A PARADOX OF POWER: Trump’s Aggressive Foreign Policy Without War

By L. M. S. Navodya

Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States of America, has turned out to be one of the most polarizing figures in modern political history. His foreign policy, in particular, has been criticized as erratic, aggressive, and dangerously unilateral. From launching trade wars to walking out of international agreements, Trump’s ‘America First’ doctrine fundamentally restructured the U.S. approach to world affairs.

In spite of his combative rhetoric and diplomatic actions, Trump notably avoided traditional military conflicts and even attempted to de-escalate rising tensions, including an unexpected intervention in the recent India-Pakistan conflict following the Pahalgam attack. This paradox, however, deserves closer examination amid the flurry of criticisms.

Whitewashing Trump’s larger foreign policy legacy is not the goal of this article. Rather, it draws attention to a crucial, little-discussed trait: Trump’s unwillingness to involve the U.S. in new conflicts, despite his significant influence on the global order.

Economic nationalism, preference for bilateralism over multilateralism, and contempt for conventional diplomacy were the main tenets of Trump’s foreign policy philosophy. He withdrew from historic international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA), imposed high tariffs on China, and started trade disputes with allies. Trump also criticised organisations like the World Health Organisation (WHO) and questioned mutual defence pledges, endangering North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) unity.

These actions painted a picture of a leader who was eager for conflict. However, in contrast to a number of his predecessors, Trump did not initiate any new wars. In fact, he emphasised returning American troops home and frequently voiced his disinterest in lengthy military conflicts. Thus, this strategy questions the widely held belief that an assertive foreign policy invariably results in war.

Trump’s handling of the rising tensions between India and Pakistan after the Pahalgam terrorist attack is a clear illustration of his strategy. India and Pakistan, two neighbours with nuclear weapons, were on the brink of war after the incident. Given Trump’s tough stance on terrorism and the strengthening U.S.-Indian relationship, international observers anticipated strong U.S. support for India’s military response.

Surprisingly, Trump played a more measured role. Rather than inflaming the situation, his administration engaged diplomatically with both New Delhi and Islamabad. Reports indicated that the U.S. had quietly but effectively urged restraint and encouraged backdoor talks between the two nations. Ultimately, a full-scale war was averted.

This response stood in contrast to Trump’s usual hyperbole. While the media spotlight remained on his tweets and trade tariffs, behind the scenes his administration was performing a classic de-escalation play—something reminiscent of traditional diplomacy. It was a subtle, unexpected pivot in a presidency marked by brashness and unpredictability.

Trump’s approach to the India-Pakistan crisis was not an isolated event. He consistently showed a dislike for military escalation during his presidencies. In the case of North Korea, Trump pursued diplomacy in the end, even holding historic summits with Kim Jong-un, despite engaging in a risky verbal sparring match.

A full-scale conflict with Iran was feared by many following the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani. Trump, however, favoured sanctions and rhetorical deterrence over more extensive military action.

Trump’s administration began negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan, setting the stage for the eventual U.S. withdrawal, which his successor carried out. Additionally, Trump mostly avoided more extensive military engagement in Syria while launching limited missile strikes in response to the use of chemical weapons.

These incidents all reveal a leader who was remarkably reluctant to increase America’s military presence overseas, even though his tone and tactics were confrontational. It could be argued that Trump’s hesitation to go to war stemmed more from a political calculation related to his domestic base than from pacifism or humanitarian concerns. He was sceptical of ‘endless wars’ that had depleted American resources and morale as part of his ‘America First’ philosophy. Trump was able to appeal to war-weary voters while saving political capital for internal and economic conflicts by avoiding military involvement.

Moreover, his preference for economic leverage—like sanctions and tariffs—offered him tools of coercion without triggering armed conflict. According to this perspective, Trump’s foreign policy was opportunistically restrained rather than dovish: aggressive in appearance but restrained in content. For years to come, Donald Trump’s foreign policy will be examined and debated. It was distinguished by an unreservedly nationalist mindset, an embrace of unpredictability, and a break from conventional U.S. diplomacy. Nonetheless, there was a constant refrain from going to war within this combative, frequently disruptive framework.

Along with other international hotspots, the post-Pahalgam mediation between India and Pakistan revealed an unexpected propensity for de-escalation and peace—at least militarily. This is not to say that Trump’s foreign policy was peaceful or conducive to world peace because most of his choices increased tensions and undermined international alliances. But to overlook the nuances of his anti-war stance is to overlook a crucial aspect of the Trump administration. Recognising contradictions is crucial to comprehending world leaders and their policies.

In many respects, Trump exemplified one: an aggressive foreign policy strategist who, in spite of his bombast, has thus far avoided involving the U.S. in new conflicts.

NEUTRAL GROUND: Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy Test amid Indo-Pak Tensions

By L. M. Sachini Navodya

The Pahalgam attack on April 22, 2025 reignited the nuclear-tinged historical rivalry between India and Pakistan, raising concerns about regional stability. If the situation escalates into armed conflict, Sri Lanka, as a regional actor with historical and current ties to both countries, could face significant geopolitical, economic, and security repercussions. This article thus explores the implications of a possible inter-state conflict on South Asia and particularly on Sri Lanka, drawing on the complex history of the India-Pakistan conflict and Sri Lanka’s evolving role in South Asian geopolitics.

History of India-Pakistan Conflict

Looking back at the history of this rivalry, since independence from Britain in 1947, India and Pakistan have engaged in four major wars and numerous skirmishes, with the disputed territory of Kashmir at the heart of their rivalry. Key milestones include the: First Kashmir war (1947-1948), triggered by Pakistan-backed tribal incursions into Kashmir, leading to the Maharaja’s accession of the region to India and the establishment of the Line of Control (LoC) following a UN-brokered ceasefire; Second Kashmir war in 1965 sparked by border clashes and Pakistan’s Operation Gibraltar in Kashmir, ending in a military stalemate and the Tashkent Agreement; Third Kashmir war in 1971 centered on the Bangladesh Liberation movement, which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh and a decisive Indian victory and Kargil war in 1999 marked by Pakistani infiltration in Kargil, Ladakh, and intense fighting at high altitudes, with India regaining lost ground and Pakistan facing diplomatic isolation. These conflicts have thus entrenched a legacy of distrust, militarization, and nuclear brinkmanship in South Asia.

Impact on South Asia: A Region at Crossroads

The 21st century has been hailed as the ‘Century of Asia’, with South Asia poised to leverage its demographic dividend and economic potential. However, an India-Pakistan conflict could shatter this vision, exacerbating existing vulnerabilities. The nuclear brinkmanship with both nations possessing nuclear arsenals, and heightened tensions risk accidental escalation, as seen during the 1999 Kargil War and 2019 Balakot crisis.

A potential crisis could also spur economic disruption in the region risking South Asia’s intra-regional trade (less than 5% of total trade) to collapse further, particularly if India-Pakistan border closures and airspace restrictions persist. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which traverses disputed Kashmir, could become a flashpoint, drawing China deeper into the conflict. It could also lead to humanitarian crises such as the triggering of refugee flows, straining of resources, and the revival of ethnic tensions, particularly affecting marginalized communities in Kashmir and border regions.

The potential rivalry could also result in an institutional paralysis leading regional organizations like the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), already weakened by the clash of the two, to face irrelevance, stalling initiatives like the South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA).

Sri Lanka’s Role in the Prolonged Conflict

Sri Lanka has historically played a nuanced and pragmatic role throughout the rivalry between its two neighbours, often leveraging its position to maintain autonomy and serve its national interests while navigating the sensitivities of both regional powers. In the 1971 India-Pakistan war, under Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Sri Lanka notably allowed Pakistani civilian and military aircraft to refuel and use Colombo as a stopover, after India denied Pakistan overflight rights. This was a significant move since it enabled Pakistan to maintain air links with its eastern territory (now Bangladesh) while underscoring Sri Lanka’s willingness to assert its sovereignty and its non-aligned foreign policy —even at the risk of displeasing India, its much larger neighbour. The balancing act was furthermore visible with Sri Lanka maintaining strong diplomatic and economic ties with India despite providing Pakistan with logistical support.

What a Renewed Conflict could mean to Sri Lanka?

Thus, predicting what impact a possible conflict could have on Sri Lanka, as a fragile small power, a renewed conflict could force Colombo into a precarious diplomatic balancing act. It would compel Sri Lanka to avoid overt alignment, risking alienation from either power or both.

● Security and Strategic Autonomy

An India-Pakistan war would heighten regional insecurity, potentially drawing Sri Lanka into the conflict’s periphery. The island’s proximity to India and its reliance on Indian goodwill for security and economic stability would limit its foreign policy flexibility. Sri Lanka might face pressure to align with India, risking its defense ties with Pakistan and complicating its non-aligned stance. Furthermore, worsening the crisis, such a conflict could invite greater involvement from external powers (China, the US), with Sri Lanka potentially becoming a site for strategic competition, especially given its ports and location along key maritime routes. This potential involvement would also make the country’s act of balancing even complicated, with Sri Lanka’s increased alignment with India economically and diplomatically, particularly given China’s entrenched support for Pakistan and its footprint in Sri Lanka in terms of debt and investments.

The escalation of the potential conflict could also lead to possible dilemmas for Sri Lanka. If China intensifies military support to Pakistan, India might pressure Sri Lanka to restrict Chinese naval access to Hambantota emphasizing the threat to India’s security, testing Colombo’s diplomatic agility. Given the potential support of the US to India, enhanced Quad cooperation could offer Sri Lanka alternative investments, reducing reliance on China but requiring alignment with Western strategic interests on the other hand.

● Economic Vulnerabilities

Sri Lanka’s economy, still recovering from its 2022 debt crisis, remains fragile. A regional conflict could disrupt maritime trade routes in the Indian Ocean, affecting Sri Lanka’s ports, which handle transshipment for both India and global markets. Furthermore, tourism—a critical revenue source—could suffer due to perceived instability, echoing declines seen during the country's civil war. Additionally, rising oil prices from conflict-driven market volatility would strain Sri Lanka’s import-dependent economy further.

● Humanitarian and Diplomatic Fallout

A protracted conflict could exacerbate refugee flows to Tamil Nadu, indirectly affecting Sri Lanka through heightened sensitivities around Tamil minority rights. Colombo might also face pressure to condemn cross-border terrorism, aligning with India’s stance, while avoiding actions that could legitimize Pakistan’s position.

Sri Lanka’s Tightrope: Navigating Indo-Pak Conflict

At an hour of a renewed rivalry between India and Pakistan, Sri Lanka’s best strategy is to maintain a pragmatic, balanced, and non-aligned foreign policy, leveraging its geostrategic location to attract investment and security cooperation from multiple powers without becoming a proxy or flashpoint in their rivalries.

At an hour of foreign policy dilemma, it is vital that Sri Lanka emphasizes balanced engagement and sovereignty. Sri Lanka’s leadership has repeatedly articulated a desire to remain neutral and avoid entanglement in great power rivalries, as reflected in statements emphasizing non-alignment and the prioritization of national sovereignty. This approach allows Sri Lanka to maintain flexibility and avoid being drawn into the strategic competition between India and China, both of whom have substantial interests in the island—India as a regional hegemon and China as part of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The country could reinforce its neutrality through proactive diplomacy. It could publicize its non-aligned stance by issuing immediate statements emphasizing Sri Lanka’s neutrality, drawing from its historical non-aligned movement roots. Declare Colombo as a potential venue for peace talks, leveraging its 1971 precedent of facilitating dialogue during crises.

Sri Lanka could also activate regional platforms by using the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) or SAARC forums to advocate de-escalation, positioning Sri Lanka as a mediator while highlighting shared regional interests in maritime security and economic stability to rally consensus.

The strengthening of ties with regional organizations like SAARC and BIMSTEC would also aid in ensuring economic safety and trade continuity for Sri Lanka. This “concentric circles” approach places geographic neighbours at the center of engagement, which helps assuage Indian security concerns while still allowing space for economic cooperation with China and others.

The country could also leverage its strategic location for multilateralism at an hour of crisis. Sri Lanka’s position at the crossroads of major maritime routes gives it leverage to act as a hub for trade, logistics, and regional connectivity. By promoting itself as a neutral venue for dialogue, maritime cooperation, and disaster response, Sri Lanka can attract investment and security partnerships from a range of actors, including the US, Japan, and the EU, in addition to India and China. This multilateral approach reduces overdependence on any single power and increases Colombo’s diplomatic capital.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, the India-Pakistan conflict, amplified by external power rivalries, threatens to fracture South Asia’s fragile cohesion. For Sri Lanka, the crisis underscores the perils of multipolarity: economic dependencies and strategic alignments leave little room for autonomy. Its survival in an India-Pakistan war hinges on active neutrality, economic pragmatism, and multilateral hedging. By leveraging its geostrategic location, historical non-alignment, and partnerships with extra-regional powers, Sri Lanka can insulate itself from direct fallout while positioning itself as a facilitator of regional stability. The goal must be to emerge as an indispensable intermediary rather than a collateral casualty. Thus, unless regional leaders prioritize dialogue over brinkmanship, the promise of an Asian Century risks being eclipsed by perennial conflict and geopolitical fragmentation.

FROM DIPLOMACY TO DEVELOPMENT: Decoding Sri Lankan President Dissanayake’s UAE Visit

By Sachin Hassim

Sri Lanka and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have maintained strong diplomatic and economic ties since the establishment of formal relations in 1979. Over the decades, both nations have engaged in high-level visits and signed numerous agreements and MOUs, fostering collaboration across various sectors. The UAE has consistently supported Sri Lanka during critical periods, such as the conflict with the LTTE and the tsunami aftermath, providing emergency aid and assistance to strength Sri Lanka's economic resilience.

Impact of the New Leftist Government

Sri Lanka elected Anura Kumara Dissanayake as its 9^th President on 21^st September 2024, ushering in a new chapter in Sri Lanka, which would undoubtedly impact foreign relations. As the first leftist President, he has tried to be saner and more prudent in foreign policy, such as expansion of strategic alliances, economic recovery and partnerships. Regarding the UAE as a key player in Sri Lanka’s development journey, his administration sought to expand diplomatic and commercial relations beyond conventional partners.

President Dissanayake visited the United Arab Emirates on the invitation of President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan from February 10–13, 2025. The visit included attending the World Government Summit 2025 which provided him a significant opportunity to discuss high-level bilateral issues, highlight Sri Lanka's economic vision, and look into new investment prospects.

The focus of discussions with the UAE leadership was trade, tourism, and investments, to align with the country's broader strategy of attracting foreign direct investment and forging economic partnerships. The visit put a spotlight on renewed engagement with Middle Eastern economies in highly desirable sectors, ranging from infrastructure, energy, and financial services. Sri Lanka, within the new government, views the ongoing diplomatic outreach to the UAE as a pragmatic, forward-looking effort ensuring that bilateral ties are reinforced in support of the country’s longer-term development objectives.

Key Highlights of President Dissanayake’s UAE Visit

·         Speech at the World Government Summit

Dissanayake’s speech at the World Government Summit 2025 was a pivotal moment in reestablishing Sri Lanka on the international stage under the new leftist administration. In a speech to world leaders, policy makers and industry experts, he stressed the importance of multilateral governance to the issues of global economic disparities, climate change and technological change.

Dissanayake highlighted that it is imperative that countries work together across borders as they tackle significant global issues. Whether it was climate change or economic instability or the disruption of rapid technological advancement, he argued persuasively for nations working in unison rather than isolation. His vision illuminated that in an interconnected world, no country, large or small, can afford to do it alone.

The importance of equal economic policies that empower developing countries was a major focus of his speech. According to Dissanayake, rising economies need fair access to financial resources, trade opportunities, and technical breakthroughs in order to achieve true global stability. He urged world leaders to make sure that the base of global economic frameworks continues towards sustainable growth.

·         High Level Bilateral Meetings

An important turning point in Sri Lanka-UAE ties was reached when Dissanayake met with Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the UAE's vice president and prime minister, beginning in a new era of diplomatic and economic cooperation. Dissanayake encouraged investors based in the United Arab Emirates to take advantage on Sri Lanka's new leftist government's economic recovery plan during the discussions, which centered on economic regeneration. A major item on the agenda was trade and export clients, with both presidents looking into strategies to increase Sri Lanka's exports of tea, clothing, seafood, and gemstones to the United Arab Emirates.

The discussions also focused on the growth of tourism, utilizing Sri Lanka's natural beauty and rich cultural legacy to attract more tourists from the United Arab Emirates. The signing of the Sri Lanka-UAE Investment Protection Agreement on February 12, 2025, was a significant outcome of this summit. Stronger legal protection for investors from both nations is provided by this agreement, which is anticipated to increase trust in important areas like digital economy initiatives, renewable energy, and tourism infrastructure. This renewed cooperation creates a solid foundation for mutual prosperity and sustainable progress by cultivating long-term business partnerships.

·         Strengthening Relations across the World via Bilateral Meetings

In addition to the relations between Sri Lanka and UAE, Dissanayake met prominent world leaders at the World Government Summit 2025 to bring attention to economic growth and diplomatic relations strategy of Sri Lanka. During their meeting, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Dissanayake concentrated on the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and member nations bilateral trade relationships and how to enhance these economic relations.

In the meeting with the Kuwaiti Prime Minister Sheikh Ahmed Abdullah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah, Dissanayake brought attention to the need for better regulation of over 120,000 Sri Lankan expatriate employees in Kuwait and discussed with Al-Sabah how to improve social welfare and job opportunities for participants. Similarly, his discussion with Vietnam’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister focused on expanding trade in agriculture, seafood, and textiles, promoting tourism through direct flight connectivity, and deepening investment partnerships for mutual economic progress.

The meeting with former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, revolved around technical knowledge in agriculture, climate resilience, and governance changes. Blair emphasized international support for Sri Lanka's progressive policy agenda by pledging to send a team of experts to the country to help with sustainability and economic development projects. Through these meetings, Sri Lanka maintains its position as an active participant in international diplomatic and economic issues, guaranteeing sustained expansion and strategic partnerships.

·         Partnerships in Business and Technology: Bringing International Investments

Dissanayake met the CEOs from global tech companies such as Roblox, Oracle, Alibaba, and Dow Jones, highlighting Sri Lanka's dedication to innovation-driven development and digital transformation. He acknowledged the transformative impact of technology in propelling economic progress. In the meantime, talks with Roblox centered on digital innovation projects and AI-driven education initiatives, establishing Sri Lanka as a potential participant in the digital economy. Dissanayake discussed the implementation of AI-powered public sector reforms in his discussions with Oracle, with the goal of improving efficiency and governance via technology.

By establishing these partnerships, Sri Lanka is actively establishing its future as a regional center for technology, utilizing innovation to provide job and economic possibilities and promote long-term digital development.

A Milestone Visit for Sri Lanka’s New Foreign Policy

A significant change in Sri Lanka's foreign policy under the new leftist government happened with Dissanayake's visit to the United Arab Emirates. This visit adopted a bold, varied approach, bolstering relationships with the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and international business leaders, in contrast to previous strategies that mostly relied on traditional alliances. The message was obvious: Sri Lanka welcomes investment, cooperation, and innovation.

What’s Next?

By using foreign relationships to stabilize the economy, draw in investors, and open up new opportunities for its citizens, this visit has established a strong foundation for Sri Lanka's economic recovery. Sri Lanka is forging a new direction in diplomacy under Dissanayake's guidance, one that promotes innovation, inclusivity, and sustainability. The world is currently watching as Sri Lanka reshapes its destiny on the international scene due to the inspiration provided by this historic visit.