#429 — The New World Order

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: Sam Harris and Anne Applebaum discuss Sudan’s brutal civil war as a case study in global disorder, foreign meddling, and the erosion of U.S. soft power. Applebaum argues that American retreat, aid cuts, and the dismantling of information programs like USAID and Voice of America leave a vacuum quickly filled by rival powers, worsening humanitarian collapse and weakening democratic ideals worldwide.

Main Topics: Sudan’s civil war and its nature (Priority: 5/5): Applebaum explains that Sudan’s conflict is a power struggle between the Sudanese armed forces and the Rapid Support Forces, driven by control of territory, gold, and resources rather than ideology or clear ethnic divisions. Foreign interference and proxy competition (Priority: 5/5): The war is intensified by an unusually broad set of outside actors—regional and global powers supplying money, weapons, and support—who are exploiting the conflict rather than working to end it. American retreat and reputational damage (Priority: 5/5): Harris and Applebaum argue that U.S. disengagement, especially under Trump, has damaged America’s image as a defender of human rights and a source of mediation, benevolence, and democratic leadership. Destruction of USAID and humanitarian logistics (Priority: 5/5): Applebaum describes USAID as a critical humanitarian and logistical system, and says its abrupt dismantling caused chaos, interrupted food and medicine delivery, and endangered vulnerable populations. Information warfare and the loss of U.S.-backed broadcasters (Priority: 4/5): The conversation highlights how cuts to Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Voice of America, and similar outlets reduce access to independent information and allow Chinese, Russian, Iranian, and Cuban narratives to replace them. Aid reform versus indiscriminate cuts (Priority: 4/5): Applebaum acknowledges legitimate criticism of aid systems and points to Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms as a more local, grassroots model, but rejects the idea that violent, abrupt shutdowns are a defensible reform strategy. Moral and political implications of global order breakdown (Priority: 4/5): The discussion broadens into the fragility of liberal world order, the possibility that failed states and transactional great-power politics are becoming normal, and the consequences for civilians and democratic norms.

Key Arguments: Sudan’s war is unusually nihilistic because both major armed factions are opportunistic, resource-driven, and indifferent to civilian suffering. The conflict is being prolonged and intensified by many outside powers—Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, and others—who see advantage in instability. U.S. absence creates a vacuum; when America withdraws from diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and broadcasting, rival states fill the space with propaganda and coercive influence. The Trump era has caused long-term brand damage to the United States by making America appear transactional, corrupt, and indifferent to human rights. USAID was not just “aid” but a crucial logistics and delivery system; cutting it off abruptly disrupted food, medicine, contracts, payments, and refugee support. There are serious arguments for reforming aid to be more local and accountable, but not for sudden shutdowns that predictably cause harm. U.S.-backed broadcasters were a major source of trustworthy information and democratic ideas for millions; ending them weakens free speech and global informational competition. Even if some aid systems were imperfect, they often saved lives and supported broader democratic and public-health goals, including AIDS and Ebola response. Sudan is not a primitive void; it had urban middle-class life, universities, and institutions, showing that collapse destroys existing social and educational structures rather than rescuing a failed blank slate.

Data Points: Outside powers involved in Sudan: 14+ countries/actors named - Harris reads a long list of foreign actors influencing or participating in the conflict, including regional and global powers. USAID share of international humanitarian aid: about 40% - Applebaum says USAID represented roughly 40 percent of international humanitarian aid, mainly food and medicine. USAID role in logistics: large part of delivery infrastructure - She describes USAID as essential for trucking, shipping, statistics, and payment systems supporting humanitarian operations. Duration of Darfur conflict reference: a couple of decades ago - Applebaum notes the Rapid Support Forces grew out of the Janjaweed created by a previous Sudanese dictator decades earlier. North Sudan civil war settlement context: old civil war ended with South Sudan independence - Applebaum cites the earlier North-South conflict as an example of a case where U.S. involvement helped end war and contribute to state formation.

Pivotal Quotes: "This is a war between two groups who want power, who want money, who want control of territory, who want gold." — Anne Applebaum: Her description of the underlying motivations driving Sudan’s main warring parties. "The vacuum is always filled by somebody." — Anne Applebaum: Explaining why U.S. withdrawal from aid and broadcasting space will be replaced by rival powers’ influence. "I spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper." — Sam Harris (quoting Elon Musk): Harris cites Musk’s celebratory language to emphasize the callousness of dismantling USAID.

Implications: If the U.S. keeps retreating from aid, broadcasting, and diplomacy, humanitarian crises will deepen, disinformation will spread, and authoritarian powers will fill the gap. The conversation warns that soft-power decay may be as consequential as military decline.