Examine the humanitarian and legal problems with using energy supply as a tool of coercive diplomacy. What should India's position be?

Energy coercion means cutting a state's fuel supply to force political change. In January 2026, the U.S. issued an executive order threatening tariffs on countries that supply oil to Cuba, and its Coast Guard began intercepting tankers. Independent UN experts call this "energy starvation" [1]. The measure creates serious humanitarian and legal problems.

Humanitarian problems

• Essential services collapse: hospitals, water pumps and cold storage all need fuel to run. Cuba faces power cuts of over 12 hours a day, close to 20 hours in some provinces [2]. More than 96,000 surgeries are pending, including 11,000 for children [1].
• Exemptions fail in practice: banks and shippers fear U.S. penalties and refuse even legal trade. The UN Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures found this over-compliance blocks food, health and aid [3].
• Burden falls on the vulnerable: the poor, children, older people and the chronically ill suffer most, not the government being targeted [3]. This is a clear proportionality problem.

Legal problems

• Blockade, not just an embargo: physically stopping ships goes beyond trade restrictions. UN experts call it an "unlawful blockade" [1].
• Threat of force: U.S. threats of a takeover conflict with Article 2(4) of the UN Charter [4][2].
• Extraterritorial reach: tariffs on third-country oil suppliers punish states that are not party to the dispute. This undermines their sovereignty and the multilateral trading order [2].
• The UNGA is ignored: the UNGA has demanded an end to the embargo for 33 consecutive years (165-7-12 in 2025), but its resolutions are not binding [5].

India's position

• Principled multilateralism: India should keep voting "Yes" at the UNGA, in line with its NAM tradition of opposing unilateral sanctions.
• Humanitarian framing: at the Human Rights Council, India should back the Special Rapporteur's call to lift or suspend all coercive measures [3]. The focus should be fuel for hospitals and food, which does not require defending Cuba's political system.
• Protect its own interests: if this secondary-sanctions model becomes normal, it can be turned on India's own energy trade. India should seek written "comfort letters" from the U.S. to protect exempt trade in medicine and food.
• Quiet diplomacy: India should use its strategic partnership with the U.S. to engage privately rather than confront it publicly.

Using energy as a weapon turns a political dispute into a humanitarian emergency and weakens the Charter-based order. India, as a voice of the Global South with strategic autonomy, should defend sovereign equality and the right to affordable energy (SDG 7). It should support a rules-based approach to sanctions that does not punish civilians.