“Washington’s War on Justice: Why the Global South Must Not Look Away”

“Washington’s War on Justice: Why the Global South Must Not Look Away”

OPINION BY :Hem Kumar October 2026

For small states, developing countries and peoples who have historically had little power before empires, armies and global financial institutions, this should not be treated as a distant quarrel between Washington and The Hague. It is a warning.

Power Versus Principle

The United States has long demanded accountability from others. It invokes democracy, human rights, the rule of law and international norms when censuring governments it considers hostile or troublesome.

But now, when an international court examines alleged crimes involving Americans or Israeli officials, the response is not legal argument. It is economic force. It is intimidation. It is an effort to make the court financially and operationally incapable of carrying out its mandate.

Rubio did not merely criticize the court. He promised to restrict transactions with it and cut off the resources necessary for it to function. The sanctions can affect the ICC’s banking, software, travel, contracting and other routine operations, while US-linked companies are being given time to unwind their relationships with the court.

That is not a defense of justice. It is an assertion that justice must stop at the gates of power.

If the allegations before the ICC are baseless, then let them be challenged on evidence, law and due process. Let lawyers test the case. Let judges weigh the facts. But no serious democracy can credibly preach the rule of law while seeking to financially suffocate a court because its jurisdiction has become inconvenient.

The Global South’s Stake

The world must be clear about what is at stake. The ICC was never created for the comfort of the powerful. It exists because victims of mass atrocity are too often abandoned by domestic systems compromised by war, political influence, fear or impunity.

For countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, the principle is fundamental: a person accused of the worst international crimes should not acquire immunity simply because his country possesses immense military force, wealth or diplomatic leverage.

The court’s work extends across situations involving Afghanistan, Sudan’s Darfur region, Bangladesh/Myanmar, Ukraine, Venezuela and Palestine, among others. Human Rights Watch warns that court-wide sanctions could jeopardize access to the basic financial and technological services needed for the institution to operate.

The implications are chilling. If Washington can weaponize its control of financial networks to punish an international judicial body, then which smaller institution will be safe? Which state will be able to rely on neutral rules when those rules inconvenience a powerful government? Which victims will be told that their suffering is legally meaningful only when the accused lacks geopolitical protection?

That is not a rules-based world. That is a world governed by rank.

A Bitter Moment of Contrast

The cruelty of the moment is sharpened by its timing.

The sanctions were announced as the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Navi Pillay, a former ICC judge and internationally respected jurist whose life’s work has been defined by the pursuit of accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

One institution was honoring the labor of international justice. Another was moving to destroy the means through which that justice is pursued.

The contradiction could not be clearer.

And it should trouble every government that invokes international law when its borders, citizens, resources or sovereignty are threatened. A state cannot demand respect for law only when law protects its own interests, then fall silent when the same legal order is attacked elsewhere.

Guyana Cannot Be Selective

Guyana, like every small state, has a particular reason to defend international law consistently.

Our territorial integrity, our maritime interests, our sovereign rights over resources and our place in the world do not rest on military superiority. They rest on principles: the sanctity of borders, peaceful settlement of disputes, treaty obligations, international adjudication and the proposition that might does not make right.

Those principles cannot be selectively defended.

A country cannot celebrate international courts when they affirm its rights, appeal to global institutions when its security is challenged, and then remain indifferent while a powerful country attempts to cripple an international court because it has dared to investigate persons protected by power.

The lesson for Guyana is not that it must pick a side in every quarrel between global powers. It must not. Guyana’s foreign policy must remain anchored in Guyanese interests, regional stability, non-alignment, sovereignty and principled engagement with all partners.

But neutrality must never be confused with moral silence.

Small states have no interest in a world where international institutions are permitted to function only with the approval of a superpower. Today it is the ICC. Tomorrow it may be another treaty body, arbitration mechanism, court, climate institution or multilateral process upon which vulnerable nations rely.

CARICOM Must Speak Clearly

CARICOM should not be timid on this question.

The Caribbean understands the history of unequal power. Our nations emerged from slavery, colonialism, extraction and external control. We know what it means for major decisions to be made elsewhere, by people insulated from the consequences borne by smaller societies

That history demands clarity.

The region should affirm that international justice cannot be dismantled through financial coercion. It should support measures that protect the ICC’s ability to maintain banking, technological, travel and operational services. It should insist that the principle of accountability applies to every state and every official—not merely to those without powerful friends.

This is not anti-Americanism. It is pro-law.

It is also a test of whether the international community truly believes that genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are crimes against all humanity—or whether those words are simply tools to be deployed against the weak.

No One Above the Law

The ICC is not beyond criticism. No international institution is. Its record, resources, pace and uneven reach have all invited legitimate scrutiny. But criticism is not a license for demolition.

The Trump administration’s action presents the world with a simple and uncomfortable question: does international law apply to everyone, or only to those too weak to resist it?

For the Global South, for small states, and for every victim waiting for justice where domestic systems have failed, the answer cannot be uncertain. No nation should be too powerful to investigate. No official should be too protected to prosecute.  

And no court created to confront humanity’s worst crimes should be allowed to die because it has come too close to the powerful.