The United States has attempted to enlist its NATO allies in a campaign to “systematically dismantle” the International Criminal Court (ICC), further straining already tense transatlantic relations, according to Politico, which cited diplomats.
During a closed‑door meeting of 32 NATO ambassadors in Brussels in mid‑July, U.S. representative Matthew Whitaker urged allies to help eliminate the ICC and withdraw from the Rome Statute, the court’s founding document, three diplomats told the publication.
Whitaker concluded his remarks by saying: “We will be watching closely to see who stands with America.”
US demands end to ICC support
Washington’s pressure on allies stems from concerns that American officials could face prosecution for war crimes. The campaign against the ICC is part of a broader policy pursued by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, which views certain international institutions and rules as limiting U.S. freedom of action.
The Trump administration has already withdrawn the United States from the Paris Agreement, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the UN Human Rights Council. It also pressured companies to boycott the International Space Summit in Paris and launched a series of trade disputes.
Alongside Whitaker’s speech, the U.S. mission to NATO sent a document to delegations stating that the United States would systematically undermine the ICC’s capabilities.
“We strongly urge you to take immediate steps to withdraw from the organization,” the document read.
The United States also called on allies to assess the threat the ICC poses to their countries, publicly condemn the court for alleged overreach, and immediately cease all material support for its work.
Although NATO is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, all Alliance members except Turkey and the United States are parties to the ICC.
Reaction of European allies
According to one NATO diplomat, the U.S. call for withdrawal “shocked” allies. Another diplomat described the situation as “disappointing.”
In response to Whitaker’s remarks, France and the Netherlands defended the ICC and expressed disagreement with the American position.
The U.S. delegation to NATO did not respond to Politico‘s request for comment. The French delegation also declined to comment but emphasized France’s “unwavering support for the ICC.” The Dutch delegation referred to a statement by the country’s foreign minister, who said the Netherlands “fully” supports the court.
American representatives also raised the ICC issue during bilateral talks with European countries. The U.S. Department of State pledged to “increase scrutiny” of countries that refuse to condemn what Washington termed the “illegitimate power of the ICC,” while continuing to rely on American aid.
Last month, Washington imposed sanctions on high‑ranking court officials, including ICC President Tomoko Akane.
Position of the International Criminal Court
An ICC spokesperson said the court continues to carry out its mandate impartially, independently, and in accordance with the Rome Statute, in the interests of victims and justice.
“Despite attempts to hinder its work, the ICC remains steadfast and resilient,” the spokesperson added.
The ICC was established in 2002 to prosecute individuals accused of the most serious international crimes, including genocide and war crimes.
Washington’s campaign against the ICC
The campaign against the International Criminal Court was launched this summer by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who accused the court of violating U.S. sovereignty.
The ICC last investigated allegations against American officials in 2020 concerning suspected war crimes by U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan. That investigation was subsequently suspended.
At the same time, some ICC officials have called for an inquiry into U.S. strikes on vessels in the Caribbean. The Trump administration maintains that those strikes target vessels linked to drug trafficking.
ICC amid new NATO tensions
The pressure on the ICC coincides with the American “NATO 3.0” initiative, which seeks to push European countries and Canada to assume greater responsibility for their own defense. The plan includes a review of U.S. contributions to NATO capabilities and Alliance spending.
Last month, Washington also sent a questionnaire to NATO members about their stance on U.S. foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. Some allies viewed this as an attempt to tie security guarantees to alignment with Washington’s positions.
Two NATO diplomats said it is unlikely that Washington was trying to force allies to agree specifically to the ICC demands; the issue was raised as a secondary point within a broader discussion.
Nevertheless, the diplomats noted that raising the topic within NATO is far more delicate than in other diplomatic settings, given the United States’ leading role in the Alliance.
The campaign against the ICC unfolds at a challenging moment for NATO. The Alliance has faced intense pressure after many European countries declined to join the U.S. war with Iran, a move that angered Trump.
Earlier this year, Washington also threatened to seize Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, heightening internal tensions within the Alliance.
NATO largely managed to conceal these differences during the annual leaders’ summit in July in Ankara. However, new frictions emerged days later as a result of U.S. demands concerning the ICC.
Source: ZN.UA
