Global Dispatches -- World News That Matters

There are two competing trends in the global fight against HIV/AIDS. On the one hand, there has been tremendous progress toward reducing the number of infections and deaths from HIV/AIDS over the last twenty years. Scientific advances in treatment and prevention, new policy tools, and political and funding commitments have driven down HIV/AIDS to the point where it is possible to foresee an AIDS-free world in the not-so-distant future. On the other hand, over the last few years, that progress has suddenly come under threat. COVID upended HIV/AIDS programs in much of the world, and more recently, sudden and swift funding cuts, including from the United States, are shaking the foundation upon which previous decades of progress were built. On June 22 and 23, these two competing forces will come to a head at the United Nations, where diplomats are gathering for a major meeting on HIV/AIDS. According to my guest today, Mitchell Warren, the High-Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS at the UN presents a unique opportunity for multilateral coordination toward the goal of ending HIV/AIDS as a public health threat, but that goal may be stymied. Key countries that previously led the global fight against HIV/AIDS, including the United States, are stepping back from their leadership roles, potentially upending decades of progress. Mitchell Warren is the executive director of AVAC, an advocacy group. We kick off by discussing some of the exciting new scientific innovations that may accelerate progress toward ending HIV/AIDS as a public health threat, then have a discussion of how cuts in funding and eroding political commitments are hitting just as these promising new scientific innovations are coming online. We then have a long conversation about how this dynamic may play out at the UN — and what to expect from the High-Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is the "glue" that holds the entire global nuclear security architecture together — but is it fraying? I spent much of last month at the United Nations covering the review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This is a conference of all members of the NPT that happens every five years. Countries come together to assess progress toward the treaty's goals and plot ways to enhance the treaty's impact and effectiveness in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, reducing nuclear stockpiles, and supporting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. That's the idea. But on Friday, as the conference gaveled to a close, the 191 states parties could not come to an agreement. The conference failed to achieve consensus on a way forward for the NPT. And this failure comes amid a host of other challenges in the nuclear security landscape: China's rapid buildup; the end of all bilateral arms control agreements between the United States and Russia; the U.S.-Israel war on Iran; Russia's war on Ukraine; the increasing integration of AI into nuclear weapons systems; and more and more countries openly suggesting that nuclear weapons may be a solution to their security challenges. My interview guest today is Alexandra Bell, head of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists — the organization perhaps best known for the Doomsday Clock. We kick off by discussing what the NPT has achieved since it entered into force more than 50 years ago, and what this major conference at the United Nations suggests about the state of global nuclear security today? This episode is produced in partnership with Ploughshares, a foundation committed to reducing and ultimately eliminating nuclear threats.

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 -- and how to stop them. You can find the report at globalchallenges.org/gcr-2026. This is the fifth episode of this series, which has included episodes on specific risks like nuclear weapons, ecological collapse, catastrophic climate change — and even near-Earth asteroids. In today's episode, I am joined by the former prime minister of Sweden, Stefan Löfven, and Jens Orback, a strategic advisor to the Global Challenges Foundation, for a wide-ranging conversation about how we can better reform our politics and diplomacy to confront global catastrophic risks. Managing global catastrophic risks requires systems of global governance, and in this episode we discuss how we can build our common defense against these challenges.

An Ebola outbreak is spiraling in the Democratic Republic of the Congo — and one of the clearest lessons from past outbreaks is that Ebola requires multilateralism: countries working together through existing institutions like the United Nations and the World Health Organization to contain the disease, support frontline health workers, share information, and prevent cross-border spread. But the Trump administration's retreat from the global health architecture built for precisely this kind of emergency has made that task harder. In this episode of To Save Us From Hell, Mark Leon Goldberg and Anjali Dayal discuss how American attacks on the WHO and other key nodes of our global defenses against disease outbreaks have made this particular Ebola outbreak more difficult to contain than it ought to be. Later in the show, they discuss the newest entrant in the race for UN Secretary-General — and whether we can expect more candidates to throw their hats in the ring.

In late April, an unlikely alliance of Islamist militants and separatists from the Tuareg ethnic group launched a series of surprise attacks against government forces in Mali. They attacked the capital, Bamako; killed Mali's defense minister; and even evicted Russian forces from a key city they were defending on behalf of the government of Mali. Mali has been beset by instability since a 2012 coup, a revolt by separatist groups in the north of the country, and the establishment of several jihadist groups. In this episode, Norman Sempijja, an associate professor of governance, economics, and social sciences at Mohammed VI Polytechnic University in Morocco, Norman Sempijja, explains what this new alliance of jihadists and separatists suggests about the trajectory of the crisis in Mali — and what the international community can do to end this spiraling conflict.

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 an asteroid colliding with earth, the topic of this episode. You can find the report at globalchallenges.org/gcr-2026. To discuss the potential consequences of an asteroid impact, and how we have built a system of planetary defense to guard against this risk, I am joined by Romana Kofler, program management officer at the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, and Anja Olin-Pape, head of programs at the Global Challenges Foundation. We kick off by discussing the ways in which an asteroid impact could disrupt life on Earth and cause mass destruction, before turning to a longer conversation about how international cooperation and global governance have given us the tools to prevent an asteroid impact — and the catastrophe that would entail.

The civil war in Sudan is now entering its fourth year. Full-scale conflict broke out in April 2023 following a failed democratic transition, when two powerful rival militaries, the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese Armed Forces, fought each other for control of the country. Caught in the middle were the Sudanese people, 14 million of whom have been displaced, making this the largest humanitarian crisis in the world by the numbers. Four years on, I wanted to learn more about the state of the civil war today, including how the Iran conflict is impacting Sudan. Many of the same outside forces in the Gulf that have backed various sides in Sudan's civil war are now themselves under attack. Further, as we explored in a previous episode, rising fertilizer prices are hitting crisis-prone places like Sudan particularly hard. My guest today is Sudan analyst Dallia Mohamed. We kick off our conversation by discussing the current trends in this war. She then explains how the Iran war is impacting Sudan's own conflict before we have a longer discussion about what can break this cycle of violence.

The Security Council is weighing yet another U.S.-backed resolution on the Strait of Hormuz that is probably doomed from the start. In this first segment of To Save Us From Hell, Anjali and Mark explain the flawed logic behind this latest effort to return the Strait to its status quo ante bellum. Then, Mark discusses what he learned covering the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, underway at the UN — the major multilateral nuclear security gathering that happens every five years. Finally, Anjali and Mark consider the latest American effort to withhold money it already owes to the UN — threatening to plunge the organization into an even deeper fiscal crisis. The full episode is available to paying subscribers. https://www.globaldispatches.org/40PercentOff

*]:pointer-events-auto R6Vx5W_threadScrollVars scroll-mb-[calc(var(--scroll-root-safe-area-inset-bottom,0px)+var(--thread-response-height))] scroll-mt-(--header-height)" dir="auto" data-turn-id="d03fb3f0-533e-4efb-a046-d481c56672f8" data-testid="conversation-turn-1" data-scroll-anchor="false" data-turn="user"> *]:pointer-events-auto [content-visibility:auto] supports-[content-visibility:auto]:[contain-intrinsic-size:auto_100lvh] R6Vx5W_threadScrollVars scroll-mb-[calc(var(--scroll-root-safe-area-inset-bottom,0px)+var(--thread-response-height))] scroll-mt-[calc(var(--header-height)+min(200px,max(70px,20svh)))]" dir="auto" data-turn-id= "request-WEB:ccae54eb-f4b0-4e6b-a1ae-15b689f25724-0" data-testid= "conversation-turn-2" data-scroll-anchor="false" data-turn= "assistant"> 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

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. Wilfred Wan is director of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Michael Wernstedt is acting 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. Get the full episode by purchasing a subscription at this discounted price.  https://www.globaldispatches.org/40PercentOff

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.