Site Meter UN Dispatch - Page 21 of 1358 - United Nations News & Commentary Global News - ForumUN Dispatch | United Nations News & Commentary Global News – Forum | Page 21
Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size

All Posts

a photo of the UN building in New York, via Wikimedia Commons

The 4 Big Stories this UN Week

New York City streets are clogged. The Social Good Summit is uptown, the Clinton Global Initiative is in mid-town, and the eyes of the world are squarely focused on Turtle Bay. UN Week is here.

Here are the four big stories that will dominate the diplomatic agenda in New York this week.

1) The UN Climate Summit 

On Tuesday, hundreds of heads of state and key global leaders will descend on Turtle Bay for a one day summit on climate change. This meeting is not part of any formal negotiating process for an international binding treaty on climate change. Rather, it was called by Ban Ki Moon to help provide some momentum toward that agreement. (And the historic march in New York City on Sunday, in turn, was intended to build momentum for Tuesday’s meeting. )

That momentum is sorely needed. This will be the second largest gathering of world leaders to discuss climate change since the Copenhagen summit four years ago failed to produce a strong international agreement. The next chance to do so (perhaps even the last chance) will be in Paris in 2015. Between now and then, the international community will need to step up its game.  

Countries will likely use the UN stage as an opportunity to make policy statements and announce financial commitments that they will bring to the table during the heat of negotiations leading up to the Paris Summit. In particular, expect developed countries to announce contributions to the Green Climate Fund, which is a funding mechanism established by the Copenhagen accord to help developing countries finance their economic development in environmentally sustainable ways. 

(You can learn more about the diplomatic intricacies of this negotiation by listening to this Global Dispatches Podcast episode).

2) A Turning Point in the Fight Against Ebola?

The bad news: the outbreak is getting worse at an alarming rate. The number of people infected is rising exponentially, doubling every three weeks. The international response has been hampered by a lack of funding, lack of personnel and poor coordination. The outbreak was extraordinary. The response was not. 

But things may finally be turning around.

The Security Council last week held an unprecedented meeting on the ebola crisis, elevating the outbreak in West Africa to a threat to international peace and security.  The resolution, co-sponsored by 134 countries (the most ever for a UN Security Council Resolution), is an international call to arms against the outbreak and provides for a massive scaling up of assistance to affected countries. At the meeting, Ban Ki Moon announced the creation of a special United Nations Mission for Emergency Ebola Response to on-the-ground organization and logistic capacity to centralize the response from the UN system and NGOs that work closely with the UN.

The emergency session was convened at the behest of the United States and came two days after President Obama announced a huge scaling up of America’s ebola response. The USA is now firmly in the lead. And at least on paper, it has the backing of the rest of the world. The goal now is to turn the unity of the Security Council into specific actions that could help contain the outbreak. Expect UN diplomats to harness the momentum of the Security Council resolution for tangible commitments that member states can to bring to the fight against ebola.

3) Foreign Terrorist Fighters

An estimated 12,000 to 15,000 foreigners have flocked to Syria in the past three years to take up arms. Most of those foreign fighters have joined al Qaeda’s affiliate or it’s offshoot, ISIS. To put this figure in perspective, this number far exceeds the number of jihadis who traveled to Afghanistan to take up arms against the Soviets in the 1970s and 1980s—a group that included the core of people who later form al Qaeda. 

The prospect of thousands of would-be jihadis flocking to a war zone, then returning home battle-hardened is positively frightening to the governments of most UN member states. On Wednesday, President Obama will chair a meeting of the Security Council dedicated to stopping the flow of foreign terrorist fighters to and from war zones in the Middle East. This is only the second time in history that the a US president has personally chaired a Security Council meeting, which demonstrates both the priority to which the United States holds this issue, and the value that the United States believes the United Nations holds in helping to mitigate this threat. 

The Council is expected to pass a legally binding resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter that compels states to do more to monitor their borders and prevent their citizens from taking up arms in Syria. The resolution also contains measures—again legally binding — to compel countries to counter violent extremism by undertaking policies that reduce the “push” factors that inspire would-be jiahdis to want to flock to war zones. In a security council that has been so divided over Syria for the past three years, this resolution provides a moment of unity around a threat that affects most countries on the planet.  No one wants their citizens to join ISIS. 

4) 2030 Starts…Now

The Millennium Development Goals expire next year. This year will be dedicated to replacing them. Or, in UN speak, setting the “Post 2015 Development Agenda.” The aim i set this agenda for the next 15 years by the time world leaders return to New York one year from now. 

“The general view is that it needs to be bolder, more ambitious and more transformational than the MDGs,” says Helen Clark, administrator of the United Nations Development Program.  So far, that seems to be happening. For the past 18 months, disparate parts of the UN system have contributed to the process of deciding what should replace the MDGs. This included a group of 30 UN member states from a broadly representative cross section of counties charged with coming up with a first draft of what will be called the “Sustainable Development Goals.” In August, this group recommended 17 goals, which includes eliminating extreme poverty by 2030, to be forwarded to the entire UN General Assembly for debate and discussion.   

“This set of SDGs says what we need to do,” says Hungarian Ambassador to the UN Csaba Korosi, who co-chaired the 30 member group. “Now, we need to decide how we do it and we have one year more to decide this.”  The 69th General Assembly is when that will be decided. That starts this week. 

Security | | Leave a comment

Turning Words in Impact with Women’s Rights

As the UN General Assembly meets for the start of its 69th session, the role of women and girls is a hot topic. At the Social Good Summit, several panels discussed not only the importance of gender equality but how to turn awareness into concrete action.

Two panels hosted today highlighted the importance of these goals as well as how we can move from simple words to actual results. Introducing the “rockstars of international development”, Juju Chang welcomed UNDP Administrator Helen Clark, former Education Minister for Mozambique and children’s right advocate Graca Machel, and UN Foundation CEO Kathy Calvin. All three of these women are on the frontline of tis struggle, but also represent women at the highest levels of international affairs. Based on their discussion it is clear how far we have come in advancing the rights of women and girls, but how much more is left to be done.

A second panel with UN Women’s Executive Director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, Tribal Planet CEO Jeff Martin, and Tara Abrahams of Girl Rising directly addressed how to achieve this. One result of the increased focus on women over the last 15 years is issue awareness is no longer a major issue; now comes the much harder task of bringing about actual, measurable change. This requires not only action by everyone, but also building a framework that allows us to measure what actions are achieving and where.

The overwhelming theme of both discussions is that while in a broad sense the status of women has improved since the creation of the Millennium Development Goals, there is still room and a vital need to gain more information and focus on the nuances of this struggle. While national statistics may show that child marriage is decreasing, a look at specific regions within that nation may still show that child marriage has not decreased there, or still exists at a much higher than normal rate. By developing a framework to measure these results on a local and regional level, not just a national and international level, we can gain a better idea of where more work is needed. But any substantial change will inevitably have to involve the other half of the global population – men and boys – in order to ensure the gains made are sustainable and inclusive.

This is the motivation behind the HeForShe campaign , an outreach program launched by UN Women to help men and boys form in global solidarity to support gender equality. Mlambo-Ngcuka aims have 1 billion men sign he campaign commitment over the next year to support women and girl’s rights, recognizing that women do not exist in a vacuum; by engaging with their fathers, brothers, husbands, friends and communities, the work being done on a global level can ensure that a rising tide truly does raise all boats, even in the smallest villages.

Engaging with men is just one way to bring concrete action to these goals but it illustrates the next stage in this fight. From working with Silicon Valley to create new data analytics to using storytelling to follow a girl’s story beyond a simple tweet, no longer is it enough to look at issues such as child marriage, domestic violence, and wage equality discretely; holistic approaches, with people taking personal responsibility and personal commitments, is what is needed now.

Development, Rights, Women | | Leave a comment
Women take part in maternal health awareness and guidance training sessions at a health center in Bamako Sabalidougou, Mali. Photo Credit: UN Women, CNIESC (National Information Center for Education and Community Health) - See more at:

Will Women’s Rights Earn its Place at UNGA?

The 69th session of the UN General Assembly is officially open. One key issue that will be discussed over the next two weeks is what will replace the Millennium Development Goals once they expire next year. In UN Circles, this is called the “Post 2015 Development Agenda.” One aspect of that agenda that is sure to be contentious among member states is the role of women’s rights and gender equality.

Gender equality should be a critical element for the post-2015 Development Agenda. The MDGs included provisions for gender equality; however, they have been widely criticized by feminist scholars and policy practitioners alike for not moving far enough to promote women’s rights. In particular, frequent scholarly critiques of the current MDGs include a lack of focus on the economic barriers that impede gender equality, such as labor discrimination; lack of inclusion of protections for women’s property and inheritance rights; and for not addressing violence against women.

Sam Kahamba Kutesa, the President of the United Nations General Assembly, gave a nod to these frustrations in his opening speech to the 69th session, stating that “as highlighted in the outcome document of Rio+20, although progress in gender equality has been made in some areas, the potential of women to engage in, contribute to and benefit from sustainable development has not yet been fully realized.”

Rio+20 was a 2012 conference aimed to renew commitments made by UN Member States at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio 20 years ago. The first Rio conference was tremendous, with the international community making large commitments to sustainable development, human rights, social equity – and women’s rights.  The Rio+20 conference, however, was another story, resulting in a weak outcomes document and even some internal discussion of backing away from some of the promises made at the 1992 Summit.

However, a positive outcome of the Rio+20 Summit was the 30 member Open Working Group, formed of UN member states tasked with developing SDGs and their measurable targets and indicators. The group created a 17-goal list that will be likely adopted in connection with the 69th session of the United Nations General Assembly.

The new SDGs include a new focus on gender equality, particularly within its standalone goal 5: “Achieve gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls.” It also seeks to end all forms of violence against women, discrimination, early and forced marriage, give women equal rights to land and economic resources, and ensure women’s universal access to sexual health and reproductive rights.

As the post-2015 Development Agenda is discussed on the floor of the United Nations General Assembly over the coming weeks, Member States – particularly those who were not intimately involved in crafting the SDGs – will have interesting opportunities to deliberate over the content of the SDGs and contribute to the broader post-2015 Development Agenda.

Members of the UN General Assembly have been split over specific provisions within the SDGs, particularly over issues of sexual and reproductive health and rights. At a previous UN conferences socially conservative countries have blocked reproductive rights language from being included in outcome documents and resolutions. In the coming weeks, we are likely to see speeches from these Member States advocating for a dilution or removal of this language.

Pushing back against them will be most of the countries of the global north, plus many other more progressive member states in Latin America and Africa.

So how can UN General Assembly Member States work to ensure that this language makes it into the final Post-2015 Development Agenda? Advocates in the region for sexual and reproductive health and rights should take charge by making speeches of their own, coping to bring more of the developing world into support of this action. Deputy Executive Director of UN Women, Lakshmi Puri, already solicited the support of the G77 + China for gender equality efforts at this session in May. Staunch supporters of sexual and reproductive health and rights should take special care to promote their inclusion in the Post-2015 Development Agenda in their opening speeches. These words matter. And the world will be watching

Women | | 1 Comment
Ebola MSF

This is a Huge Turning Point in the Fight Against Ebola

Ebola is spiraling out of control. According to the latest figures of the World Health Organization there have been 5,335 cases and 2,622 deaths from the virus. And that figure is increasing exponentially. To be precise: it’s been doubling every three weeks.  

The response to date has been poor. One telling statistic: In Monrovia, Liberia 1,210 beds are required to treat Ebola patients. There are currently only 240.

The geographic spread of this outbreak across four countries and in urban centers in a region that has never before experienced ebola has severely hampered the international community’s response. The health systems in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea are at their breaking point. Existing international health structures like the World Health Organization and NGOs like MSF are overwhelmed.

The international system has, so far, failed to stop this outbreak.  But the international system –specifically, the United Nations — is probably humanity’s best hope for turning this around.

For the first time in the history of the organization, an emergency UN Security Council meeting was held to deal with a public health emergency. This unprecedented meeting yielded an unprecedented result: the resolution, which passed unanimously, had 131 co-sponsors — the most ever for a UN Security Council resolution.

What can the resolution do? Much of the resolution is a generalized call for greater international solidarity and international contributions to the fight against ebola. But it also contains some specific provisions that could accelerate the international community’s response to the crisis. In particular, the resolution calls on countries to lift travel restrictions to and from affected countries. This has been an ongoing problem for the United Nations and NGOs.  Airlines have cancelled flights, and countries in the region have prevented the use of their airports to deliver personnel and assistance to affected countries.

These restrictions have significantly hindered the ability of international health workers, NGOs and the UN to do its job–and also made the delivery of supplies and personnel more expensive. Key countries in the region, including important travel hubs like Senegal, Cameroon, South Africa and Kenya, have banned travel to and from Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone.  In some cases, countries won’t even let UN planes land to refuel.

The resolution passed today explicitly calls for the lifting of these travel bans and the resumption of air travel to and from the affected region. And — this is key — Senegal, South Africa, Cameroon, Kenya, and Sierra Leone, have co-sponsored the resolution. This suggests that they have already lifted (or are preparing to lift) the travel bans.

That should be one immediate and tangible outcome of this emergency Security Council meeting. Another was the announcement by Ban Ki Moon of establishing a special United Nations Mission for Ebola Emergency Response, UNMEER. According to a letter to the Security Council obtained by UN Dispatch, the mission will “build and maintain a regional operational platform, ensuring the rapid delivery of international assistance against needs identified in affected states, lead the response at the operational level, and provide strategic direction for the United Nations system and partners on the ground.” In other words, this will be an arm of the UN General Secretariat devoted exclusively to containing ebola. Again, this is unprecedented.

Today’s Security Council meeting may very well be a turning point in the fight against ebola. The fact that it was the United States that called this meeting and drafted this resolution — and that the Security Council met two days after President Obama announced a huge scaling up of America’s ebola response — demonstrates that the United States is willing and able to take the lead. The fact that 130 other countries co-sponsored this resolution demonstrates an unprecedented degree of global solidarity around this plan. And finally, Ban Ki Moon’s announcement of a UN mission to help coordinate international efforts means that the nuts and bolts of the UN system are being summoned to contribute to the response.

There are very few global problems that cannot be solved with a combination of American leadership and broad international support through the UN system. This Security Council meeting was the moment that these elements finally came together.



Security | | Leave a comment
iego Fernández (autor original) / vendida con "copyright compartido" a la Agencia de Fotografía AP México (autor secundario) - self-made / publicada en La Jornada México (fuente de consulta secundar…

Will the International Criminal Court take on the Mexican Drug War

Last week a group of human rights organizations submitted a letter to the ICC requesting investigation into crimes committed by state security forces in their battle against drug cartels. It is not the first time human rights organizations have requested intervention by the ICC in the brutal Mexican Drug War. Yet, like the last request in 2011, it is unlikely the ICC will take up the case. There are several reasons why the ICC is not interested in the violence in Mexico but the changing nature of conflict and organized crime suggests that it may be time for the court to reconsider its position.

How did Mexico get here?

While Colombia once dominated the drug trafficking industry in Latin America, the decline of major Colombian cartels in the 1990s and the rise in cross-border traffic for goods and services due to the implementation of NAFTA gave Mexican cartels a competitive edge in drug trafficking. Since then, Mexican cartels have dominated the drug trade in North America with devastating human consequences.

For a variety of reasons the exact number of people killed or missing since the drug war began is hard to calculate. Experts estimate that only about 25% of crimes are reported, meaning homicide statistics are largely culled from the number of bodies discovered and reported by government officials. Numerous people have questioned the statistics released by the government, suggesting that the government is underplaying the real numbers and intentionally obscuring which deaths are related to the drug trade and which are not. The other main method is by tracking news reports of homicides but even here not all deaths are reported and it is not always clear when organized crime is involved and when it isn’t. Nonetheless, during former President Felipe Calderón term from 2006 to 2012, an estimated 60,000 to 70,000 people were killed in relation to the drug trade. In addition to this, another 27,000 people were reported as missing but did not match the descriptions of any unclaimed bodies. After peaking in 2011, homicides decreased slightly in 2012 and 2013 but still represents a shockingly high homicide rate

Without question some of these deaths are due to fighting between and within the cartels as well as revenge murders of activists and journalists speaking out against the cartels, but the Mexican military and security forces are also responsible for bloodshed.

Does the Mexican Drug War meet the requirements for the ICC?

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, non-international armed conflict under Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions is a protracted violent conflict that must reach a certain level of intensity – such as requiring a state to deploy the military rather than rely on police actions, which Mexico has done since 2006 – and must be between parties with an organized command structure. In prosecuting crimes committed during the Balkan wars, the ICTY confirmed that multiple armed groups confronting one another, without the presence of government forces, also falls under the definition of non-international armed conflict. Thus on its face it would appear that the violence between the government and the cartels would meet this definition and go beyond “common crime”.

Under the Rome Statute, a crime against humanity occurs when a party commits a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population that includes certain acts such as murder, imprisonment without due process, torture, rape, enforced disappearances, or other inhumane acts. War Crimes are similarly defined although mainly applying to the treatment of the opposing party. The most recent complaint filed alleges a systematic pattern by military forces where roughly 100 civilian victims in Baja California subject to arrest without a warrant, torture, forced confessions, and planted drug evidence to prove their guilt. This too would appear to meet the threshold set forth by the ICC.

Mexico is a state party to the Rome Statute so the ICC would not need intervention by the UN Security Council to prosecute. But under the principle of complementarity, the court only gains jurisdiction if it is also shown that Mexico is unwilling or unable to prosecute the crimes itself. The recent petition appears to address this as well by noting that despite a 500% increase in complaints of torture by the Mexican military and state security forces, no one has yet to be charged, let alone tried, for these crimes. Likewise the complaint alleges thousands of enforced disappearances and more than 8,000 people arbitrarily detained without charges according to government statistics, but again the government has failed to investigate. In this context it would appear that any investigation by the ICC would meet the qualifications of complementarity.

So why is it unlikely the ICC will open up an investigation?

Despite the appearance that the Mexican Drug War meets all the qualifications for ICC jurisdiction, it is still unlikely the court will open a preliminary investigation, let alone open any cases related to this conflict. The death toll and human rights abuses during Calderón’s term prompted several human rights organizations to present a petition with 23,000 signatures to the ICC in 2011 requesting the court to investigate the Mexican government and leading cartel figures. The ICC has declined to open a preliminary investigation, with then-Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo stating in a speech in Mexico City that he did not believe the violence met the definition of war crimes or crimes against humanity and suggesting the request was more an attempt to litigate the political choices of the Mexican government.

This may seem incredulous in light of the accusations but in many ways is not surprising.

Despite the evolution of conflict and the rise of non-state actors since the end of the Cold War, there is still an institutional culture that views conflict as being between certain kinds of armed groups but not all armed groups. Most of the time, these groups will have political goals set of seizing or maintaining the political power of the state. Drug cartels, with their predominately economic motivations, simply do not conform to this notion.

Given this backdrop, it is highly unlikely the ICC will consider the latest request by international and Mexican human rights organizations to consider the numerous documented acts of torture, forced disappearances and murder by state security forces in Baja from 2006 to 2012 as crimes against humanity. The points Moreno-Ocampo outlined in 2011 still hold true, namely that many consider the violence in Mexico – as severe as it is – as a common crime problem rather than an issue of armed conflict.

Why the ICC should do so anyway

Unfortunately this leaves a large gap in international criminal law. While extensive academic literature is dedicated to the possibility of the ICC investigating transnational organized crime, the court itself has made no indication that it plans to wade into this realm. This means that powerful crime organizations, often too much for state institutions to handle, have no institution that can effectively hold them accountable regardless of the level of violence they use. The lack of accountability feeds the rise and power of the cartels, which makes it even harder for states to combat. This creates a cycle that is playing out in Mexico and Central America today.

The consequences of that cycle include over 50,000 unaccompanied children from Central America who have fled the violence from organized crime and drug cartels in their own countries to apply for asylum in the US. Over the past few months, UNHCR pressured the US to treat these children as refugees fleeing armed conflict. This means that one UN agency based on an international legal convention is pushing for acknowledgement that rampant organized crime does constitute armed conflict while another agency charged with holding international criminals accountable is saying it isn’t.

In contrast to the indifference the ICC has demonstrated towards these issue, the court did open a preliminary investigation on the possibility that crimes against humanity were committed in the aftermath of the 2009 coup d’etat in Honduras. The Center for Constitutional Rights and the International Federation for Human Rights submitted a report to the ICC in 2012 that outlined their belief in why human rights abuses committed by the current government during and after the coup constituted crimes against humanity.

The report details 20 deaths related to the coup and a further 50 related to land rights activism that threatened holding of the government’s key supporters as well as other human rights abuses. Such crimes certainly should be prosecuted, but why this warrants attention by the ICC but tens of thousands of deaths in Mexico do not is a bit baffling.

The lack of consistency by the ICC in choosing which conflicts to investigate is concerning but also highlights how slow the international system is to adapting to changing circumstances. In this instance, Mexico provides a model example for a much needed paradigm shift for the ICC.

Rights | | Leave a comment
Screen Shot 2014-09-15 at 9.12.09 AM

What to Expect at the Big UN Climate Summit

Hundreds of world leaders are descending on the United Nations for a one day meeting on climate change. This is a big deal for the United Nations, for diplomacy, and possibly for the planet. So who is showing up and what countries are snubbing the conference? What will be discussed? And how will this affect ongoing negotiations to construct an internationally binding climate change agreement?

I speak with Elliot Diringer of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions who helps put this historic meeting at the United Nations in the larger context of international climate change diplomacy. This is a very useful conversation for understanding the diplomatic contours of arguably the single most important issue facing humanity today. (Subscribe on iTunes so you don’t miss our twice/week podcast!) 


Episode 33: Ruth Messinger, American Jewish World Service CEO, Former NYC politician.

A conversation with Evan Cinq-Mars of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect Can UN Peacekeeping Save the Central African Republic?

 Episode 32: Andrew Young, UN Ambassador, Mayor, Civil Rights Legend

Obama’s Syria Dilemma, an in interview with Will McCants

Episode 31: Ambassador Michael Guest, LGBT Trailblazer

The Deadly Fear of Ebola, an interview with journalist Jina Moore

South Sudan’s Looming Famine, an interview with Tariq Riebl of Oxfam

Episode 30: Jeff Sachs, economist

Sex Slaves in Iraq, an interview with Zainab Hawa Bangura, the UN Special Representative for Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict

Episode 29: Chris Hill, former Ambassador to Iraq and North Korea nuke negotiator

Kevin Jon Heller discusses the  International Criminal Court’s Palestine Problem

Episode 28: Nancy Birsdall, founder of the Center for Global Development

The WHO explains Why this Ebola Outbreak is So Hard to Contain

Episode 27: Daniel Drezner, counter-intuitive wonk

Michael W. Hanna on How to Negotiate a Gaza Ceasefire

Episode 25: Helene Gayle, CEO of CARE, USA. Long-time AIDS-Fighter

One Campaign’s Erin Hofhelder How Humanity is Winning the Fight Against AIDS

Episode 24: Joseph Cirincione, Nuclear Policy Wonk 

A Migrant’s Story: Why are So Many Children Fleeing to the USA?

Episode 23: Live from the UN 2014 (Volume 2); A special edition with a slew of UN officials.

Inside the Iran Nuke Talks

Episode 23: Jillian York, Digital Free Speech defender

Turkey’s Strategic Interests in Iraq

Episode 22: Live from the UN, 2014 (Vol 1); A special edition, featuring the President of the General Assembly,  the UN Ambassadors from Vietnam and Jamaica, the head of the UN Association, and more!

The UN’s View of the Iraq Crisis

Episode 21: Thomas Pickering, former Ambassador to the UN, Israel, Jordan, Russia, India and more.

Dying for the World Cup

Episode 20: Jessica Tuchman Matthews, foreign policy trendsetter

Egypt After the Counter Revolution 

Episode 19: Louise Arbour, human rights pioneer.

What Obama Left Out of His Big Foreign Policy Speech

Episode 18: Zalmay Khalizad, former US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the UN.

Why Libya is Suddenly on the Verge of a Civil War 

Episode 17: Gov Bill Richardson, he frees hostages.

The Foreign Policy Implications of India’s Elections

Episode 16: Carolyn Miles, CEO of Save the Children

What Boko Haram Wants

Episode: 15 Laura Turner Seydel, philanthropist

Episode 14: Douglas Ollivant, Iraq expert

Episode 13: Gary Bass, historian

Episode 12: Mark Montgomery, demographer

Episode 11: Kenneth Roth, Human Rights Watcher

Episode 10: Live from the UN, Volume 2.

Episode 9: Mia Farrow, humanitarian activist and Goodwill Ambassador

Episode 8: Suzanne Nossel, Big Thinker

Episode 7: Live from the UN, Volume 1. 

Episode 6: PJ Crowley, former State Department Spokesperson

Episode 5: Octavia Nasr, reporter

Episode 4: Arsalan Iftikhar, “The Muslim Guy”

Episode 3: Dodge Billingsley, filmmaker.

Episode 2: Laura Seay,  @TexasinAfrica

Episode 1: Heather Hurlburt, national security wonk


Podcast | | Leave a comment

Diplo Tweets