Global Dispatches -- World News That Matters

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.