Global Dispatches -- World News That Matters

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. 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/