After an 80-day total blockade of humanitarian aid into Gaza, a new scheme to distribute food to desperate Gazans began operations this week. The “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation” is an Israeli-American creation, designed by consultants, backed by American security contractors, and headed by an evangelical Christian supporter of Donald Trump who has little experience in humanitarian aid. They have set up four aid distribution sites, mostly in remote locations in southern Gaza, where thousands of Gazans have scrambled to access the limited food that Israel is permitting into the territory.

Independent humanitarian agencies and the United Nations are not participating in this scheme because it is clearly designed to advance Israeli political and military aims, rather than meet Gazans’ increasingly desperate humanitarian needs. Ciarán Donnelly, Senior Vice President for international programs at the International Rescue Committee, explains why this aid scheme is deeply flawed, what we know about this “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation,” and what needs to be done to get food and aid to people in Gaza before a widespread famine takes hold.

The General Assembly selected five new members of the Security Council and one new President of the General Assembly this week in not-so-hotly contested elections. These new Security Council members will take their seats in January, and former German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock will assume the PGA gavel at UNGA in September.

So what can we expect from these new faces in the UN’s two key bodies? Anjali and Mark break down the implications of a reshaped Security Council and the fact that a longtime German Green Party politician will helm the General Assembly as the UN enters its 80th year.

But first: The Trump administration throws down the gauntlet in an effort to block Mongolia’s attempt to celebrate the unique contributions of horses in today’s world. Seriously, that happened. And it’s actually a way bigger deal than you’d expect!

Get the full episode here: https://www.globaldispatches.org/p/new-faces-at-the-unand-a-horse-fight

On May 20th, after years of negotiation, World Health Organization member states adopted the Pandemic Agreement — the first international treaty focused on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. Developed in response to the shortcomings revealed during the COVID-19 pandemic, the agreement emphasizes equitable access to vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments, and promotes international cooperation in disease surveillance and health system strengthening.

But will this brand-new agreement live up to its potential? And what role might the United States' decision to remain on the sidelines — and not become a party to the agreement — play in how it is adopted and implemented?

Joining me to discuss these questions and more is Alexandra Phelan, Associate Professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Senior Scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. We begin by examining how the deficiencies in the global response to COVID-19 revealed the need for such a treaty in the first place, before having a longer conversation about what the agreement actually obliges of its signatories — and what factors will determine whether or not it works as intended.

This episode is produced in partnership with Lex International Fund, a philanthropic fund dedicated to strengthening international law to solve global challenges. It is part of a series that demonstrates the impact of Treaties on state behavior that we are calling "when treaties work"

The Pope is not just a religious leader—he's also a Head of State. The Holy See maintains formal diplomatic relations with most countries on Earth and holds the status of a permanent observer at the United Nations. In recent years, the Pope has leveraged his dual role as the leader of the Catholic Church and a head of state to pursue a purposeful foreign policy vision and play a key diplomatic role. Indeed, Pope Francis was instrumental in brokering a major détente between the United States and Cuba during the Obama administration.

So, what is Pope Leo’s foreign policy vision? How does it differ from that of his predecessors? And how might the fact that he is an American and a native English speaker influence the kind of impact he can have on the world stage? Joining me to explore these questions and more is Tom Reese, a Jesuit priest and senior analyst for Religion News Service. In our conversation, Tom Reese unpacks the key takeaways from Pope Leo’s first foreign policy address to foreign diplomats at the Vatican and offers insights into the role the first American pope might play on the global stage as he assumes leadership of the Vatican.

My guest today, Zia Mian is co-director of Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security. He's a physicist who has long studied nuclear weapons and nuclear security. In our conversation Zia Mian explains how scientists have impacted policy discussions about nuclear weapons since the dawn of the nuclear age, and how as the nuclear security landscape is evolving--and as science is advancing, scientists can continue to contribute to our understanding of the effects of a nuclear war.

In addition to his perch at Princeton, Zia Mian serves as Co-Chair of the Scientific Advisory Group of the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This is the first first international scientific body created by a United Nations treaty process for the purpose of advancing nuclear disarmament and in our conversation he explains how the work of scientists can contribute to a nuclear free world.

We kick off, however, discussing the recent conflict between India and Pakistan and what this conflict says about the role of nuclear weapons in international security today.

We recorded this conversation in conjunction with the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference. To view other episodes in this series please visit GlobalDispatches.org

On April 22, militants launched a brutal assault on a tourist site in Indian-controlled Kashmir, killing 26 civilians in what became the deadliest terrorist attack in India in nearly 15 years. What followed was the most intense military confrontation between India and Pakistan in decades—airstrikes, drone attacks, and a terrifying cycle of escalation that threatened to spiral out of control. Then, suddenly, came a ceasefire on May 10.

But why? And will it hold?

In today’s episode, I speak with Debak Das, Assistant Professor at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver, to unpack the deeper roots of the Kashmir dispute and why it remains such a dangerous flashpoint between two nuclear-armed rivals. We explore how this crisis escalated so quickly—and why it stopped just short of the brink. Debak also offers sharp insight into the precariousness of the current ceasefire and what might come next.

Get a discounted subscription to Global Dispatches at this link: https://www.globaldispatches.org/40PercentOff

What would actually happen if a nuclear weapon were detonated in space?

This isn't just the stuff of science fiction — it's a scenario that researchers have studied closely, and the implications are deeply unsettling. From disrupting satellite a nuclear detonation in space would have immediate, global consequences — even without a single casualty on the ground.

In today’s episode, we’re exploring how our growing dependence on space-based infrastructure — for communications, surveillance, and national security — is changing the conventional calculus around nuclear deterrence.

How are major nuclear powers, including Russia, responding to this shifting landscape? Are we on the verge of a space-based nuclear arms race? And what can be done now to preserve space as a peaceful domain?

My guest is Bill Hennigan, author of the At the Brink series, which We recorded this conversation live at the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference — and it’s a fascinating look into how the nuclear order may be evolving in ways that are still underappreciated.

I've been hanging around the United Nations these past few days attending events related to consultations on lethal autonomous weapons systems—so-called killer robots. These are AI-powered weapons systems that can select and strike targets without human control. This is not the stuff of science fiction. These weapons exist today, and they are becoming more powerful—and, frankly, more accessible. They can be relatively inexpensive and deployed by both states and non-state actors, including terrorist groups.

As of now, there are no meaningful international regulations governing the use or development of these lethal autonomous weapons systems. There is a clear gap in our global governance of these technologies.

Here at the United Nations, delegates have been discussing ways to close that gap—potentially through a new legally binding international treaty to regulate or even ban some of these systems.

My guest today, Anna Hehir, is at the forefront of this effort. She is the Head of Military AI at the Future of Life Institute. In our conversation, Anna explains exactly what these weapons entail, where and how they are being used today, and what the future may look like if they continue to be developed without rules or oversight. We then discuss the process of getting a potential treaty on lethal autonomous weapons systems—and why, even if key players do not join such a treaty, it could still make a meaningful difference.