Double Standards and the Quest for Global Accountability

 

Introduction

In today’s hyper-connected world, the call for consistent global standards often collides with geopolitical self-interest. Sovereign nations are publicly chastised for pragmatic choices that serve domestic priorities, while powerful states escape scrutiny for decisions with far-reaching humanitarian fallout. Nothing illustrates this disparity better than the U.S. decision in August 2025 to raise tariffs on Indian imports over its energy ties with Russia—despite America’s own record of fueling armed conflicts through massive military aid.

India’s Energy Strategy and Sovereign Rights

With 1.4 billion citizens, India’s need for affordable, reliable energy is non-negotiable. In early 2025, India sourced nearly 38% of its crude oil from Russia—about 1.75 million barrels per day—thanks to discounted deals that eased inflation, protected household budgets, and kept industries running. These purchases weren’t about endorsing conflict, but about insulating a growing economy from volatile global markets. The resulting revenues went to welfare programs and small businesses—not war chests.

The US Tariff Response: A Question of Equity

On August 6, 2025, the U.S. imposed an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods, bringing duties to a total of 50%. This aggressive move, aimed at isolating Russia, disproportionately targeted Indian exports like engineering goods, textiles, and pharmaceuticals—industries that employ millions. Yet other nations continuing trade with Russia faced no such penalties. The message was clear: geopolitical alignment mattered more than fair treatment or economic logic.

Arms to Ukraine and Israel: Magnitudes of Military Aid

While India was penalized over oil, the U.S. continued to funnel massive military aid elsewhere. Since February 2022, over $66.5 billion has been sent to Ukraine in weapons and support, with $182.8 billion approved overall. Israel, too, receives $3.8 billion annually in military assistance—weaponry used in Gaza operations condemned by the UN. These vast arms flows don’t trigger tariffs or rebuke. Instead, they underscore an asymmetric system that rewards allies and punishes independent actors.

Humanitarian Fallout in Gaza

The toll in Gaza is staggering: over 60,000 dead, 2 million displaced, and nearly half a million facing starvation—many of them children. Entire neighborhoods have been bombed to rubble, and access to food, medicine, and water remains choked. These atrocities, committed with U.S.-supplied arms, have sparked accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice. Still, Washington’s role escapes economic consequence or institutional censure.

Accountability Gaps in International Law

Global legal bodies often falter when great powers are involved. The International Criminal Court lacks enforcement teeth against non-signatories. The UN Security Council is paralyzed by the veto power of its permanent members. As a result, powerful nations and their allies operate with impunity, while weaker states are held to stricter standards—a system where strength shields responsibility.

Civil Society and the Power of Witness

Against this institutional inertia, civil society provides the moral counterweight. Human rights groups, journalists, and grassroots campaigns document abuses and amplify unheard voices. Movements like Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) challenge corporate complicity. Even within the U.S., veterans and faith leaders are calling to halt arms exports that fuel atrocities. Public conscience remains a potent force.

Economic Leverage as a Tool for Justice

Sanctions and tariffs should serve justice—not just power. If economic tools are meant to deter violence, they must be applied equitably, whether in Donbas, Gaza, or elsewhere. Consistent, transparent criteria are essential. Global frameworks for arms monitoring, trade responsibility, and human rights compliance can close the gaps that now allow violence to thrive unchecked.

Rethinking Global Governance Structures

Reform must go deeper. The ICC needs an independent enforcement arm. The UN Charter must limit veto use during mass atrocities. A neutral international trade tribunal should resolve tariff disputes fairly. These structural shifts would begin to restore credibility to the idea of global justice.

Lessons from Ayurveda: Ethical Reciprocity

Ayurveda teaches that balance, reciprocity, and harmony sustain life. Applied to diplomacy, this wisdom suggests that mutual accountability—not coercion—should guide international conduct. Just as Ayurvedic healing addresses root causes, global systems must correct systemic injustices rather than scapegoating sovereign choices. Ethical reciprocity can be the antidote to today’s lopsided order.

Charting a Path Forward

Here’s what meaningful change could look like:

1. Establish a 'Global Council on Equitable Sanctions' with diverse representation.
2. Enforce mandatory human rights due diligence on all arms deals.
3. Promote academic and cultural exchanges that bridge political divides and foster shared empathy.

Conclusion

Selective punishment erodes the foundation of international norms. The world cannot build peace on the quicksand of double standards. Only by holding all nations—powerful or not—to the same standards can we ensure justice, dignity, and stability in global affairs. True accountability must replace strategic favoritism if we are to chart a course toward a more humane world.

The India case is not isolated. The Trump administration has repeatedly used tariffs as a lever to pressure countries into aligning with U.S. geopolitical or economic interests. In 2018, China faced sweeping tariffs on over $360 billion worth of goods in a bid to force structural changes in trade practices. This triggered a retaliatory tariff war that disrupted global supply chains. Similarly, the European Union was hit with tariffs on steel and aluminum imports under the pretext of 'national security,' a rationale widely criticized as thinly veiled protectionism. Canada and Mexico were also subjected to tariff threats to push through the USMCA trade deal. Even long-time allies like South Korea and Japan faced tariff pressure tied to broader defense and technology policy negotiations.

In each of these instances, economic coercion was dressed as diplomacy, with trade penalties used not just to correct imbalances, but to extract political concessions. These actions have drawn consistent pushback from global partners. The EU challenged the U.S. tariffs at the World Trade Organization. China imposed countermeasures and pursued alternative trade alliances. Canada retaliated with its own tariffs and emphasized the erosion of trust in multilateral frameworks.

What emerges is a clear pattern: punitive tariffs have become tools of statecraft, aimed less at resolving trade deficits and more at exerting strategic control. This weaponization of trade undermines international cooperation and exposes smaller economies to disproportionate harm.