Editorial-20/09/2026
Graham Bill: International Morality and Unequal Accountability
The Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act—commonly called the Graham Bill—has reignited a fundamental debate in international relations: can a hegemon impose “international morality” while exempting itself from the very norms it seeks to enforce? At its core, the Bill is less about universal justice and more about the unequal architecture of accountability in a unipolar world order.
Context: What the Graham Bill Does
Passed by the US Congress in September 2026, the Graham Bill authorises the US President to impose tariffs of up to 100% on countries that are among the top five importers of Russian crude oil and natural gas, or that are deemed to be “facilitating sanctions evasion”. India and China feature prominently in this list, given their continued purchases of discounted Russian energy since the Ukraine war began.
On the surface, the measure is framed as a tool to cut Russia’s war-financing revenue and uphold the “rules-based international order”. But critics argue that the Bill’s real significance lies in its selective morality: it punishes third countries for buying oil from Russia, while the US itself continues wars (notably in Iran) with far greater global consequences, and carves out exemptions for its own strategic imports like low-enriched uranium.
The Core Ethical Problem: Selective International Morality
Externalising Domestic Accountability Failures
A central ethical critique of the Graham Bill is that it externalises America’s internal democratic deficits. The war in Iran has triggered widespread domestic criticism and global economic disruption, yet the US political system has struggled to hold its own executive accountable. Instead of imposing meaningful checks on presidential war powers, Congress has chosen to discipline other countries through secondary sanctions and tariff threats.
This transforms a failure of domestic accountability into a form of imperial privilege abroad. Countries that had no role in starting the Ukraine or Iran conflicts, were never consulted on the conduct of these wars, and bear significant collateral costs, are now being asked to pay an economic price for them. Meanwhile, the US leaves its own conduct of war outside any comparable framework of accountability.
Double Standards in Burden-Sharing
The Bill also reveals stark double standards in how costs are distributed. It reportedly seeks exemptions for US imports of low-enriched uranium, acknowledging that certain sanctions would be too costly for Washington itself. Yet poorer countries are expected to absorb higher energy prices and economic disruption in the name of “international morality”.
Europe too stands criticised for applying international-law principles selectively—prioritising Ukraine while responding differently to conflicts in Gaza and Iran. This selective enforcement erodes the credibility of norms like sovereignty, non-aggression, and civilian protection, making them appear as tools of power rather than universal principles.
“Arrogance of Power”: From Fulbright to the Graham Bill
Senator J. William Fulbright’s concept of the “Arrogance of Power” offers a powerful lens to understand the Graham Bill. According to this view, American foreign policy has long exhibited several problematic tendencies:
Context: What the Graham Bill Does
Passed by the US Congress in September 2026, the Graham Bill authorises the US President to impose tariffs of up to 100% on countries that are among the top five importers of Russian crude oil and natural gas, or that are deemed to be “facilitating sanctions evasion”. India and China feature prominently in this list, given their continued purchases of discounted Russian energy since the Ukraine war began.
On the surface, the measure is framed as a tool to cut Russia’s war-financing revenue and uphold the “rules-based international order”. But critics argue that the Bill’s real significance lies in its selective morality: it punishes third countries for buying oil from Russia, while the US itself continues wars (notably in Iran) with far greater global consequences, and carves out exemptions for its own strategic imports like low-enriched uranium.
The Core Ethical Problem: Selective International Morality
Externalising Domestic Accountability Failures
A central ethical critique of the Graham Bill is that it externalises America’s internal democratic deficits. The war in Iran has triggered widespread domestic criticism and global economic disruption, yet the US political system has struggled to hold its own executive accountable. Instead of imposing meaningful checks on presidential war powers, Congress has chosen to discipline other countries through secondary sanctions and tariff threats.
This transforms a failure of domestic accountability into a form of imperial privilege abroad. Countries that had no role in starting the Ukraine or Iran conflicts, were never consulted on the conduct of these wars, and bear significant collateral costs, are now being asked to pay an economic price for them. Meanwhile, the US leaves its own conduct of war outside any comparable framework of accountability.
Double Standards in Burden-Sharing
The Bill also reveals stark double standards in how costs are distributed. It reportedly seeks exemptions for US imports of low-enriched uranium, acknowledging that certain sanctions would be too costly for Washington itself. Yet poorer countries are expected to absorb higher energy prices and economic disruption in the name of “international morality”.
Europe too stands criticised for applying international-law principles selectively—prioritising Ukraine while responding differently to conflicts in Gaza and Iran. This selective enforcement erodes the credibility of norms like sovereignty, non-aggression, and civilian protection, making them appear as tools of power rather than universal principles.
“Arrogance of Power”: From Fulbright to the Graham Bill
Senator J. William Fulbright’s concept of the “Arrogance of Power” offers a powerful lens to understand the Graham Bill. According to this view, American foreign policy has long exhibited several problematic tendencies:
- Power mistaken for virtue: Material dominance is treated as evidence of moral legitimacy.
- Self-legitimating power: The US assumes that others must justify their actions, while it remains an exception to the rules it imposes.
- Resistance to self-restraint: Excessive confidence discourages acknowledgement of failure or compromise, even when peace might require it.
- Epistemic overreach: Washington often develops mistaken assumptions about how other societies will respond to coercion.
The Graham Bill is seen as a legislative endorsement of this arrogance. It presumes that the US can, through tariffs and secondary sanctions, determine the strategic choices of large sovereign states like India and China. History, however, suggests otherwise: Ukraine and Iran have both shown the limits of external coercion and the enduring importance of state sovereignty and political agency.
Implications for International Law and Norms
Erosion of Sovereign Equality
The UN Charter rests on the principle of sovereign equality: all states, regardless of size or power, are formally equal before international law. The Graham Bill, by contrast, institutionalises a hierarchy where the US claims the authority to punish countries for lawful trade decisions, while remaining immune from similar scrutiny.
This undermines the idea of a rules-based order and reinforces a power-based order, where rules apply selectively depending on who holds coercive leverage. Over time, such practices encourage other states to also violate norms when it suits their interests, fostering disorder and instability—precisely what Fulbright warned against.
Normalisation of Secondary Sanctions and Coercive Diplomacy
The Bill expands the use of secondary sanctions—penalties imposed on non-US actors (shipping firms, insurers, traders, port authorities) for enabling transactions with sanctioned entities. While presented as a tool to isolate Russia, this approach effectively extraterritorialises US domestic law, compelling third countries to align with Washington’s foreign policy priorities.
For countries like India, this poses a direct challenge to strategic autonomy: the freedom to pursue an independent foreign policy based on national interest rather than external diktat. It also sets a precedent that other powers may emulate, further fragmenting the global trading and financial system.
India’s Dilemma: Strategic Autonomy vs. Transactional Accommodation
India’s official response has been firm: the External Affairs Ministry has stated that the Bill could affect bilateral ties and affirmed that India will take all necessary measures to protect its trade, economic interests, and energy security for its 1.4 billion people. New Delhi has emphasised diversified sourcing and working with industry to mitigate fallout, while warning against holding its population hostage to American whims.
Yet India faces a delicate balancing act:
Implications for International Law and Norms
Erosion of Sovereign Equality
The UN Charter rests on the principle of sovereign equality: all states, regardless of size or power, are formally equal before international law. The Graham Bill, by contrast, institutionalises a hierarchy where the US claims the authority to punish countries for lawful trade decisions, while remaining immune from similar scrutiny.
This undermines the idea of a rules-based order and reinforces a power-based order, where rules apply selectively depending on who holds coercive leverage. Over time, such practices encourage other states to also violate norms when it suits their interests, fostering disorder and instability—precisely what Fulbright warned against.
Normalisation of Secondary Sanctions and Coercive Diplomacy
The Bill expands the use of secondary sanctions—penalties imposed on non-US actors (shipping firms, insurers, traders, port authorities) for enabling transactions with sanctioned entities. While presented as a tool to isolate Russia, this approach effectively extraterritorialises US domestic law, compelling third countries to align with Washington’s foreign policy priorities.
For countries like India, this poses a direct challenge to strategic autonomy: the freedom to pursue an independent foreign policy based on national interest rather than external diktat. It also sets a precedent that other powers may emulate, further fragmenting the global trading and financial system.
India’s Dilemma: Strategic Autonomy vs. Transactional Accommodation
India’s official response has been firm: the External Affairs Ministry has stated that the Bill could affect bilateral ties and affirmed that India will take all necessary measures to protect its trade, economic interests, and energy security for its 1.4 billion people. New Delhi has emphasised diversified sourcing and working with industry to mitigate fallout, while warning against holding its population hostage to American whims.
Yet India faces a delicate balancing act:
- Deepening India–US ties: Cooperation with the US on technology, defence, and supply chains remains strategically valuable.
- Resisting coercive pressure: Excessive concessions to avoid US pressure could weaken India’s bargaining position and policy independence.
- Principle-based foreign policy: India is urged to apply consistent principles—sovereignty, non-interference, peaceful resolution of disputes—across Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran, rather than adopting selective moralism.
Strategic autonomy, in this context, does not mean opposing the US per se, but retaining the freedom to disagree on issues affecting India’s core interests. It also implies diversifying partnerships—with Russia, the EU, Japan, Gulf countries, and the Global South—to increase diplomatic space and resilience against external pressure.
Broader Lessons for Global Governance
The Graham Bill episode underscores several structural problems in contemporary global governance:
Broader Lessons for Global Governance
The Graham Bill episode underscores several structural problems in contemporary global governance:
- Democratic deficit in hegemonic powers: When domestic institutions fail to check executive overreach, the costs are externalised onto weaker states.
- Selective enforcement of norms: Credibility of international law depends on consistent application; selective morality turns norms into instruments of power.
- Limits of coercive power: Large, sovereign states cannot be easily arm-twisted through sanctions; attempts to do so may generate resistance rather than compliance.
- Need for multipolar accountability: A more equitable order would require mechanisms to hold all major powers, including the US, accountable for their conduct of war and economic statecraft.
Way Ahead: Towards a More Equitable International Morality
For the international community, the Graham Bill is a reminder that “international morality” cannot be monopolised by any single power. A more legitimate order would require:
For the international community, the Graham Bill is a reminder that “international morality” cannot be monopolised by any single power. A more legitimate order would require:
- Strengthening multilateral institutions: Empowering the UN and other bodies to scrutinise all conflicts and sanctions regimes, not just those favoured by hegemonic powers.
- Codifying limits on secondary sanctions: Developing clearer international rules on the extraterritorial application of domestic laws to protect sovereign decision-making.
- Promoting consistent normative frameworks: Applying principles of sovereignty, civilian protection, and proportionality uniformly across Ukraine, Gaza, Iran, and other theatres.
- Enhancing Global South voice: Ensuring that countries bearing collateral costs of great-power conflicts have a meaningful say in how sanctions and interventions are designed.
Conclusion
The Graham Bill is not merely a sanctions measure; it is a symptom of a deeper crisis in international morality. It reveals how a hegemon can confuse its power with virtue, impose unequal burdens, and evade accountability for its own actions. For India and other middle powers, the challenge is to defend strategic autonomy, insist on consistent principles, and work towards a more equitable and accountable global order—one where international morality is not a tool of empire, but a shared commitment to justice.
Download Pdf
The Graham Bill is not merely a sanctions measure; it is a symptom of a deeper crisis in international morality. It reveals how a hegemon can confuse its power with virtue, impose unequal burdens, and evade accountability for its own actions. For India and other middle powers, the challenge is to defend strategic autonomy, insist on consistent principles, and work towards a more equitable and accountable global order—one where international morality is not a tool of empire, but a shared commitment to justice.
