Context:

• The proposed Graham Bill, which seeks to target countries such as India and China for purchasing Russian oil, is an example of the selective application of international norms and the expansion of American coercive power.
• The central issue is not merely the use of secondary sanctions against third countries, but the broader question of sovereignty, democratic accountability, international law and strategic autonomy.
• Even if Russia is blamed for the Ukraine war and Iran’s regime is opposed, the US cannot legitimately impose costs on countries that did not start or control these conflicts.

The Democratic Accountability Deficit:

• Externalising domestic failures:
  • The war with Iran has generated significant domestic criticism and global economic and security disruptions, yet the US political system appears unable to impose meaningful accountability on the executive.
  • Instead of scrutinising the conduct and consequences of war, the US Congress is portrayed as attempting to discipline other countries through sanctions.
  • This is equivalent to transforming inadequate accountability at home into coercive authority abroad.
• Executive power and congressional abdication:
  • The problem goes beyond Donald Trump as an individual. There is a broader historical pattern of executive discretion in US foreign policy and war-making.
  • The bipartisan support for measures targeting third countries is therefore presented as particularly significant.
  • Congress, rather than restraining executive power, is argued to have strengthened it, raising questions about the representative character of American institutions. 

Selective Application of International Principles:

• Unequal burden-sharing:
  • The Graham Bill allegedly assumes that the US can impose economic costs on countries that had no role in initiating a war and were not consulted in its conduct.
  • This highlights a perceived double standard:
    • The Bill reportedly seeks exemptions for US imports of low-enriched uranium, suggesting that Washington recognises the economic consequences of sanctions when they affect itself,
    • While expecting poorer countries to absorb higher energy costs.
  • Europe is also criticised for applying international-law principles selectively, particularly by prioritising Ukraine while responding differently to other conflicts, including Iran.
• “Arrogance of power”:
  • The Senator J. William Fulbright’s concept of the “Arrogance of Power” explains the recurring feature of American foreign policy.
  • This arrogance operates at several levels:
    • Power mistaken for virtue: Material power is treated as evidence of moral legitimacy.
    • Self-legitimating power: The powerful assume that others must justify their actions, while they themselves remain exceptions.
    • Resistance to self-restraint: Excessive confidence discourages acknowledgement of failure or compromise.
    • Epistemic overreach: Major powers may develop mistaken assumptions about how other societies and states will respond to coercion.
  • The Graham Bill is consequently portrayed as a legislative endorsement of this approach.

Limits of Coercive Power:

• The US cannot necessarily determine the strategic choices of major sovereign states through economic pressure.
• The experiences of Ukraine and Iran demonstrate the continuing importance of state sovereignty and political agency.
• Attempting to compel countries such as India and China through sanctions may therefore generate resistance rather than global stability.
• Therefore, the US Congress should focus more closely on executive accountability and the consequences of American military intervention.

Way Ahead for India:

• Protecting strategic autonomy:
  • The Graham Bill could pressure India to reduce its purchases of Russian oil, affecting energy security and creating a challenge for India’s strategic autonomy and its freedom to pursue an independent foreign policy.
  • However, strategic autonomy does not mean opposing the US. India can deepen India-US cooperation while retaining the freedom to disagree with Washington on issues affecting India's national interests.
  • Excessive concessions to avoid US pressure could weaken India’s bargaining position and policy independence.
• Need for a principle-based foreign policy: India should apply consistent principles such as sovereignty, non-interference, peaceful resolution of disputes and respect for international law across Ukraine, Gaza and Iran conflicts.
• Strengthening global partnerships:
  • Rather than depending excessively on any single power, India can strengthen ties with Russia, the EU, Japan, Gulf countries and the Global South.
  • This would increase its diplomatic space and resilience against external pressure.

Conclusion:

• The Graham Bill highlights the limits of unilateral power, selective international norms, and the conflict between sovereignty and coercive diplomacy.
• Therefore, India's strategic autonomy should not be reduced to transactional bargaining with major powers.