Global Dispatches -- World News That Matters

Tensions are high as the Security Council reacts to the U.S. military operation in Venezuela that saw Nicolás Maduro taken captive. The discussion dives into which countries condemned the U.S. action and why Colombia felt particularly vulnerable. They explore the implications for the United Nations and whether America's foreign policy can coexist with its principles. Strong condemnations from Latin American nations highlight a historical context of intervention, raising questions about sovereignty and the potential existential crisis for the UN's future.

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.