by Our Correspondent in Washington DC
The hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on South and Central Asia, held on 11 February 2026, took place just one day before national elections in Bangladesh that many observers expected to bring a Bangladesh Nationalist Party victory and grant substantial legislative influence to the Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami. That timing gave the discussion unusual immediacy. Lawmakers were not speaking in the abstract; they were looking at a region in the middle of political change, economic pressure, and great-power competition. Assistant Secretary S. Paul Kapur appeared before the panel to explain how the United States planned to respond to those shifts and how it understood the balance between democracy promotion, trade, and security.
Much of the late exchange centered on the maritime space around Sri Lanka, which members described as one of the most sensitive locations in global trade. The discussion framed the island not as a peripheral state but as a country sitting directly beside shipping corridors that carry energy and goods across continents. One member noted that an enormous share of global fuel shipments and container traffic moves close to Sri Lanka’s coastline. Kapur agreed with the central point, replying that regardless of the exact statistics, the flow is massive and gives nearby countries influence well beyond their physical size. He explained that these sea routes must remain “free and open for the world economy,” linking maritime access directly to global price stability and supply chains.
Kapur described the smaller Indian Ocean countries as having “outsized importance because of their location,” a phrase that captured how geography shapes policy. From Washington’s perspective, Sri Lanka’s decisions about ports, loans, and infrastructure can affect trade patterns far outside South Asia. If a country positioned along those routes falls under heavy external pressure, the result could be disruption not only regionally but across the international system. That is why, Kapur argued, the United States wants to help these states “maintain their freedom of action and not be coerced.” His comments showed that American engagement is driven as much by economics as by military calculation.
China’s role came up repeatedly, especially in relation to Sri Lanka’s experience with infrastructure finance. Kapur pointed to the long lease of Hambantota Port as an illustration of what worries U.S. planners, stating, “Those are the kinds of dangers that we see with Chinese development schemes.” The concern is not simply that China builds ports, but that financing structures can bind governments into agreements that limit future choices. Kapur told lawmakers that the United States hopes to offer “high-quality, transparent, non-coercive alternatives,” combining public funding, private investment, and technical support so countries are not forced into one-sided arrangements. In this way, Sri Lanka became a case study for how Washington wants to compete economically rather than only militarily.
The same geographic logic applies across the wider Indian Ocean, which members described as one of the busiest maritime corridors on earth. Lawmakers stressed that the region carries the “lifeblood of global commerce and energy,” while Kapur emphasized that policy makers must treat the Indo-Pacific as a single connected space rather than two separate theaters. He called this “a holistic approach,” arguing that events stretching from Africa’s east coast to Southeast Asia are tied together by the same trade routes and power relationships.
One symbol of that connection is the U.S. facility at Diego Garcia. Members asked why the base remains so important decades after it was established. Kapur answered that it sits “in kind of the middle of the ocean” and serves as a crucial location for projecting air power and sustaining operations across a vast area. The exchange showed that even as Washington talks more about economic tools, it still views military access points as essential insurance against coercion or conflict.
Beyond maritime issues, the hearing devoted considerable attention to relations with India, which Kapur described as anchoring the region. He warned that “a hostile power dominating South Asia could exert coercive leverage over the world economy,” making it vital to ensure no single country becomes dominant. A strong and independent India, he argued, advances that goal simply by existing as a major power outside China’s orbit. “An India that can be independent and stand up for itself,” he said, “takes a huge swath of the Indo-Pacific off of China’s plate.” His formulation reflected a strategy that relies on regional partners to balance influence rather than direct confrontation.
Lawmakers questioned how this partnership works in practice, especially in defense cooperation. Kapur pointed to joint exercises, technology sharing, and a renewed ten-year defense framework designed to improve interoperability. He stressed continuity, noting that cooperation had continued “despite some of the uncertainties surrounding the trade relationship.” That continuity, members observed, stretches across several U.S. administrations, suggesting that ties with India have become one of the rare bipartisan constants in foreign policy.
China remained the central reference point throughout the discussion. Members warned about Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, which they described as using loans and infrastructure to expand political leverage. Kapur did not call for excluding China entirely but said the objective was to prevent “any single hegemon from taking over or imposing coercive leverage on the region.” The emphasis was on pluralism—multiple strong states and financing options—rather than a binary rivalry.
Questions also turned to Pakistan, where Kapur highlighted cooperation in counterterrorism and trade, especially in energy and agriculture. Drawing on his academic background, he acknowledged the long history of militant networks in the region while cautioning that tracking individuals linked to such groups is inherently difficult. Terrorism, he explained, often involves “small numbers of people that blend into the population,” making it hard to measure or predict through conventional means.
Political transitions elsewhere in South Asia added another layer of complexity. In Nepal and Bangladesh, youth-driven protest movements had recently overturned governments and opened paths toward elections. Kapur called these developments opportunities for democratic participation and said the United States was prepared to work with whichever governments emerged. His tone suggested cautious optimism without assuming outcomes.
The hearing’s most emotional exchanges concerned Afghanistan. Several members criticized U.S. handling of Afghan allies and relocation programs, warning that policy decisions would carry moral consequences. One lawmaker described the situation as “a great moral catastrophe,” pressing Kapur for assurances that Afghans would not be forcibly returned to Taliban rule. Kapur responded that the United States was “not forcibly repatriating Afghans,” though he acknowledged that relocation negotiations with third countries were ongoing and that about a thousand individuals remained in transition facilities. The back-and-forth revealed deep disagreement within Washington about responsibility after the 2021 withdrawal, even as both sides claimed humanitarian concern.
Economic policy formed another thread running through the session. Members raised the outdated Jackson-Vanik amendment and its effect on trade with Central Asia, calling it a Cold War relic that limits American investment. Kapur agreed, saying, “We believe that Jackson-Vanik is a relic of the Cold War,” and welcomed bipartisan support for repeal. The exchange highlighted how legislative barriers created decades earlier still shape present-day economic engagement.
Energy politics also entered the conversation, particularly the question of Russian oil reaching global markets indirectly. Lawmakers pressed Kapur on whether Indian purchases might allow Russian exports to continue flowing despite sanctions. Kapur admitted he did not control enforcement details but noted that India had been diversifying suppliers and increasing purchases of American energy. The discussion reflected the tangled reality of sanctions enforcement in a globalized market.
Smaller island states such as Maldives were mentioned alongside Sri Lanka as locations where infrastructure competition is likely to intensify. Kapur observed that even limited investments in ports or logistics hubs could shape future alignments. These countries, though modest in size, occupy positions that allow them to influence shipping, communications cables, and naval access.
Throughout the hearing, Kapur returned to three tools he believes define current U.S. engagement: defense cooperation, targeted investment, and diplomacy. Military partnerships build capacity, investment offers alternatives to coercive financing, and diplomacy keeps channels open during political change. He summarized the goal as helping partners “build strategic capacity” so they can integrate into the global economy while preserving sovereignty.
Members of Congress, however, repeatedly emphasized oversight and continuity. Several argued that long-term strategy requires coordination between administrations and legislators so policies do not shift every four years. One member described the regional approach as a “long game,” warning that competitors are equally patient.
In the end, the hearing revealed a U.S. strategy still in formation. It is shaped by concern about China’s reach, reliance on India as a balancing force, unease over unresolved commitments in Afghanistan, and close attention to maritime chokepoints—especially around Sri Lanka. Kapur’s testimony suggested that Washington’s approach will rely less on direct dominance and more on shaping choices available to regional states. By offering financing, trade, and security cooperation, the United States hopes to ensure that countries across South and Central Asia retain room to maneuver rather than falling into dependence on any single external power.
The discussion closed without dramatic announcements, but it clarified how American officials now see the region: not as a collection of separate crises, but as an interconnected zone where shipping routes, elections, infrastructure deals, and alliances all influence one another. The emphasis on Sri Lanka at the outset captured that reality. A small island beside crowded sea lanes has become a focal point for understanding how economics, geography, and rivalry converge in twenty-first-century foreign policy.
