US Foreign Policy: Burden of resolving conflicts is on countries that neither started these wars nor control their outcomes.

The proposed US sanctions bill directed at countries buying Russian oil reflects a troubling inconsistency in Washington’s approach to global affairs. By threatening punitive tariffs on nations such as India and China, the legislation appears to shift the burden of resolving conflicts onto countries that neither started these wars nor control their outcomes. India’s decision to secure affordable energy for its vast population is rooted in practical national needs, and treating this as a punishable act overlooks the realities faced by developing economies. While the bill is presented as a defence of international principles, it selectively applies those principles, demanding sacrifices from others while allowing room for exceptions when American interests are involved.

The measure also suggests that the United States may not have fully absorbed the lessons of earlier sanctions regimes, which often produced unintended consequences without necessarily changing the behaviour of targeted states. Previous attempts to isolate adversaries have coincided with prolonged conflicts, economic disruptions, and rising uncertainty in global markets. Instead of encouraging cooperation, broad sanctions risk deepening divisions and creating resentment among partners. For countries like India, which have sought to balance strategic relationships while preserving independent decision-making, such pressure can be seen as an infringement on sovereign choices rather than a constructive diplomatic tool.

More broadly, the bill projects an image of American power that is willing to judge and penalise others while showing limited willingness to examine its own role in ongoing geopolitical crises. Critics argue that it reflects a tendency to externalise responsibility for global instability rather than addressing difficult questions at home about foreign policy decisions and military interventions. The bipartisan support behind the legislation further reinforces the perception that Washington finds it easier to discipline other nations than to hold its own leadership accountable for the consequences of its actions.

At a strategic level, the assumption that large and independent countries can be compelled into compliance through economic threats appears misguided. Nations such as India and China make policy choices based on their own economic and security considerations, and coercive measures are unlikely to produce lasting alignment. Instead, such actions may weaken trust in the United States and accelerate efforts by major powers to reduce dependence on American-led systems. A stronger and more credible approach would involve dialogue, diplomacy, and respect for national sovereignty rather than relying on punitive measures that risk appearing arbitrary, selective, and self-serving.

For India, the episode underlines the importance of strategic autonomy. Maintaining strong ties with the United States remains valuable, but these relations are most sustainable when grounded in mutual respect rather than pressure. Any response that appears to reward coercion could weaken India’s ability to defend its interests independently. The broader principle at stake is not merely access to energy, but the right of sovereign nations to make decisions based on their own national priorities without being forced to bear the costs of conflicts they neither created nor control.

Get membership to feature your article. Check here.