In this special live episode of To Save Us From Hell, Anjali Dayal and I break down how the selection process works, examine the backgrounds of the four leading candidates, and analyze what the first poll reveals about who may ultimately become the next leader of the United Nations.

This episode is freely available. But if you appreciate this kind of nerdy content that you can’t fine anywhere else, please become a paying subscriber. It’s the only way we can sustain To Save Us From Hell — the podcast with a cult following around United Nations!

Subscribe now

Get 40% off forever

Share

Here’s how these straw polls work: Each candidate is assigned a ballot, and each of the 15 members of the Security Council receives color-coded paper—one color for the 10 elected members and another for the veto-wielding permanent five, or P5. Diplomats then mark “encourage,” “discourage,” or “no opinion” next to each name. If a candidate receives a “discourage” vote on a ballot associated with the P5, that candidate is probably out—it means they would likely face a veto in the formal vote.

This first straw poll, however, will be undifferentiated, meaning there will be no separate colors for permanent and elected members. Still, it could begin to winnow the field. If a candidate receives a substantial number of “discourage” votes, they are probably out. Conversely, if a candidate receives a substantial number of “encourage” votes, along with some “no opinion” votes and no “discourage” votes, it would suggest that they can pass muster.

This Friday, Anjali Dayal and I will go live here on Substack with our analysis of the results. Tune in if you can! I’ll also send out the recording afterward for those who can’t join us live.

Meanwhile, I wanted to flag some other highlights from recent and upcoming episodes.

• Don’t miss my conversation with Secretary-General candidate María Fernanda Espinosa, who discusses her vision for the UN. (I’m actively trying to book the other candidates as well.)

• Our most recent To Save Us From Hell episode goes deep into all the controversies surrounding the International Criminal Court, which just voted to oust Prosecutor Karim Khan. We explain what’s going on.

• Earlier this week, I published an interview with former U.S. Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns, recorded live at the Aspen Security Forum. You can find it on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• Later this week, I’ll publish my conversation with Carl Skau, acting executive director of the World Food Programme, who discusses how the Iran conflict is affecting global food security—and why he is so worried about the coming super El Niño. You’ll find that on Thursday on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Other upcoming episodes include a conversation with former New Zealand prime minister and UNDP chief Helen Clark, who is leading a major UN-backed effort on pandemic prevention and preparedness; a discussion with experts from the International Crisis Group about what actually causes peace in the world today; and an interview with journalist Sarah Maslin, who wrote a fascinating piece in The Economist about the precarious situation facing the thousands of Cuban doctors sent around the world on humanitarian missions.

All of these episodes will be freely available. But, as always, if you are able to support my work with a paid subscription, please do so! These episodes are free—but they also represent hours upon hours of work. Your subscription helps ensure the continued success of Global Dispatches. You can support my work at full price or using the discount button below.

Subscribe now

Get 40% off forever

Share

Of course, the New York mayor has no authority to do so—and a longstanding headquarters agreement between the United States and the UN compels the U.S. to admit foreign officials traveling to address the organization, no matter how odious. Meanwhile, Mamdani’s remarks came a week after Marco Rubio announced an all-out assault on the ICC, threatening to dismantle the court. All of this is taking place amid an unprecedented push by ICC member states to potentially remove the current prosecutor over allegations of sexual misconduct.

We kick off this episode of To Save Us From Hell by talking all about the ICC. We discuss the specific allegations against Netanyahu; the obligations of the United States—and New York—as host of the UN; the historical precedents involving leaders wanted by the ICC who have sought to come to the UN; why Marco Rubio will likely fail in his effort to dismantle the court; and what the future holds for embattled ICC prosecutor Karim Khan.

In our other segments, we discuss a reported effort by the Trump administration to withdraw from the UN Refugee Agency and an unexpected potential candidate in the UN secretary-general race.

The full episode is available immediately below the fold for our paying subscribers. You can support our work at full price, or using the discount button below. We can’t keep this show going without your support, so thank you!

Subscribe now

Get 40% off forever

Read more

Of course, the New York mayor has no authority to do so—and a longstanding headquarters agreement between the United States and the UN compels the U.S. to admit foreign officials traveling to address the organization, no matter how odious. Meanwhile, Mamdani’s remarks came a week after Marco Rubio announced an all-out assault on the ICC, threatening to dismantle the court. All of this is taking place amid an unprecedented push by ICC member states to potentially remove the current prosecutor over allegations of sexual misconduct.

We kick off this episode of To Save Us From Hell by talking all about the ICC. We discuss the specific allegations against Netanyahu; the ob…

Read more

You’ll get sound bites from that forum. But for an in-depth understanding of how one candidate approaches multilateral diplomacy at this particularly fraught moment, I speak with María Fernanda Espinosa in this Global Dispatches exclusive.

María Fernanda Espinosa is a former foreign minister, defense minister, and UN ambassador for Ecuador. She also served as president of the UN General Assembly from 2018 to 2019. As she explains, she cut her teeth working with Indigenous communities in Ecuador—an experience that continues to shape her approach to diplomacy, politics, and problem-solving.

Now, she is running to become the next United Nations Secretary-General.

We cover a great deal of ground in this interview, including her proposal to create a crisis-prevention and early-action hub at the UN; her views on the organization’s role in conflicts involving Iran and Ukraine; how the Secretary-General can support global health and development; and what should replace the Sustainable Development Goals after their 2030 deadline.

This is an insightful interview with a leading international diplomat who wants to lead the United Nations at a particularly precarious moment in geopolitics. It is freely available here on Substack, on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Enjoy!

Subscribe now

Share

Transcript edited for clarity

Mark Leon Goldberg: Welcome to Global Dispatches. I am your host, Mark Leon Goldberg. I am joined today by María Fernanda Espinosa, former ambassador to the United Nations for Ecuador, former foreign minister and defense minister for Ecuador, former president of the General Assembly, but for the purposes of our conversation today, a candidate for UN Secretary General.

Welcome, Ms. Espinosa.

María Fernanda Espinosa: Very happy to be with you today, Mark, and thank you for the invitation.

Mark Leon Goldberg: Well, thank you for joining. So, I want to have just a very substantive conversation about the issues and challenges you would face should you become UN Secretary-General. But by way of introduction, I am curious of learning a little bit more about you and your own political style, your own diplomatic style. Are there any stories or anecdotes you can share that you think might be particularly illustrative of the approach you bring to diplomacy?

María Fernanda Espinosa: Well, I am not a career diplomat, and I have to acknowledge that. I’m a practitioner. So, my experience comes from being out there and practicing and exercising diplomacy at the community level a long time ago when I lived five years in the Amazon and worked with Indigenous peoples. That’s where I learned most of my listening skills and in trying to understand different standpoints, different cultures, different ways of coming together.

And, of course, in public office for so long that it allows me to be connected to the UN in all the different spaces, in the three pillars, serving as ambassador in Geneva and New York, understanding how the big machinery of the UN works on the human rights pillars, serving on the Human Rights Council as ambassador to New York, understanding more the political UN, being the president of the General Assembly, which is the highest UN position.

It’s the universally elected position where you represent 193 member states. And I would say, if you ask me about style, it’s, first of all, about the ability of deep listening, of humility, of understanding public service, not as a personal entitlement, but as a public earned trust of the people that you serve. Number two, leadership style that looks very much to outcomes, to impact, to results, not too much about process.

Sometimes in the UN, they confuse activity with impact, reports with impact. And that I understand very well, because as foreign minister, I was the counterpart of the UN Country Teams in how agencies and programs operate on the ground. So, you know, this is what I bring to the UN. And also, I would say I am a person that has the courage to take decisions that need to be taken.

And I’m saying this having transformed the armed forces of my country, almost 50,000 people with almost a similar budget of the UN budget and not being afraid of taking hard decisions.

In the case of a Secretary-General, these decisions, many of the decisions are in the hands of the Secretary-General, but also in her ability to work in consonance and in listening to the member states because you are a chief administrative officer. That’s what the charter said.

Mark Leon Goldberg: You mentioned the big machinery of the UN. I’ve been following your campaign closely for the last several months. One idea that you’ve put on the table is to create an early action and prevention hub. Can you just flesh out that idea a little bit? Why is a hub like this needed? What problems would it solve? And how would it work functionally?

María Fernanda Espinosa: First of all, it is known to the audience that the UN is undergoing a profound crisis, financial crisis, which for me, it’s a symptom of a deeper crisis, which is more an institutional crisis, a credibility crisis, an impact and delivery crisis. So, it would be strange for a candidate to say, “I will create or establish something new.” So, it’s the opposite. It is to use the already existing infrastructure within the UN in a better way. For example, most people don’t even know that there is something called the UNOCC, which is the UN Operations and Crisis Center of the UN.

It’s a big machinery producing excellent analysis, excellent early warning, but it goes through a very convoluted pathway until it reaches the Secretary-General. It has to be verified. It goes here, it comes there. The Prevention and Early Action Hub would be a device to inform the Secretary General 24-7 for the Secretary General to take decisions on time, to produce information that goes directly to member states, especially members of the Security Council, to alert on certain situations. I am not naive. I know that that can be also seen with a certain reluctance, being very careful about non-interference in particular situations.

But I am a politician and a practitioner in diplomacy, and that gives me the elements for judgment, for being extremely serious about how I use the information, how I alert member states, how I take decisions. What has happened with the UN recently, and I don’t need to tell the informed audience, but the UN arrives too little too late when the worst has happened, and we need to avoid that. Of course, prevention doesn’t come in the headlines. It doesn’t bring the cameras. But I think it is the best investment because the UN is about protecting people.

Mark Leon Goldberg: Well, is there a particular crisis in the world right now that you would see ripe as being sort of the focus of a hub like this? That if a hub like this was operational in the way you envision, we’d have more visibility about it being incipient and its potential consequences?

María Fernanda Espinosa: Sometimes prevention is not only having a conflict never happening. Prevention is an operational principle of the whole machinery of the UN. Prevent escalation, prevent humanitarian disaster, prevent human rights to be abused in all the cycle of a conflict. And when you say give a very specific and concrete example, I would say every conflict that now makes the headlines, it provides space for prevention, preventing the worst, being there when it’s needed, preventing escalation, preventing the worst, you know, to happen. Be it in Haiti, where we are living a multidimensional crisis of big proportions.

It is in my own region and I am following closely. Preventing the worst to happen in situation and context as such as South Sudan or Yemen, when the UN has a very strong presence. And with that, I say prevention has to be an operating principle. It cannot be just an announcement, not just a headline. I recall, and everybody talks about prevention, but how is that you make prevention operational? It has to be an operating principle.

In the way the UN deploys its muscle at the ground level, at the country level, especially in countries in conflict, or early warning, of course, before things happen. And that is very difficult to sell, Mark. It’s obvious — How is that you convince the donor community that they’re not going to see a conflict because they have invested in prevention before the worst happened? It’s very difficult to quantify. It’s very difficult to sell, but it’s still the core homework to do of the UN.

Mark Leon Goldberg: So you mentioned that it would probably be most impactful on crises and conflicts that are maybe a little farther from the headlines. One very much on the headline right now, of course, is Iran. It, like to a certain extent, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is a conflict that the Security Council itself is unable to confront for the fact that many of the belligerents are members of the Security Council.

But I’m curious to learn from you what role you see the Secretary-General as potentially playing in the crisis in Iran right now. Is there something that the office of the Secretary General can do, given divisions at the Security Council, to perhaps mitigate some of the impact of the crisis or to do conflict mediation itself on this kind of big-ticket, big-picture/big-ticket crisis like Iran?

María Fernanda Espinosa: Well, I think we have to accept that in the conflicts you just mentioned, we don’t see many references to the role of the UN. We don’t see the voice of the Secretary-General where it matters. And I think that the world of today, which has the highest number of armed conflicts since the Second World War. We are not living in times of peace and calm, unfortunately.

What is the role of the Secretary-General? Is to be present, to be available, to offer her good offices, to gain a space as being seen, perceived as an impartial player, as a bridge builder, whereas it’s Ukraine or Iran or the Middle East. And with that said, trust is something that you don’t declare — you earn. And how is that you earn the trust? It’s to be, as I mentioned before, perceived, seen, and tested as an impartial player, as an impartial actor, and be ready and be on call, but also be present.

And sometimes the Secretary General can and should take the front row. And sometimes the Secretary General and the UN needs to be in a supporting role. And we see that the UN is present in Ukraine, whether it’s dealing with prisoners, deploying humanitarian support, it’s there, it’s on the ground, but people don’t know that the UN is doing its job. In the case of Iran, there is UNOPS leading the charge on the issue of the Strait of Hormuz, for example. But the Secretary General needs to be more out there, more present, be persistent, be on call, and also adapt and to have the judgment of where to position the role of the Secretary General.

Because the contemporary geography of conflicts, the contemporary dynamics of conflict is very different. What we have in times, even recent times in the Iran-Iraq war or the Suez Canal, where the UN had a strong presence. I think it helps to see a Secretary General that is active, engaged, available, present where she needs to be. And that’s, I think, what the world is asking, crying for, to see a Secretary-General that is energetic, that is in action, that is there.

Mark Leon Goldberg: So, I think it’s fair to say that part of the reason conflicts are proliferating at the rate they are today is a consequence of the geopolitical fragmentation that has been underway over the last several years, if not decade and a half at least, That seems to be accelerating. But I wanted to turn gears a little bit and ask you about global health and development in the context of this geopolitical fragmentation that we’re underway.

To what extent do you see global health as a potential opportunity or area for consensus, despite the divisions that we’re seeing today, particularly among some of the major powers?

María Fernanda Espinosa: Global health, I think we learned the hard way during COVID-19. We discovered that, first of all, that we are radically interdependent, that something that happens in one corner of the planet can affect and impact the lives and the well-being of people thousands of miles away. That we are interconnected in that solutions to the threats to global health have to be collective and have to be based in solidarity and cooperation. And I think we learned that very clearly during COVID-19. And I think that the UN infrastructure also learned the hard way.

Number one, even the working modalities of the General Assembly. I just finished my tenure as president when all this happened, and I was in shock because the General Assembly didn’t have a plan B on how to operate under the circumstances. And I think now it’s better equipped, better prepared. The same happened with the mega impacts of COVID-19. We still haven’t recovered fully from the economic and financial impacts of COVID-19. So, I think global health is a test case for multilateralism.

It’s an opportunity. It showed that global responses and collective action is the only way. And we have seen also some regulatory developments after that that are very good. For example, the review of the global health regulations. This might seem very bureaucratic, but it’s very important because it’s the protocols of how the world should act in a pandemic, for example. We had all the efforts towards a pandemics treaty that really calls for global cooperation. There is the whole discussion of supply chain security.

There is a whole discussion of access to critical medicines and vaccines. So, that is a test case for multilateralism. There is a lot of space for improvement, but I think that we have gone far. We had this success story in the near past about how to deal with Ebola and the Ebola crisis. Unfortunately, Ebola is coming back and hurting countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo today. But I think this makes the case for the need of a strong, renewed, vibrant multilateral architecture for collective action.

Mark Leon Goldberg: Looking ahead, maybe, in your time as Secretary General in the coming years, are there other specific areas for multilateral cooperation on global health that you see as particularly ripe, ripe for the taking? And what role would the Secretary General be in helping to facilitate that kind of cooperation?

María Fernanda Espinosa: Well, absolutely. We have so many commitments, Mark, that are out there. The entire agenda of universal health coverage. I had the privilege to serve myself in the universal health coverage advisory mechanism. The issue of non-communicable diseases and the commitments that are behind that. Antimicrobial resistance, which is a world challenge and program. The issue of opioids and how it’s dealt with.

I mentioned the issue of pandemics. And I think health is something that is so connected to the human well-being, to human life, that it really pushes us to collaborate and work together. And we are not in shortage of commitments, of mandates that are out there. And I mentioned some of those that have emerged from the collective will of the General Assembly of the United Nations. So, the agendas are there, the opportunities are there.

It’s something where you see the importance of national ownership, but at the same time, regional cooperation, which is a very important piece of the puzzle in international cooperation, and also a very critical and important role for our norm-setting and regulation coming from the United Nations. So, there is a lot of space and work to do. Great progress, I would say. When you look at the Sustainable Development Goals, Many of the goals on global health have improved the issue of access to vaccines, for example. Others have reversed and regressed, which is a pity.

Mark Leon Goldberg: On that question about goals that have regressed, so the SDGs are due in 2030. One goal, for example, that is far from being achieved, progress has slowed significantly, is maternal mortality, for example. What role might the Secretary-General’s office play in advancing, say, progress on maternal mortality in the few years we have left towards the SDGs and also towards other health-related goals that progress has stalled on?

María Fernanda Espinosa: We have seen recently a few reports on progress on the Sustainable Development Goals, and I’m so disappointed. I don’t know how to say it better. One of the reports talks about the 16-16 and the rest, 16 goals that are on track, 16 goals that are regressing, that’s where we’re doing worse, and the rest stagnant. I don’t know the word, but that have remained the same. And other reports, a recent report for the HLPF that just happened in New York a few days ago…

Mark Leon Goldberg: That’s the High-Level Political Forum. That’s the kind of stocktaking around the SDGs that happens at the UN every year.

María Fernanda Espinosa: Exactly. Yes. High-Level Political Forum. And what we saw, the latest report, it’s 15, 20 and the rest. 15 of the goals on track. A 20% moderate progress. And all the rest, either stagnant or regressing. So, if you ask me if this is success, I would say absolutely not. What are the problems, not only on the goals in global health issues, but what is at the core of this? What is the problem? And the problem is, you know, manifold. Number one, I would say access to resources. Where are the finances?

Where are the resources that countries can count on to invest where they need to invest? Number two is access to technology. We live in a world of, we say, the technological revolution, artificial intelligence, when about 30% of the world population is offline. The issue of access, of being able to use this technological revolution that we are experiencing and where we see greatest inequalities. And the issue of institutional capacity to deliver. These are called the means of implementation. It is true for the health space, but it is true also for the overall package of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Next year, in 2027, we will have an opportunity to re-boost the agenda. It’s the new summit on the SDGs on 2027. By then, hopefully me, but there will be a new leadership in the UN. It will be an opportunity for an honest assessment to fast-track and supercharge implementation, but also to look at the drivers of non-implementation. And these goals comes from the issue of how you manage debt, the international financial architecture, the Sevilla Commitment and program of action on financing for developments, the going down of official development aid worldwide.

Again, as I said, it’s not only an issue of access to the resources, but access to technologies, institutional capacity, and above all, national ownership. I think that development cannot be prescribed for New York, and we need to change the whole business model of how the UN does development.

Mark Leon Goldberg: Well, so, to that end, you would be the Secretary General when the SDGs expire, when there might be something new to replace it. I suppose a twofold question, you know, do you think something ought to replace the SDGs in 2030 when they expire? And what form might that take?

María Fernanda Espinosa: Well, first of all, I think that 2030 is a timeline, is a reference timeline. I think that the sustainable development goals, but in general, the development agenda, it cannot be seen as an expired yogurt. The day it expires, you just throw the can. No, it doesn’t work like that. It’s a continuum. It is a process. And I think a new leadership at the UN would help make this transition in a substantive way, in a way where countries have the lead.

They own the process. They can look at how to transit to a better model of development, how they choose their own development pathways where the UN has a supporting role and cannot replace states in implementing little projects here and there, but really looking at the structure drivers and the challenges that countries face. And I’m speaking, coming from middle-income countries, having been nominated by a small island developing state. So, I know very well what the problems are.

The problems are debt problems, liquidity problems, the cost of capital problems, the supply chain and industrialization mechanisms in the world. So, it’s more complex than what we think. But I am an optimist, and I think that we can reverse the tide on the Sustainable Development Goals and be very careful about saying, 31st of December, the Sustainable Development Goals end and we start with something new. I think that there has been a very important learning curve. We need to be the continuum. We need a roadmap to continue the development pathways.

We need to put more weight into regional ownership, regional cooperation, national ownership, the role of cities, the role of communities, to look at how to localize and own better the Sustainable Development Goals. And in what ways, as Secretary General, in what ways we can be more demand driven and provide countries the support they need. We have to be, the UN Secretariat has to be more demand-driven and less prescriptive.

Mark Leon Goldberg: So, I’m glad you said you’re an optimist. I’m an optimist as well, though I admit it’s a little harder surveying the world today to sustain my optimism. Final question, what is the source of your optimism? Where does your optimism come from?

María Fernanda Espinosa: I think humankind. I have seen great ideas, great transformations from humans that have made a difference in the world. Building resilience, building peace. The Nelson Mandelas of the world have existed. They are humans. They were humans. They have left a very important footprint. I have worked with indigenous communities in the Amazon where I have seen how you can make your living, your livelihoods, your care for nature in ways that you cannot even imagine. So, I am an optimist because I believe in humankind, but I also believe in the potential, the opportunities, and the strength and the muscle of the United Nations. And that is why I have decided to put my 30 years of experience to the service of the United Nations.

Mark Leon Goldberg: Well, best of luck to you in your candidacy. Thank you so much, María Fernanda Espinosa, for joining me today.

María Fernanda Espinosa: Thank you, Mark. I was very, very happy to be with you today.

Subscribe now

Share

This civil war rarely makes headlines in the West. It erupted after Myanmar’s democratic transition collapsed and the military seized power in February 2021. The junta then violently suppressed peaceful protests, prompting many demonstrators to take up arms. The front lines have shifted in recent months as neighboring China has intervened more decisively on behalf of the junta.

I’m joined today by Kelley Currie, the new UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. We begin with a brief history of Myanmar’s long-running conflicts before turning to an in-depth conversation about the current dynamics of the civil war, the geopolitical implications of China’s intervention, and the particularly brutal military strategy that has resulted in so many civilian deaths.

This episode is free for all. But if you appreciate in depth briefings about conflicts and crises that don’t get the attention they deserve, please support my work with your paid subscription.

You can also find our conversation on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

Subscribe now

Get 50% off forever

.

Bolton, then the under secretary of state for arms control and international security, sought so-called “bilateral immunity agreements” with countries that would prevent them from surrendering Americans to the ICC for prosecution. His focus included countries that received American military assistance. The administration presented them with an ultimatum: If they refused to sign these agreements, certain military aid they received from the United States could be suspended.

This was around 2004. And, as you may recall, the United States had invaded and occupied Iraq a year earlier. The Bush administration sought to present this as an international mission and assembled a “Coalition of the Willing” to participate in the war. This included, of course, the United Kingdom, but also several smaller European countries.

One of them was Latvia, which was both a member of the Coalition of the Willing and a party to the ICC. When presented with the ultimatum, Latvia rejected the idea of signing a one-off immunity agreement with the United States. This led to the rather awkward situation in which Latvia was deploying troops in support of America’s war in Iraq while simultaneously being threatened with the suspension of U.S. military aid.

For me, this was an early lesson in foreign policy: Officials and administrations with an ideological axe to grind can sometimes fixate on precisely the wrong things. But when it comes to the ICC, there is a strain of American foreign-policy thinking that regards the court as a lurking boogeyman, poised to seize American citizens and subject them to show trials in some international kangaroo court.

This brings me to Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s announcement today, delivered through a State Department press release, a Wall Street Journal op-ed, and a video address, that he is determined to “dismantle the court.” The ICC, he says, is “waging war against our country” and “threatens every aspect of our political and legal system.”

The thing is, the ICC has been around for 24 years. It has a record. And nothing in that nearly quarter-century-long record supports the claim that it is hell-bent on going after Americans.

Subscribe now

Get 40% off forever

Get 50% off forever

First, a refresher on the ICC: The court was established in 2002 as a court of last resort, empowered to prosecute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, when national jurisdictions are unable or unwilling to do so. The ICC generally has jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of a member state or by the national of a member state. The major exception is that the UN Security Council may refer situations involving countries that are not ICC members, as it did with Sudan in 2005 and Libya in 2011.

The ICC currently lists 74 defendants, and 33 people are wanted and at large. The most famous among them are probably Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu.

The United States is not a member of the ICC, meaning Americans are generally beyond its reach unless they allegedly commit crimes on the territory of an ICC member state and neither the US nor that ICC state pursues accountability.

The one time this became a serious issue was Afghanistan, which is an ICC member. In 2017, then-prosecutor Fatou Bensouda sought authorization for an investigation that included alleged crimes committed by U.S. military and intelligence personnel. The court eventually authorized that investigation. But in 2021, Bensouda’s successor, Karim Khan, announced that his office would deprioritize the allegations involving Americans and focus instead on alleged crimes committed by the Taliban and the Islamic State.

In other words, the one time the ICC even considered investigating Americans, the court opted against it. It has not charged a single American.

None of this seems to factor into Rubio’s declaration of war on the ICC. Among the measures announced or placed under consideration are:

• Diplomatic calls from the secretary of state, deputy secretary, ambassadors, and other senior officials urging foreign governments to withdraw from the ICC;

• Pressure on countries that partner with American law enforcement or the U.S. military—or benefit from the American security umbrella—to reject the ICC’s authority over American officials and service members;

• Increased scrutiny of countries that refuse to do so while continuing to rely on U.S. assistance;

• Diplomatic efforts urging other countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute to join the American campaign;

• Visa revocations and travel bans targeting ICC personnel; and

• Increased sanctions against the ICC and affiliated organizations.

If these measures are carried out, they would put traditional American allies—including most NATO countries—in a serious bind. They could be forced to choose between their obligations as members of the ICC and their security relationships with the United States.

So what is going on here?

One thing I try hard not to do in my writing or speaking is ascribe motives without evidence. It could be that Rubio is doing this primarily in defense of Netanyahu, who is wanted by the court over allegations involving the obstruction of humanitarian aid and the conduct of Israel’s war in Gaza. It could be that the administration is seeking to protect American officials from any future investigation arising from military operations on the territory of an ICC member state (which would not include Iran or Cuba, but would include Greenland). Or it could be to protect Americans from prosecution for the illegal targeting of suspected drug smugglers in the Caribbean. Or it could be something else entirely.

We simply do not know what is motivating this decision at this particular time.

What we do know is that this campaign further weakens the rule of law at an especially precarious moment for the laws of war. Since the end of World War II, international law has advanced two basic propositions. The first is that states may lawfully wage war only under limited circumstances, principally in self-defense or with the authorization of the UN Security Council. Wars of aggression are prohibited. The second is that even when a war is lawful, militaries must abide by rules governing how it is fought—including the obligation to distinguish between civilians and combatants and the prohibition against deliberately targeting civilians.

Both principles are under greater pressure today than at any point in recent memory. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran are two glaring examples of major powers ignoring a fundamental precept of the laws of war. And then you have the conduct of militaries and armed groups in Sudan, Gaza, Israel, Lebanon, and Myanmar, among others, that have targeted civilians en mass.

The ICC hasn’t stopped this trend as much as it proponents would have liked. But it is is an institution designed to uphold one of the most basic ideas in international law: that there are limits to what governments and militaries may do during war, and that when national courts cannot or will not enforce those limits, another court should be able to step in.

The ICC has the receipts to show for it — the record includes real convictions for real atrocities. The court convicted Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga for recruiting and using child soldiers; Bosco Ntaganda for murder, rape, sexual slavery, persecution and other crimes in eastern Congo; Lord’s Resistance Army commander Dominic Ongwen for 61 war crimes and crimes against humanity in Uganda; and, most recently, Sudanese militia leader Ali Kushayb for 27 counts arising from atrocities in Darfur. These are prosecutions of commanders implicated in some of the gravest crimes of the past quarter century.

At a moment when the restraints on warfare are already coming apart, dismantling one of the few institutions capable of enforcing them will do little to protect American sovereignty—or Americans from a court that has never prosecuted one. What it will do is tear down another pillar of the international legal order and make it easier for unscrupulous war criminals to get away with murder.

Share

Claire Melamed, the United Nations Foundation’s Vice President for AI and Digital Cooperation Strategy, explains why this meeting marks a milestone in the global AI governance debate, what makes the UN’s approach distinct, and how international cooperation can help ensure that AI is developed and deployed in ways that serve the public good.

We discuss what happened in Geneva, why inclusive AI governance matters, and what role the United Nations can play as governments, companies, and civil society grapple with one of the most consequential technologies of our time.

Subscribe now

Share

We kick off by discussing the escalating retaliatory cycle between the United States and Iran, and whether it means the ceasefire brokered last month is effectively dead. Josh explains some of the concrete decisions that turned Iran into a foreign policy quagmire for the Trump administration, what this latest round of bombings reveals about the administration’s strategy, and what might come next if the current escalation begins to wind down.

We discuss much more than Iran. Josh helps unpack several of the biggest foreign policy including how Syria became an unlikely bright spot in Trump’s Middle East policy, what actually mattered at the NATO summit, and how Trump came to adopt some new positions on Ukraine that are supportive of Kyiv.

If you are trying to make sense of U.S. foreign policy in this chaotic moment, this conversation is a very useful guide. It is free for all listeners, but as always your support with a paid subscription goes a long way.

Subscribe now

Get 50% off forever

Please also be sure to check out Josh Rogin’s new Substack, The Cable!

Share

Here’s what happened: Danon was delivering a formal response to a report by a different UN official, Pramila Patten, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict. In that report, Patten found that Israeli security forces could be credibly suspected of engaging in a pattern of sexual violence against Palestinian detainees. Danon took exception to this and, in his response, impugned the motives of Patten, who was not in the room.

Vanessa Frazier, however, was in the room, and she intervened in defense of her colleague.

What followed was this wild scene.

Needless to say, things like this do not happen at the UN, where protocol and diplomatic niceties typically restrain this kind of outburst. To be sure, diplomats often “trade barbs,” but that rarely includes actual shouting matches like this. Not long after this heated exchange, Danon and Frazier took their beef to social media — and that’s when things took an even uglier turn.

Danny Danon is now on a mission to get Vanessa Frazier fired.

In today’s episode of To Save Us From Hell, Anjali Dayal and I discuss what is driving this beef. (There’s much more to this story than what has already been reported.) We also discuss whether Israel is simply trying to deflect attention from the substance of reports containing credible accusations of violations of human rights and international law by alleging bias on the part of the authors of those reports.

The full episode is available below the fold for our paying subscribers.

Also in this episode: what we learned from the first public hearing of the newest entrant in the Secretary-General race, Guyana’s UN Ambassador Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, and how the UN managed to stave off a financial apocalypse in July.

This is exactly the kind of conversation we created To Save Us From Hell to have: informed, unscripted, well sourced, and focused on what is actually happening inside the UN system — beyond the diplomatic theater.

You can listen to the full episode immediately by becoming a paying subscriber at any level. Your support keeps this work independent and helps make it possible for us to keep bringing you the sharp, insider UN analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Subscribe now

Get 50% off forever

Get 40% off forever

Read more

About ten days ago, a highly unusual scene unfolded at the United Nations: Israel’s UN Ambassador Danny Danon and Vanessa Frazier, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, got into a public shouting match, with Danon telling Frazier, “You will be quiet now!”

What began as a tense exchange over a UN report has since escalated into a broader fight, with Danon now calling for Frazier to be fired. In this episode of To Save Us From Hell, Mark Leon Goldberg and Anjali Dayal unpack what is driving this confrontation, why it matters inside the UN system, and whether Israel is seeking to deflect attention from the substance of reports containing credible allegations of human rights and international law violations.

They also discuss the newest entrant in the race for UN Secretary-General, Guyana’s UN Ambassador Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, and explain how the UN managed to stave off a financial crisis in July.

Subscribe now

Read more

In this episode of Global Dispatches, I speak with Mutasim Ali, Legal Advisor at the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, about the looming threat of mass atrocities in El Obeid, Sudan, as the Rapid Support Forces, the RSF, surround and besiege the city.

El Obeid is a strategically important city in central-western Sudan, located roughly 500 kilometers from Khartoum. If the RSF captures El Obeid, it could dramatically expand its territorial control and open the way for further violence as the group pushes eastward.

This conversation examines the RSF’s pattern of warfare, the role of external actors in fueling Sudan’s civil war — including supporting both the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces. Mutasim Ali also discusses efforts to hold the financiers and backers of Sudan’s warring parties accountable, including through the International Criminal Court.

One persistent feature of the international response to Sudan’s civil war has been a massive gap between expressions of concern and outrage on the one hand, and a lack of meaningful action commensurate with the scale of the crisis on the other.

Mutasim and I have some theories on why that is.

A personal note from Mark…Sudan’s civil war is the largest humanitarian crisis in the world and my commitment to humanitarian journalism compels me to cover this crisis, even as other western outlets shift their focus elsewhere. Please support this ongoing coverage with your paid subscription. I require audience support to keep Global Dispatches going, and you can support the cause here using the buttons below. For those who sign up in the next month, you’ll receive a Global Dispatches sticker as a token of my appreciation.

Subscribe now

Get 50% off forever

Share

So Russia has turned to Africa for manpower.

In recent months, reports have emerged of African nationals being recruited to fight for Russia in Ukraine. Some go knowingly. But many others appear to have been lured under false pretenses, promised jobs in Russia as truck drivers or cooks — only to find themselves trapped in military training camps and then sent to the front lines.

My guest today, Guyo Chepe Turi, has been investigating how this recruitment pipeline works. He is a researcher with Institute for Security Studies in Nairobi, Kenya. In a recent article, he examined how recruitment networks are targeting young Africans, including in Kenya, and sending them to the frontlines as canon fodder.

Ukraine estimates that there are nearly 3,000 fighters from at least 36 African countries now involved in Russia’s war and one in eight prisoners of war are Africans. The countries affected are diverse — Kenya, Ghana, Egypt, Morocco, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, and others. The true number may be higher, because many of these cases go undocumented.

We kick off discussing how, exactly, the recruitment works, including the deceptive practices and coercion used to trap Africans in Russia. We then discuss how governments in the region, including Kenya, are responding and what this all says about the volatile geopolitical fallout of high youth unemployment in Africa.

Our conversation is freely available right here in Substack and wherever you get your podcasts. I do rely on listener support, so please support Global Dispatches with a paying subscription. You won’t consistently find content like there on any other podcast!

If you sign up now, at any level, I’ll put a 4x4 sticker in the mail tomorrow!

Subscribe now

Get 50% off forever

Get 40% off forever

Colombia’s President-elect Abelardo de la Espriella is an unusual politician. For one, he has never held elected office and does not represent a traditional political party. Rather, he built a career as a criminal defense attorney, including in Miami, where he represented high-powered clients facing corruption allegations. He also became a familiar presence in Trump circles, with appearances at Trump properties, and holds American and Italian passports. Trump personally endorsed de la Espriella, seeking a new ally in Bogotá.

De la Espriella’s populist message resonated with Colombians, who narrowly elected him on Sunday. So what does the sudden emergence of this new political force mean for Colombia’s long struggle with armed violence? How does this election fit into a broader pattern of right-wing victories in the region? And can Colombia’s landmark 2016 peace agreement with the FARC hold?

I discuss all these questions, and more, with the International Crisis Group’s Deputy Director for Latin America, Elizabeth Dickinson, who spoke with me from Bogotá.

This conversation is truly an expert briefing. You’ll learn how de la Espriella rose so quickly, why his victory marks such a sharp break from Colombia’s recent political trajectory, and what his presidency may mean for the future of peace, security, and democracy in one of Latin America’s most consequential countries.

We recorded our conversation live here on Substack on Monday afternoon, after it became clear de la Espriella won by a razor sharp margin. This timely episode is available immediately below the fold for our paying subscribers— and I hope you’ll become one!

You can support Global Dispatches at full price or using the discount button below— 50% off!

Subscribe now

Get 50% off forever

Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett could become the first United Nations Secretary-General of Indigenous descent. Guyana’s ambassador to the United Nations was nominated as a Secretary-General candidate this week, bringing the grand total of candidates to six as we enter the final stretch of the campaign before the first Security Council straw polls.

Anjali knows Rodrigues-Birkett! They had lunch together not long ago, and in this episode of To Save Us From Hell she explains what Guyana’s UN ambassador brings to this race. We also discuss what we learned from the three-hour General Assembly forum with another candidate, Maria Espinosa.

Remember: We watch these marathon forums so you don’t have to! (Another reason to subscribe to Global Dispatches, which gets you all episodes of To Save Us From Hell)

Finally, we discuss Antonio Guterres’ visit this week to Haiti, and what it suggests about international efforts to support security and stability as Haiti seeks to emerge from crisis.

All those segments are for our paying subscribers only.

But up first: we discuss the UN’s role in the Iran ceasefire — and what this moment means for the UN’s ability to mediate conflicts around the world.

The full episode is available immediately below the fold for our paying subscribers. Please support our unique coverage of the United Nations with a subscription, full price our discount—it all helps!

Subscribe now

Get 40% off forever

Read more

Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett could become the first United Nations Secretary-General of Indigenous descent. Guyana’s ambassador to the United Nations was nominated as a Secretary-General candidate this week, bringing the grand total of candidates to six as we enter the final stretch of the campaign before the first Security Council straw polls.

Anjali knows Rodrigues-Birkett! They had lunch together not long ago, and she explains what Guyana’s UN ambassador brings to this race. We also discuss what we learned from the three-hour General Assembly forum with another candidate, Maria Espinosa. (We watch these marathon forums so you don’t have to!)

Finally, we discuss Antonio Guterres’ visit this week to Haiti, and what it suggests about international efforts to support security and stability as Haiti seeks to emerge from crisis.

All those segments are for our paying subscribers only. But up first: we discuss the UN’s role in the Iran ceasefire and what this moment means for the UN’s ability t…

Read more

Jeremy Konyndyk is the president of Refugees International and has deep experience managing Ebola outbreaks, having served as the American point person on the response to the 2014 outbreak in West Africa. We kick off by discussing the trajectory of this outbreak and why U.S. foreign aid cuts likely allowed Ebola to spread undetected, before having a longer conversation about how to get this worsening outbreak under control.

The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is shaping up to be one of the major global news stories of 2026. Still, it has not gotten the attention it deserves, in my view, as most media is squarely focused on the Middle East. But pay attention to what is happening in Central Africa right now—because this preventable tragedy is about to balloon and impact people far beyond the region.

This episode is freely available right here on Substack and across all your preferred podcast listening platforms, including Spotify, Apple Podcasts and YouTube. However, I would sincerely appreciate —indeed I require — audience support to sustain my work. Please consider purchasing a subscription at full price or using the discount code below.

Subscribe now

Get 40% off forever

As rumors of a potential ceasefire began to swirl, I reached out to Greg to help me understand the nature of this agreement and what it means for U.S.-Iran relations, the region, and the global oil market. We kick off by discussing what we know so far about what this ceasefire obliges Iran and the United States to do, whether he thinks it can hold, and what may come next.

This is a timely conversation that will give you the background and context you need to understand U.S.-Iran diplomacy as it unfolds over the coming weeks. It is freely available to all, but, as always, your support through a paid subscription is what makes this kind of content possible.

Subscribe now

Get 40% off forever

Share

These are all good things — a ceasefire is better than a war. But this was a ceasefire that never should have been necessary because the United States and Israel should not have launched this war in the first place.

Clausewitz famously said, “War is politics by other means” — meaning it is a way to get what you want. In this case, the United States and Israel wanted regime change and an end to Iran’s nuclear program. But what the hawks never seemed to understand is that if what you want cannot actually be gained through military force, you should not start that war in the first place.

Subscribe now

Get 40% off forever

Read more

In this special crossover episode between Global Dispatches and the Sinica Podcast, Kaiser Kuo and I use this state visit as an entrypoint to discuss how Chinese foreign policy has shifted in recent years — on the Korean Peninsula, in the Middle East, and at the United Nations.

Kaiser Kuo is the founder and longtime host of Sinica, which has partnered with Global Dispatches so that paid subscribers to Global Dispatches can now get a 50 percent discount on a one-year subscription to Sinica. I’m also happy to announce that if you take advantage of this opportunity, you’ll be helping not just Sinica but Global Dispatches — because the proceeds will be divided between the two of us! This partnership is part of the NonZero Network, of which Sinica and Global Dispatches are both members.

Our conversation is freely available directly on Substack, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube — and wherever you get Global Dispatches. The link to a discounted subscription to Sinica is below the fold for my paying subscribers.

Subscribe now

Get 40% off forever

Read more