Global Dispatches -- World News That Matters

They contrast a new U.S. Board of Peace with the Security Council and why it cannot replace established UN mechanisms. They examine a possible U.S. military buildup toward Iran and the international legal stakes of an unapproved attack. They walk through questions about reconstruction funding, who would control it, and the risks of sidelining UN expertise.

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

Corey Hinderstein, VP for Studies at the Carnegie Endowment and nuclear arms control expert. She explains what New START did and why its expiration matters. Short talks cover verification and onsite inspections. They discuss missed extension talks, immediate reactions from Washington and Moscow, and how China’s rapid buildup complicates future deals.

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

Daniel Akech, an analyst at the International Crisis Group who studies South Sudanese politics and security, warns the country has slipped back into civil war. He discusses recent opposition offensives, Riek Machar’s arrest and its fallout. He outlines ethnic mobilization, the impact of Sudan’s war on oil revenues, and how regional actors and cross‑border links risk escalating violence.

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.