"Why Gustavo Petro Wants Donald Trump Investigated for Alleged War Crimes at the United Nations"

Why Did Colombian President Gustavo Petro Call for a Criminal Investigation Into Donald Trump at the United Nations?

During his recent address to the United Nations General Assembly, Colombian President Gustavo Petro made headlines worldwide by calling for a full criminal investigation into former U.S. President Donald Trump. Petro’s remarks focused on what he described as illegal military actions in the Caribbean—strikes that Trump has publicly claimed were aimed at drug traffickers.

According to Petro, these operations were not legitimate counter-narcotics missions but extrajudicial killings that violated international law and the rights of the victims. He directly accused Trump of authorizing “murderous military strikes” on ships in the Caribbean, arguing that the world community should not turn a blind eye to such actions simply because they were ordered by a U.S. president.

Petro’s Main Argument at the UN

Petro did not mince words in his speech. He stated:

“Criminal proceedings must be opened against those officials, who are from the U.S., even if it includes the highest-ranking official who gave the order: President Trump.”

He argued that Trump’s justification—that the individuals targeted were tied to narcotics cartels—was unsupported by evidence.

Instead, Petro claimed the victims were poor young Latin Americans who lacked economic opportunities, not hardened cartel operatives.

By framing the issue in terms of social justice, Petro pushed back against what he views as a double standard in global politics: powerful nations justifying violence under the banner of security while smaller nations are held to stricter standards of accountability.

Were the Strikes Legal?

From a legal standpoint, this is where the controversy deepens. Under both U.S. and international law, targeted killings outside of declared war zones raise serious concerns. Even if the individuals had been involved in narcotics smuggling, they would generally have been entitled to arrest, trial, and due process.

Petro stressed that bombing unarmed people in international waters is not only disproportionate but also undermines international norms. His rhetorical question—“Was it really necessary to bomb unarmed, poor young people in the Caribbean?”—was aimed at shaming both Washington and the broader international community into action.

Why This Resonates Globally

Petro’s criticism reflects a growing frustration across the Global South with what many see as MAGA-style militarism. Leaders in Latin America, Africa, and Asia have increasingly spoken out against policies that appear designed to showcase toughness to a domestic audience in the United States while imposing real human costs abroad.

Critics argue that Trump’s strikes were less about protecting U.S. citizens from drug trafficking and more about projecting the image of a strongman leader to his political base. This narrative resonates because it echoes a long history of U.S. interventions in Latin America that were justified under the banner of fighting drugs or communism but often resulted in civilian suffering.

What Happens Next?

While it is highly unlikely that the United Nations or international courts will actually pursue criminal charges against Trump, Petro’s remarks set an important precedent. They highlight how global accountability debates are shifting—no leader, not even one from a powerful nation, should be above scrutiny.

At the very least, this moment has sparked international discussion about whether unilateral military actions disguised as “drug control operations” should be tolerated in the 21st century.

Final Thoughts

Whether or not one supports Petro politically, his speech raises serious questions about the balance of power, the limits of presidential authority, and the human cost of militarized drug policies. For many, his call for an investigation is less about Trump personally and more about drawing a line against unchecked violence justified under the war on drugs.

khan

In a world that increasingly demands accountability from leaders, Petro’s bold statement may be remembered as a turning point in how global society views U.S. interventions in Latin America.