia to potentially claim a Red Sea port in neighboring Eritrea; and spillover from the civil war in Sudan, where outside forces like the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are seeking to expand their regional footprint. All of this is pushing the region, seemingly inexorably, toward war. This would be a disaster. The civil war from 2020 to 2022 killed an estimated 500,000 people and exposed violent ethnic fissures in Ethiopia. This time around, many of the belligerents are the same—but they have switched sides. Back in 2020, Eritrea and Ethiopia allied to fight a rebellious group in the Tigray region. This time, Eritrea and Tigrayan rebels are joining forces to fight Ethiopia, with several other ethnic militias joining in. Also different this time is the active presence of malicious Gulf actors. Earlier this month, Reuters reported that Ethiopia had established, with UAE backing, a training camp for the Rapid Support Forces militia that is ravaging Darfur in Sudan. Several NGO groups, think tanks, and regional or specialty news outlets have picked up this story—and are sounding the alarm. But so far, we have not yet seen much Western media attention to this incipient crisis. That's tragic, given the sheer human calamity that would unfold if Ethiopia and Eritrea once again descend into a conflict that reverberates across the region. My interview guest today is journalist Zecharias Zelalem. We kick off by discussing recent moves that suggest war could break out at any moment, and then have a longer conversation about what is driving this conflict—and what might bring the region back from the brink. Support this kind of journalism with your paid subscription. https://www.globaldispatches.org/40PercentOff   

It was an odd juxtaposition: Trump's inaugural Board of Peace gathered in Washington, D.C. as the U.S. appeared to be readying for war with Iran. In this week's To Save Us From Hell episode, Mark and Anjali discuss why this Board of Peace can't really compete with the Security Council, and what its advent says about international relations today. They then discuss a looming American attack on Iran, and what that suggests about the diminishing role of international law and the much-lamented rules-based international order. Finally, they unpack a bizarre confirmation hearing for Trump's pick for assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs—who appears to be too racist for this particular role. https://www.globaldispatches.org/40PercentOff  

On February 3, the United States deployed a warship and Coast Guard vessels off the coast of Haiti, near Port-au-Prince. The move came amid political wrangling within Haiti's Transitional Presidential Council, as some members sought to block Washington's preferred candidate from becoming the next prime minister. This deployment comes amid a deepening political, security, and humanitarian crisis in Haiti that stretches back to the 2021 assassination of President Jovenel Moïse. In the wake of that killing, armed criminal gangs—once largely confined to a handful of neighborhoods in Port-au-Prince—began seizing territory. Today, a gang alliance controls most of Port-au-Prince and some surrounding areas. Meanwhile, a new UN-backed multinational security force of roughly 5,500 troops is expected to deploy in the coming weeks to help the Haitian National Police confront these gangs. My guest today is Diego Da Rin, Haiti analyst at the International Crisis Group. We begin by unpacking what this American show of force is meant to accomplish, then turn to the interlocking political, security, and humanitarian crises facing Haiti—and whether the UN-backed force can make a meaningful difference. https://www.globaldispatches.org/40PercentOff

The New START treaty, signed by the United States and Russia in 2010, limited both countries to 1,550 deployed strategic warheads, placed restrictions on how those weapons could be deployed, and included strong verification mechanisms to ensure compliance. On February 6, 2026, that treaty formally expired. And now, for the first time in decades, there is no bilateral nuclear arms agreement between the world's two foremost nuclear powers. Joining me today to discuss the implications of the expiration of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is Corey Hinderstein, Vice President for Studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. We kick off by discussing how New START built on previous arms control treaties between the United States and Russia, what it means that no such treaty now exists—and why China's rapid nuclear buildup adds a vexing new challenge to future arms control efforts. There are very few media outlets these days that consistently cover nuclear security issues, despite the existential risks posed by nuclear weapons. I'm glad to bring you this episode. If you care about the future of humanity and want to help me continue producing thoughtful conversations like this, please become a paid subscriber. I'm running a subscription drive this month—and believe me when I say every single new paid subscriber makes a real difference. https://www.globaldispatches.org/40PercentOff 

Donald Trump doesn't much like Pedro Sánchez — and the Spanish prime minister is perfectly fine with that. Unlike other European leaders who reflexively genuflect to the American president, Pedro Sánchez stands apart for his willingness to confront Trump—not for its own sake, but in service of a theory of politics that diverges sharply from many of his European counterparts. As my guest, journalist Dave Keating, puts it: "While other European leaders zig, Pedro Sánchez zags." Most recently, Sánchez enacted policies to regularize the immigration status of roughly 500,000 undocumented migrants living in Spain, granting work permits and other pathways to formally enter Spanish society and the economy. He has also resisted efforts to substantially increase defense spending, while boosting Spain's support for international development and foreign aid. In today's interview, we discuss Pedro Sánchez's unique standing in European politics, why he's sometimes shunned by other leaders in Brussels, and whether his experiment in regularizing half a million undocumented migrants can actually succeed. Dave Keating is the Brussels correspondent for France 24, writes the Gulf Stream Blues Substack, and is the author of the new book The Owned Continent: How to Free Europe from American Military, Economic, and Cultural Dependence.

For the first time in history, multiple countries have jointly nominated a candidate for UN Secretary General. Earlier this week, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico endorsed Michelle Bachelet—a former president of Chile, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and a survivor of brutal repression under the Pinochet regime. The move is unprecedented—and potentially transformative. What does it signal about the race to replace António Guterres, and how soon might more rival candidates emerge? Anjali and Mark unpack what this coordinated nomination reveals about shifting power dynamics inside the UN. They then turn to the latest Epstein document dump, which has ensnared several prominent diplomats and sent shockwaves through the diplomatic world. Finally, they confront a looming institutional crisis: the UN's cash reserves are so depleted that even the viability of this year's UNGA is now being called into question.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs has been tracking American views on foreign policy since the end of the Vietnam War. Last week, it released its 2025 survey—and the results point to a widening partisan divide on some of the most fundamental questions about America's role in the world. That was not always the case. For most of the past 50 years, Democrats, Republicans, and independents largely agreed on the proper role of the United States in the world. There were always differences, of course, but they tended to exist at the margins. On big-picture questions—such as alliances and working cooperatively with other countries—there was broad consensus. That consensus began to shift in 2015 with Donald Trump's entry into the American political scene. Now, ten years later, this latest survey shows partisan divides that are deeper than ever. America's domestic polarization has finally caught up with its foreign policy. To discuss these survey results, I'm joined by Jordan Tama, a professor at American University in Washington, DC, who specializes in the intersection of American public opinion and foreign policy. We begin by discussing the historical sources of bipartisan foreign policy consensus, before turning to a longer conversation about how and why that consensus has fractured—and what this shift suggests about the future of American foreign policy. Discount code: https://www.globaldispatches.org/subscribe?coupon=124f4694

For the past year and a half, South Sudan has been on the brink of a new civil war. A 2018 peace deal that ended the last civil war has been faltering, while the war across the border in Sudan has threatened to spill south. According to my interview guest, Daniel Akech of the International Crisis Group, the tipping point has been breached. We are now in the early stages of a new civil war in South Sudan—one that may prove even more destructive than the 2013–2018 conflict, which left an estimated 400,000 people dead. There are a number of reasons for this—not least the civil war in Sudan, which has decimated oil revenues that long underpinned South Sudan's political economy. And, as in the first civil war, ethnic tensions are being deliberately stoked, raising the prospect of mass atrocities. We kick off by discussing recent events on the ground in South Sudan, including an offensive by opposition forces sparked by the arrest and prosecution of Riek Machar, a former vice president who led one side of the previous civil war. We then explore the potential trajectory of this conflict, how it is intimately tied to the war in Sudan, and the role of key regional actors. South Sudan is a new country, having gained independence from Sudan in 2011—but just two years later, civil war erupted, killing hundreds of thousands, displacing millions, and destroying infrastructure across the country. This new outbreak of violence may lead to something just as bad— or worse — but has received little attention in the Western press.

One year ago, the United States was winning the global fight against HIV/AIDS. Thanks largely to American leadership, infections and deaths from HIV/AIDS have dropped precipitously over the past 20 years, ever since the U.S. government made combating the disease a global priority. Some once–hard-hit countries in sub-Saharan Africa were even on track to become AIDS-free by 2030. But then, suddenly and without warning, Donald Trump issued an executive order on January 24, 2025 that all but ended U.S. funding for global HIV/AIDS relief. One year on, people have lost access to treatment, and the specter of a resurgence of HIV/AIDS—after years of steady decline—now looms. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is cutting bilateral deals with countries like Zambia, releasing health and development assistance in exchange for access to natural resources and mining concessions. Joining me from rural Zambia is journalist Andrew Green, who is in the midst of a reporting project documenting the impact of these cuts on HIV/AIDS prevention efforts around the world. We kick off by discussing the historic role the United States played in the fight against HIV/AIDS before turning to what has been lost—and how countries across sub-Saharan Africa are responding.

Can Donald Trump's new Board of Peace really compete with the Security Council? Will we even be discussing it a week or two from now, or will Trump and other world leaders simply move on? And what's with the Board's logo, which looks almost like a parody of the United Nations emblem? Mark and Anjali break down the newest—and perhaps strangest—entrant into the multilateral peace and security space, answering these questions and more. But first, they take stock of the major stories set to dominate the agenda at the United Nations as the world body closes out its 80th year. https://www.globaldispatches.org/

Protests sweeping Iran are unlike anything the regime has faced since coming to power in 1979. What began as demonstrations by shopkeepers in Tehran over the sharply devalued Iranian rial quickly morphed into sustained, nationwide anti-government protests. The government responded with extreme brutality, killing thousands of people—and in doing so, once again put itself in the crosshairs of the United States. Donald Trump has publicly encouraged the protesters and is threatening military action against the Iranian government. Could the United States strike Iran yet again? Why are Israel and America's Gulf allies—normally among the loudest advocates of confronting Tehran—suddenly urging restraint? And if the U.S. does launch a strike, how might Iran respond? My guest today, Dalia Dassa Kaye, literally wrote the book on the long and fraught relationship between the United States and Iran. A senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations and the author of Enduring Hostility: The Making of America's Iran Policy, she has spent years studying how escalatory cycles between Washington and Tehran unfold. We begin by discussing why this protest movement is fundamentally different from those that came before—and then examine why the military options now being debated in Washington are unlikely to produce their intended results. As a crackdown intensifies in Iran and Trump weighs conducting strikes, this conversation gives you useful context for understanding events as they unfold.

On Christmas Day, the United States launched a series of missile strikes in Nigeria, ostensibly against jihadist groups. In the weeks prior, Donald Trump had been claiming that Christians in Nigeria were being subjected to systematic attacks by such groups, and he framed these strikes as a "Christmas present" that killed jihadist leaders and destroyed terrorist camps. But that does not seem to have been the case. The strikes largely targeted an area in northwest Nigeria that is not home to any major jihadist group, and credible independent analysts have not found evidence of any deaths. Last week, a New York Times report found unexploded Tomahawk missiles lying in a field. So what is actually going on here? My guest today, Amaka Anku, is the head of Eurasia Group's Africa Practice. She was in Nigeria at the time of the strikes, which she said caused considerable bewilderment among Nigerians. We kick off by discussing what we know about the missile strikes and why the region targeted was politically convenient for both the American and Nigerian governments. We then have a longer conversation about what these American missile strikes say—and don't say—about Nigeria's multiple security challenges. Support the show! https://www.globaldispatches.org/

Danes are reeling from the aggressive nature of Donald Trump's designs on Greenland — but there is little they can do to stop the United States from acquiring the territory, whether by force or coercion. This is an odd position for Denmark, which has long been one of America's staunchest allies, as well as a core member of the European Union and NATO. My interview guest, Søren Lippert, is the CEO of an independent security policy think tank in Denmark, Ny Verden ("New World" in English). We kick off by briefly discussing the historic, cultural, and political relationship between Greenland and Denmark before moving into a longer conversation about the vast implications of America's aggressive posture toward Greenland. As he explains, Denmark, Europe, NATO, and the very foundations of the transatlantic alliance are all imperiled by Trump's quixotic desire to make Greenland part of the United States.  Support the show. https://www.globaldispatches.org/

I'm joined by one of my favorite fellow podcasters and Substackers, Kaiser Kuo, host of the long-running Sinica Podcast, for a wide-ranging conversation on China, Venezuela, and America's shifting role in the world. We start by unpacking how trade ties between Venezuela and China have produced a deeply imbalanced relationship between Caracas and Beijing, before turning to Beijing's reaction to Trump's audacious move in Venezuela and the broader foreign-policy message it sends. What does China make of this "Donroe Doctrine"? What does it mean for Beijing's claims in Asia, including Taiwan? And as the United States retreats from the liberal international order it once championed, is China prepared—or even willing—to step into the void? https://www.globaldispatches.org/40percentoff

The Security Council convened an emergency meeting on Monday in response to American military operations in Venezuela that captured Nicolás Maduro and his wife— forcing dozens of countries to publicly respond to one of the most audacious U.S. actions in recent memory. Anjali and Mark break down what unfolded in the chamber: which countries issued the strongest condemnations, which were more restrained, and which attempted to thread the needle between defending a core principle of the UN Charter and avoiding the wrath of Donald Trump. They also ask a larger question: can an American foreign policy openly premised on hemispheric domination, resource extraction, and territorial expansion coexist with a United Nations designed to prevent exactly that? Is this an existential moment for the UN? Can the rules-based international order survive? And why has Somalia's UN ambassador suddenly landed in MAGA crosshairs? We discuss all this—and more! https://www.globaldispatches.org/40percentoff  

In a stunning U.S. military operation carried out in the early hours of Saturday, January 3rd, American forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. As of Saturday afternoon Eastern Time, the two were en route to New York, where they are expected to face criminal charges tied to a U.S. indictment issued roughly five years ago. The operation follows months of escalating confrontation between Washington and Caracas. The Trump administration had already carried out military strikes on vessels accused of drug smuggling and seized oil tankers off Venezuela's coast. Hours after Maduro's capture, President Trump declared that the United States would now "run Venezuela," offering few details—but repeatedly emphasizing that the U.S. would soon control the country's vast oil reserves. To help us understand what just happened and what may come next, I'm joined from Bogotá, Colombia by Elizabeth Dickinson, deputy director for Latin America at the International Crisis Group. We discuss what is known so far about the operation, the risks facing Venezuela in the days ahead, and why this moment bears uncomfortable similarities to the U.S. overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the occupation of Iraq more than two decades ago. Support Global Dispatches with your paid subscription! https://www.globaldispatches.org/   

In 2022, countries agreed to negotiate an international treaty to end plastics pollution. They gave themselves a two-year deadline to finalize the treaty text — and needless to say, that deadline has not been met. The conventional wisdom is that these treaty negotiations are hopelessly gridlocked, with some countries pushing for a wide-ranging agreement while others insist on something far more narrow. But according to my guest today, Maria Ivanova, there is a potential path forward. Maria Ivanova is one of the world's leading experts on international environmental treaties. She is the Director of the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University and Co-Director of the Plastics Center at Northeastern. We kick off discussing the fundamentally global nature of plastics pollution — and why this treaty process was launched when it was in 2022. We then turn to a longer conversation about the key geopolitical divisions that have stymied progress, before Maria Ivanova explains how countries might move beyond seemingly intractable positions and finally kickstart progress toward a binding international treaty on plastics pollution.  

Today's episode is produced in partnership with the Global Challenges Foundation. The Foundation is dedicated to raising awareness of global catastrophic risks and strengthening global governance to address them. Global Challenges Foundation's 2026 Global Catastrophic Risks report outlines five of the biggest risks facing humanity today, including ecological collapse, the topic of this episode. You can find this report at globalchallenges.org/gcr-2026.  Two of the authors of the chapter on ecological collapse are my guests today. David Obura is the director of CORDIO East Africa, a nonprofit research organization based in Kenya, and chair of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Eva Mineur is head of climate and sustainability at Global Challenges Foundation. We kick off by discussing what we mean by ecological collapse and examining examples of this phenomenon already underway around the world, before turning to a longer conversation about how to strengthen international cooperation and global governance to prevent ecological collapse—and the catastrophe it would entail.    

Your very own To Save Us From Hell co-host Anjali Dayal briefed the United Nations Security Council on Monday! She was paired with former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for a special meeting of the Council dedicated to examining the role of the Secretary-General and the process for selecting Antonio Guterres's successor. Anjali gives co-host Mark Leon Goldberg a behind-the-scenes account of what it's like to sit in the briefers' chair at the famous horseshoe table and shares highlights from the meeting. After the paywall, Mark and Anjali discuss a glowing New Yorker profile of International Atomic Energy Agency chief—and UN Secretary-General candidate—Rafael Grossi. It's certainly a PR coup for the Argentine, but does PR really matter when it comes to running for UN Secretary-General? We discuss! And one more thing: this is the 50th episode of To Save Us From Hell. Fifty episodes of deep dives into power, politics, and the UN's place in the world. Huge thanks to everyone who listens—and especially to our paid subscribers, who make this show possible. If you've been on the fence, now's the moment: grab a paid subscription using the discount link below, get access to our full episodes and support the show with a cult following around the UN! https://www.globaldispatches.org/40percentoff 

In 1998, 120 countries came together to adopt the Rome Statute, creating what would become the International Criminal Court. Four years later, that treaty entered into force, and the ICC officially opened its doors as a permanent court tasked with prosecuting individuals accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Now, looking around the world today, it's clear the ICC has not put an end to war crimes or crimes against humanity. But even so, the court—and the treaty that created it—have profoundly shaped international politics in ways that are often overlooked. My guest today is Mark Kersten. He's a Senior Consultant with the Wayamo Foundation and an Assistant Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of the Fraser Valley in British Columbia. We start with a brief history of the ICC, and then dig into how the court has influenced not just legal definitions of war crimes and crimes against humanity, but how states themselves behave. When we spoke, Mark had just returned from the ICC's annual Assembly of States Parties—the court's main governing body. He explains why that meeting offers a window into some of the biggest challenges the ICC now faces, including the very real possibility of U.S. sanctions—not just against individual court officials, but against the institution itself. 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."  

2025 was a year of global protests. More than 70 countries across every region of the world experienced anti-government demonstrations. Some of these movements — such as those in Nepal and Madagascar — led to the toppling of governments; others emerged in countries with little history of protest, like Tanzania. Many were youth-led, with Gen Z protesters drawing inspiration from one another across borders. My guest today is Thomas Carothers, director of the Democracy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he runs the Global Protest Tracker. Drawing on data from the Tracker, he and co-author Judy Lee recently published an essay on the drivers of global protests in 2025, which we discuss in our conversation. We begin with some big-picture global trends before turning to a longer discussion about whether Gen Z–led protests can be considered a global movement.

Over the course of Syria's fourteen-year civil war, around one million people went missing, presumably killed. Among them was the father of my guest today, Maryam Kamalmaz. Maryam's father was an American psychotherapist who traveled to Syria on a humanitarian mission when he was detained and disappeared by the Assad regime. She campaigned for his release, but eventually learned that he had died in detention. Today, Maryam Kamalmaz is the Director for Missing Persons Affairs at the Syria Emergency Task Force, an advocacy group based in Washington, DC, where she is supporting international efforts to identify the roughly one million people who went missing during Syria's civil war. We begin by discussing the case of her father before having a broader conversation about why finding the missing—and their remains—is so important for Syria's democratic transition following the fall of the Assad regime. This is a powerful conversation, recorded live at the Halifax International Security Forum in late November.  

On December 4, the entire United Nations Security Council made an unprecedented trip to Syria. It is hard to overstate what a significant turning point this represents — both for the Security Council and the United Nations as a whole. For thirteen long years, the civil war in Syria was the largest and most brutal conflict in the world, and one that stymied the United Nations by exposing massive geopolitical rifts between key global powers. We may now look to Gaza or Ukraine as examples of paralysis at the Security Council — but it was Syria that first broke it. Now, all fifteen members are in Damascus, in an important show of unity. Mark and Anjali break down why this trip is so significant and what role the UN can play in supporting Syria's democratic transition. After the paywall: Mark and Anjali discuss shocking new revelations about the UN's budget, and what the official "pre-launch" of the selection process for the next Secretary-General tells us about how the UN's next leader will be chosen. Discount link to listen to full episode:  https://www.globaldispatches.org/40percentoff 

The Halifax International Security Forum always includes a sizable and bi-partisan group of United States Senators who were suddenly put on the spot: Did they think Ukraine should accept this ultimatum? By Saturday afternoon, several senators issued a joint statement condemning this plan. Then something extraordinary happened. A couple hours after this joint statement was released, an even larger and more bi-partisan group of senators gave a press conference in which Republican Senator Mike Rounds said that he and two other senators had just got off the phone with Marco Rubio, who was en route to Geneva to meet with Ukrainian officials and European allies. According to Senator Rounds, Rubio said this stridently pro-Russian 28 point plan was not an American plan at all, but rather a Russian proposal that was improperly leaked to the press. But then, about two hours later, Rubio publicly disavowed that disavowal! He posted on Twitter that "The peace proposal was authored by the U.S." So what the heck is going on here? I caught up with Toronto Star columnist and fellow Substacker Justin Ling to try to make sense of this bizarre turn of events. We kick off discussing the back and forth on this plan, but then have a deeper conversation about what this episode reveals about American global leadership and what the conversations in Halifax revealed about how America's traditional middle power allies, like Canada and Europe, are adjusting to a world order in which the United States is an unreliable ally and unstable international actor.  

When Damascus was liberated in December of last year and Bashar al-Assad fled to Moscow, thousands of the regime's political prisoners were released from jail. Around the region, Syrians who had fled the country began returning home. It was a joyous occasion for so many who had lived as refugees in neighboring countries — including in Lebanon, which had hosted more Syrian refugees than any other country. But there are still hundreds — possibly thousands — of Syrians who remain political prisoners in Lebanon. Most, if not all, of these prisoners are being detained by Hezbollah for their activities opposing the Assad regime, which was a key Hezbollah ally during Syria's civil war. In today's episode, I speak with one of those detainees — whom I will call Omar — who managed to smuggle a phone into a prison in Lebanon. Omar was detained in 2024, but prior to that he worked to expose Hezbollah's mass detention of Syrian opposition activists. In our conversation, he tells his story and that of his fellow detainees. This episode came about through a chance encounter with Mouaz Moustafa as we were both attending the Halifax International Security Forum last week. Mouaz Moustafa is the director of the Syria Emergency Task Force and has played a key role in supporting Syria's democratic transition since the fall of the Assad regime. I actually met Mouaz a couple of years ago at this same conference, and when I ran into him in hallway this year, he pitched me the story and offered to translate the interview. This episode would not have happened if not for the Halifax International Security Forum, so a special thank you to the conveners of this important global gathering.    

Kabul is running out of water. If present trends continue, the capital of Afghanistan could run completely dry by 2030. There are several reasons for this. The first is climate change: there is less snowmelt to feed the city's aquifers. The second is aging infrastructure: pipelines are decrepit or, in some cases, non-existent. The third is management: in a city reeling from water shortages, people are drilling their own wells in yards and basements, with no regulation from the de facto Taliban government. The fourth is population pressure: the city has grown sixfold in the last twenty years. And over the last year alone, millions of Afghans who had fled to neighboring Iran and Pakistan have been forcibly returned, adding to already substantial resource pressures. This is causing extreme stress on the people of Kabul, who, according to my guest today Marianna von Zahn, are now spending about 30% of their income on water. Marianna von Zahn is the Afghanistan Country Representative and Director of Programs for Mercy Corps, which recently released a report on the dire water crisis in Kabul and will soon release a similar report on water shortages in other parts of the country. We kick off by discussing the scale and impact of the crisis in Kabul before having a longer conversation about what can be done to mitigate it. This includes exploring ways the international community can work with Taliban authorities to stave off an impending humanitarian catastrophe. https://www.globaldispatches.org/40percentoff

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.