The U.S. Is Letting Its Allies Get Away With Murder

The murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in June garnered little international attention when it occurred and seemed unlikely to do so until September, when Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his country had intelligence showing “credible allegations” that “agents of the government of India” had killed Nijjar.

The alleged assassination of Nijjar (a Sikh separatist leader) is part of a trend of extrajudicial killings carried out by states, many of them allies of the United States, that feel increasingly emboldened to act beyond the bounds of the law. Washington’s failure to punish its partners has created an appearance of tolerance for this violence that emboldens these states to carry out further executions.

These killings put the United States in an increasingly uncomfortable position. Countries that Washington has worked hard to court as new partners, partially to counter China’s growing influence, are committing blatant violations of international law. In the case of Nijjar’s murder, the United States is caught between India, where it has spent considerable time and effort to make forge a key security relationship, and Canada, a NATO ally and neighbor.

This is not an isolated case. The most infamous example is Saudi Arabia’s killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a dissident journalist living in the United States, who was lured into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and brutally murdered. In South Africa, Rwanda’s alleged assassination of Patrick Karegeya, a former head of Rwandan external intelligence, is another example.

Despite these overseas killings, Saudi Arabia, Rwanda, and now India remain key partners for the United States. There are some signs that India may have underestimated the level of support that the United States would provide Canada, including the sharing of intelligence about the killing. But in looking at past examples, India had no reason to expect any real consequences.

Washington has continued to purchase Saudi Arabian oil and sell Riyadh weapons, and recent discussions indicate that Saudi Arabia and the United States might pursue a mutual defense pact. This is after President Biden’s declaration to “make [the Saudis] the pariah they are.” In Rwanda, the United States has continued to support the Kagame regime through a mix of humanitarian support and security assistance. In India, Washington has sought to make New Delhi a keystone in its plan to counter China. This has included the formalization of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (known as the Quad), which aims to directly counter China in the Indo-Pacific and counts Australia and Japan as its other two members.

When the government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi looked at the repercussions to Saudi Arabia and Rwanda, it likely concluded—not wrongly—that the killing of Nijjar would invite some diplomatic blowback but would be unlikely to alter the longer-term strategic relationship between New Delhi and Washington.

However, India’s assessment sets a dangerous precedent. The United States cannot continue to tolerate the targeted overseas killings by its partners. The U.S. Congress has already raised concerns about the country’s bilateral relationships with India and Saudi Arabia. During Modi’s state visit to Washington in June, a group of representatives boycotted Modi’s speech to Congress, citing concern over his human rights record. In the Senate, lawmakers introduced legislation earlier this year that would require a review of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record by the Biden administration.

But the administration should not wait for Congress to act. It should come out more forcefully in support of Canada’s investigation into the murder and should make clear to India and other nations it does not tolerate this behavior, even if the country in question is a partner of the United States. Doing so may involve unpopular policy positions, such as limiting weapons sales or imposing trade restrictions. But these are the real consequences that are needed to curb this behavior.

Of course, the United States can also work diligently with partner nations to bring to justice legitimate terrorists and threats to sovereign governments who live overseas in third-party countries. But doing so through legitimate pathways that respect state sovereignty is very different from state-sponsored assassinations.

In the longer term, the United States should remember the leverage it still holds. The U.S. military’s global presence, access to the U.S. innovation ecosystem, and trading relationships with the United States are all valuable incentives that encourage states to partner with Washington. Even in an era of great-power competition, the United States remains the partner of choice for many countries, and it should not be afraid to use its leverage to push states to act the ways it wants.

Nijjar’s killing should serve as a wake-up call for the United States. It is the latest in a concerning trend of the nation’s partners thinking that the rules do not apply to them. In this era of great-power competition, the United States should not tread blindly toward gaining new partners while ignoring literal murder.