U.S. Official’s Call for Latin America to Quit ICC Tests Global Justice Framework
At a regional security conference in Panama, the U.S. Secretary of War reportedly urged Latin American countries to withdraw from the International Criminal Court, which has issued arrest warrants for Israel’s prime minister and former defense minister. The push puts Washington’s security agenda on a collision course with the global justice system many of these states helped build.
A senior U.S. defense official has reportedly urged Latin American governments to abandon the International Criminal Court, escalating a long‑running clash between parts of Washington’s security establishment and the global justice institution that has targeted leaders from allies as well as adversaries.
Speaking at a conference of the Organization of South American Countries Fighting the Cartels (ACCC) in Panama, U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth called on regional states to withdraw from the ICC in The Hague, according to accounts circulating on 13 August. The court has recently issued arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in connection with the war in Gaza, a move that has sharply divided international opinion and drawn condemnation from Israel and some of its backers.
“I strongly urge you to leave the ICC,” Hegseth was quoted as saying, in a reported appeal that linked cooperation on counter‑narcotics and security to a shared stance against what he and other critics describe as politicized prosecutions. The remarks have not been fully transcribed in official U.S. releases, and many Latin American governments have yet to publicly respond, but the thrust of the message is clear: Washington is asking partners to reconsider a cornerstone of the post‑Cold War accountability architecture.
For Latin American states, many of which joined the ICC after traumatic periods of dictatorship, internal conflict, or mass abuses, the court has been both a symbol and a practical backstop against impunity. Withdrawing would send a strong signal to domestic constituencies and victims’ groups that international recourse is being narrowed, especially in countries where local judiciaries remain weak or politicized. It would also alter the legal landscape for current and former officials who might otherwise face the distant but real prospect of Hague‑based investigations.
The operational stakes go beyond legal symbolism. If U.S. security assistance is informally or formally linked to ICC withdrawal, governments will face a concrete trade‑off between access to intelligence, training, and equipment for fighting cartels and insurgent groups, and their continued participation in an international justice system they helped legitimize. For police officers, soldiers, and communities living in areas ravaged by organized crime, the priority may understandably be immediate security—but the long‑term cost of weakening accountability mechanisms is harder to measure and easier to overlook.
Strategically, the move fits into a broader pattern of pushback against international courts and tribunals by major powers and their allies when rulings or investigations cut too close to their own conduct or that of partners. The ICC warrants against Israeli leaders mark one of the most politically sensitive decisions in the court’s history, touching a core ally of the United States and setting a precedent that some fear could one day be applied more broadly.
For Washington, persuading Latin American states to leave the ICC would blunt the court’s geographic reach and moral authority, especially in a region that has often championed multilateral law. For Russia, China, and other critics of Western influence, it would be an opportunity to argue that the rules‑based order is selective and contingent.
The deeper insight here is that arrest warrants issued in The Hague are testing their real power not in European capitals, but in the choices of countries thousands of miles away that must decide whether justice is a shield worth risking friction with a superpower.
Signals to watch include official statements from major Latin American ICC members such as Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia; any sign that U.S. security cooperation frameworks are being revised to include implicit or explicit stances on the court; and responses from the ICC itself. A wave of withdrawals—or a firm regional refusal to comply with Washington’s request—would send a clear message about where global support for international criminal justice really stands.
Sources
- OSINT