The Biden administration’s attempts to build closer bonds with South Africa may not bear fruit, but it may be worth devoting more attention to nongovernmental actors.

Gabriella Meltzer is a research associate in the Council on Foreign Relations Global Health program. From Ebola to Zika, recent global health crises have been defined by unpredictable outbreaks of…

Myanmar’s civil war between resistance groups and the ruling military junta has reached a decisive phase.

This is a guest post by Cheryl Strauss Einhorn, a journalist and adjunct professor at the Columbia Business School. Just this past month, Rwandan President Paul Kagame followed neighboring rulers in…

It’s a matter of conventional wisdom that the crises gripping the Horn of Africa are fundamentally political, and that viable, sustainable solutions can be found only through inclusive political dialogue. But in both Sudan and Ethiopia, current dialogues—one internationally backed and one a domestic project—inspire little confidence. The United States has real interests at stake in the region that are ill-served by relying on these processes to stabilize these two fragile countries.  In Sudan, where a more just and accountable political dispensation has been a U.S. priority for decades, the administration seems determined to defer to the United Nations (UN)-African Union (AU)-Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) tripartite mechanism, which the State Department recently described as “the most inclusive mechanism to achieve an urgently needed agreement” on a way forward in Sudan.