South Asia: U.S. Foreign Policy in the Region

The subcommittee on South and Central Asia will come to order and the purpose of this hearing is to examine Americans foreign policy across South Central Asia. I'm very pleased to have our the Under Secretary for South and Central Asia with us and sorry I am excuse me one second. [Recess.] I appreciate the patience of our ranking member as well as our as our witness here today. Today I have the pleasure of convening the first regional posture hearing of the year and I want to thank Assistant Secretary Kapur for his presence here today. We are gathered to discuss one of the most important regions in the world, South and Central Asia. Our strategy there is key to the United States national security and economic strength and our global presence. South and Central Asia is home to nearly 2 billion people, dynamic economies and strategic waterways that shape the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific. Throughout the region, the President has successfully negotiated deals that open markets and advance U.S. economic interests. How now we are going to engage and how we engage will define America's role in Asia for decades to come. China has come to the same conclusion, no surprise. Through its Belt and Road Initiative, China engages in predatory lending to further its security interests and force smaller nations into debt traps. Furthermore, China has hardened its border with India, Nepal, and Bhutan, building infrastructure to support its military aspirations. Despite its distance from our shores, maintaining a free and open Indian Ocean is a priority for our national and our economic security. The Indian Ocean is one of the busiest maritime corridors on the earth, carrying the lifeblood of global commerce and energy, including more than 80 percent of global seaborne oil trade. Safeguarding these sea lanes through enhanced naval cooperation with partners and allies will only serve to counter China's growing influence and limit its malign behavior in the region. Alongside President Trump, I too see the importance of our naval base on Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean. I echo this sentiment that preserving America's military fortitude in the region will deter Chinese coercion, prevent piracy, and ensure the free flow of American and world trade. Directly north of Diego Garcia, India, the largest democracy in the world and one of the fastest growing economies, remains a vital strategic partner. Just last week, President Trump brokered a historic trade deal with India, completely revamping U.S. engagement with the country. The U.S.-India trade deal sets India's tariff rate at 18 percent, one of the lowest regionally. Moreover, Delhi has agreed to buy more American energy. This deal will strengthen U.S.-India relations, support American workers through manufacturing and joint technology ventures, and boost our exports. Strengthening ties with New Delhi through defense cooperation, trade, and technology partnerships advances our shared interests. I look forward to increasing cooperation, co-production, and investment, especially under the new framework negotiated by the President. Bordering India, Nepal and Bangladesh are undergoing political transformations. Bangladesh will hold free elections tomorrow following its 2024 July revolution, which ousted an authoritarian government. In September of 2025, Nepalese youth overthrew the government and Nepal will hold democratic elections next month. Both of these instances offer new chapters for engagement in South Asia, defining U.S. relations with these new governments. South and Central Asia is a dynamic region. Young, growing populations are more often drawn to Western culture and values than to China's authoritarian alternative. Strategic U.S.-led diplomacy will make a difference in building alliances and achieving our mutual beneficial goals throughout the region. Our strategy in South Asia must be comprehensive, anchored in strong partnerships, economic engagement, and a commitment to democratic values. Our engagement in the region must advance American interests but also contribute to a more secure, prosperous, and free Indian Ocean. I look forward to hearing from Assistant Secretary Kapur regarding the administration's South and Central Asia strategy. And with that, I yield back. The chair now recognizes the ranking member from California, Representative Kamlager-Dove, for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your tireless efforts to bring an administration official to testify at a regional subcommittee hearing. And thank you, Assistant Secretary Kapur, for being here today and for talking with me yesterday as well. While we have waited for more than a year for an administration official to publicly testify about the region, Trump has sabotaged U.S. regional interests and decimated our diplomatic toolbox, putting us on the back foot as major changes swept across South and Central Asia. In April, Trump announced tariffs on partners across South and Central Asia, an unexpected economic shock on countries already facing debt vulnerability to the PRC. 50 percent tariffs on India, one of the highest rates in the world, tore a needless rupture in bilateral ties that sacrificed decades of painstaking trust building between our two countries. Dragging on negotiations for over a year cost us the timely convening of the annual Quad Leaders' Summit and weakened our posture in the Indo-Pacific. In May, India and Pakistan fought their most serious military conflict in decades, risking nuclear escalation in a region of 2 billion people. But a reminder of the indispensable role of U.S. diplomacy was overshadowed by Trump's insistence on claiming credit for the ceasefire and offering to mediate the Kashmir dispute. In September, Nepal experienced widespread anti-corruption protests that led to the Prime Minister's resignation and new elections next month. Tomorrow, Bangladesh will go to the polls to decide on a new constitution and choose its leadership for the first time since Sheikh Hasina's ouster. These major political transitions present a rare opportunity for the U.S. to strategically leverage our democracy assistance to support growing regional demand for accountable governance. Yet the State Department's rejection of democracy programming and the decimation of USAID has stripped us the very tools that are needed to advance our interests. Further hamstringing our engagement in the region, in December, Trump took the unprecedented step of recalling career ambassadors in Nepal and Sri Lanka, weakening our diplomatic leadership in two key states. While self-sabotage defines much of the administration's regional policy so far, cruelty most accurately describes its approach to Afghanistan and our Afghan allies. Nowhere in the region have Trump's aid cuts been more devastating than in Afghanistan, where child malnutrition has reached its highest level in a quarter century. The State Department did not even provide life-saving assistance after two deadly earthquakes killed thousands of people. Most shameful of all, the State Department is leading the betrayal of our Afghan allies who have been shut off from resettlement to the United States. Secretary Rubio dismantled the office of the coordinator for Afghan relocation efforts and did not appoint a permanent coordinator, violating the law passed under a Republican majority in 24. When my bipartisan provision to re-establish the CARE office made it into the final version of NDAA, Republican leadership yanked it out just days before it was set to pass. On top of that, the administration has created a living nightmare for over a thousand Afghans stuck in limbo at the relocation processing center at Camp As Sayliyah. In fact, when I asked Deputy Secretary Rigas about the fate of the Afghans at CAS, he'd never heard of it. Now the State Department is closing CAS and offering payment to Afghan allies who self-deport back to Taliban terror, breaking our promise to provide them a chance at a future in the United States. I'm concerned it's only a matter of time before the administration leans into the unconscionable and recognizes the Taliban without improving the rights of Afghan women and girls. Assistant Secretary Kapur, you take the helm of the South and Central Bureau at a time when we are in sharp need of transparency, strategic coherence, and a return to humanity. And I look forward to gaining some clarity about the administration's policies today. Thank you and I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record as well. And we're pleased to have you, the Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs at the Department of State, the Honorable Dr. S. Paul Kapur, before us today. This committee recognizes the importance of the issues before us and is grateful to have you here to speak with us today. Your full statements will be made part of the record and I'll ask you to keep your spoken remarks to five minutes in order to allow time for member questions. One one item of clarification, I believe, can you just confirm to me that it was in October of 2025 was when you were finally confirmed, is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. So it's you've been on the job for three and a half months for the most part.

Yes, since late October.

Okay. Since late October. All right. I appreciate that. And Mr. Assistant Secretary, I recognize you now for your five-minute opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman Huizenga and Ranking Member Kamlager-Dove. And it was great to meet you yesterday. Thank you for taking the time. I thought it was a very productive conversation. Also distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me today to appear to discuss the Trump administration's approach to South Asia. President Trump's national security strategy makes clear that we must put America first and do so through active engagement with vital parts of the world. Under President Trump's leadership, this has advanced our economic and security interests while helping our partners. I see the benefits every day in my bureau's work in the South Asia region. Consisting of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Nepal, and Bhutan, South Asia is vitally important. India alone has well over 1 billion people and occupies a subcontinent landmass. A hostile power dominating South Asia could exert coercive leverage over the world economy. The United States must prevent this from happening and keep the region free and open. As Secretary Rubio has said, America first does not mean America alone. To achieve our goals, we must cooperate with like-minded partners who can share the burden. Often, this will require us to help our partners build strategic capacity, enabling them better to integrate into the world economy, preserve their autonomy, and contribute to a free and open region. We have many tools to do this. We of course want to expand our trade relationships with the South Asian countries because robust trade will make all of us stronger and more prosperous. Just last week, President Trump and Prime Minister Modi reached an agreement on a historic trade framework. And two days ago, the Trump administration signed a trade deal with Bangladesh, providing American exporters with access to Bangladesh's market of about 175 million people. But beyond trade, I would point to three broad categories of approach to strategic capacity building that the Trump administration is deploying: defense cooperation, targeted investment, and diplomacy. Defense cooperation includes military sales and transfers, co-development of systems and platforms, and bilateral and multilateral exercises. Targeted investments combine U.S. seed funding, American technology and expertise, and private industry. And diplomacy involves institutionalized touchpoints between senior leaders as well as more ad hoc engagements to address an emergent opportunity or challenge and strategic messaging to support our initiatives. We employ these tools in South Asia as we help our partners build capacity, strategic capacity that is, increase their prosperity and protect their sovereignty. Outcomes that make America safer and more prosperous as well. India, with its size, location, and commitment to a free and open region, anchors South Asia and more broadly the western half of the Indo-Pacific. The United States and India maintain high-level diplomatic touchpoints such as the 2+2 Ministerial and cooperate closely in the defense technology and energy sectors, bilaterally and also through the Quad. Cooperation in these areas has remained robust even as we resolved long-standing issues in our trade relationship, as evidenced by the renewed 10-year U.S.-India defense framework agreement, the Trust Initiative, and Indian purchases of U.S. products ranging from drones to liquefied natural gas. Following the trade framework President Trump reached last week with Prime Minister Modi, we can now focus on other shared priorities: lowering barriers to trade with one of the largest economies in the world and opening the way to even more fulsome cooperation. This will enhance our mutual prosperity and help India to defend its sovereignty both in land and in its maritime near abroad. Pakistan is another important partner in the region. We're working together with Pakistan to realize the potential of its critical mineral resources, combining U.S. government seed financing with private sector know-how to the benefit of both of our countries. Our trade in energy and agriculture is expanding as well. And our ongoing counterterrorism cooperation helps Pakistan combat internal security threats while addressing transnational dangers that could harm the U.S. or our partners. Bangladesh, Nepal, Maldives, Sri Lanka, and Bhutan's strategic locations afford them outsized importance. But they also can become targets for coercion. Defense cooperation with the United States helps them to protect their borders and waterways against encroaching powers. And carefully targeted investment can provide these states with high-quality, transparent, non-coercive support for critical infrastructure like ports, telecom networks, and energy portals, helping them to avoid the dangers of debt trap diplomacy. I've been discussing cooperation between the U.S. and South Asia. But in closing, I'll point to one other important form of cooperation: cooperation between the administration and Congress on these issues. We both recognize South Asia's vital importance. Let's work together in the region, helping our partners to help themselves and making the United States safer, stronger, and more prosperous. Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

We appreciate your testimony and I will recognize myself for five minutes at this point. And you talked quite a bit about South Asia. You are the Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs and are the lead on Afghanistan policy and a crucial part of the ongoing comprehensive review of strategy and policies towards Afghanistan, which have been underway since January of 20 of last year. Quite honestly, the Biden administration's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, that was a true betrayal of our Afghan allies and it led to thousands of Afghan allies being left behind fearing for their lives. It's well documented that the Taliban has committed numerous reprisal killings, otherwise detained or forced the disappearance of other Afghans who have served alongside U.S. service members. And there are many outstanding questions in Congress about the nature of the U.S. policy towards Afghanistan and where it is going. So Assistant Secretary Kapur, when can we expect information on the State Department's Afghan policy and will you commit to a member-level briefing so that we can have a better understanding of that issue?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The review to which you refer is an ongoing process and it's also an interagency process. So there are many moving pieces to it. I don't know exactly what the schedule looks like or the timeline looks like, but I can commit to remaining in touch with you and with the committee and your staffs and letting you know when we reach some sort of consensus on that.

Well, maybe let me ask more specific. Before there is a final report, are you willing to come in and brief us on where you're going?

Absolutely, 100 percent.

Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. So after President Trump's historic trade agreement with India was signed last week, we can look forward to a deepening relationship with India. India shares our objective of ensuring that China cannot bully its neighbors or threaten American assets in the Indian Ocean. What next steps can we take to advance our relationship with India, particularly in the defense sector?

Well, I think we can keep going the way we have been going. One of the remarkable things about the relationship is that despite some of the uncertainty surrounding the trade relationship in recent months, the our other initiatives and efforts with India have continued forward: defense, energy, technology, and so on. And on the defense side, we have a robust agenda. We just signed the 10-year framework, which is going to help us move forward in interoperability, in joint exercises, and many of the things that we that we do and have been doing in recent years. So we're going to we'll expand that. We have also some potential purchases of weapons systems in the pipeline that will help India to protect itself better, ensure its sovereignty, also will create American jobs, be good for both sides. So we have we have a number of things in the pipeline and I think that momentum has continued despite the some of the uncertainties around trade and it's going to continue now even more so because that the trade issue has been has been largely resolved.

Appreciate that. I want to talk about the Indian Ocean and the importance strategically and operationally for us, specifically Diego Garcia. That's been in the news a little bit. We have operated an American naval support facility there since 1977, allowing our Navy to operate throughout the Indian Ocean and the Middle East. It's clearly an extremely important asset to our national security. Describe why Diego Garcia is important to our power projection in the region, especially with China growing its influence, and what if anything can Congress do to ensure that it stays that way?

Well, the Indian Ocean is actually the the Indo piece of the Indo-Pacific and one of the insights of that term is that it recognizes that this is a holistic we have to take a holistic approach to the region and we think about the Pacific, it's not in isolation but it actually connects all the way to the to the Indian Ocean and even to the east coast of Africa. Diego Garcia is in kind of in the middle of the of the ocean, but it's a very important outpost for projecting air power particularly. And the President has said that it's a crucial a crucial asset.

And we're going to work towards maintaining our presence there.

The President has said that that's Diego Garcia is very important to us strategically, so I would imagine that's something we're going to do.

Okay. In my remaining 20 seconds, I don't have enough time to discuss Bangladesh elections, but I assume that you are engaging with the Bangladesh government and as we're seeing this new election, if you want to maybe take 10 seconds to to comment.

Yeah, we're excited about it. We've been in touch with the interim government. They've been I think they have a a strong sense of their responsibility in making this go forward in a way that is secure and peaceful. And we hope that that is in fact what happens. We expect it will be. And we look forward to working with whatever government is elected there.

All right. I appreciate that. And with that, I now recognize the ranking member, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Assistant Secretary, for coming to talk to us today. So you are the Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia. And does that mean that all of the ambassadors in the region report to you?

Within the organizational structure of the department, of the bureau rather, it works that way. They yes.

Okay. So given that you oversee the ambassadors and this is the most transparent administration in history, can you commit to working with us, the chair and I, to bring Sergio Gor, Ambassador to India, to meet with members of the committee?

Mr. Gor is I think a very effective ambassador. He's done under his actually just he's been there a short time, we've had a number of really good outcomes. He's also a close confidant of the President. He has his trust and confidence. And he and I work together well. And I will I'm I will discuss I'll discuss this possibility.

I understand that he is special envoy, but he's ambassador and as you just stated, you have command over ambassadors in the region and I think that it would be important for him, given both of his roles, to come before the committee and answer questions because as you mentioned, as we've all mentioned, this is an incredibly strategic and important and mighty region. So I just want to know if you would be willing to have him come before us, if you would work with us to bring him here.

Well, he and I discuss many issues and we'll I will discuss discuss this possibility.

Please let him know. I now want to turn to Afghanistan. And I believe that we share common goals and a common humanity. Nonetheless, one of the great moral catastrophes of this administration is happening on your watch, which is the betrayal of our Afghan allies. For every female interpreter left behind and assaulted by the Taliban, for every Afghan the department pays to leave CAS and return to mortal danger, for every child separated from their siblings and parent separated from their kids, your name, your name will be on that policy for the history books, for the documentaries, for the Wikipedia. And there are people in the audience today who have been directly impacted. I want to thank you for saying on the record in answering the chair's question about continuing to update members of this committee on the Afghan policy because it is so important. And I would hope that you would commit to making sure that that happens by or before March 31st. I would also ask that you commit to making sure that our staff are able to receive those briefings as well. Can you commit to also ensuring that our staff have access?

We will be in touch. I will be as transparent and open as I possibly can be.

I hope that means our staff and the members are able to be briefed. The State Department said it aims to close down CAS by the end of March and relocate over a thousand Afghans to third countries, breaking our promise to give them a future in the United States. So can you commit that no Afghan will be forcibly repatriated to Afghanistan?

We are not forcibly repatriating Afghans to Afghanistan. Some have gone of their own volition, but we are not forcing anybody.

Okay. That is good to know. Do you know which countries have agreed to accept Afghan refugees and do you know how many Afghans are being relocated?

There are between 1,100 and 1,200 Afghans on the facility at CAS and we're looking to relocate them. And we're in negotiations with third countries to do that. And you know our belief is that that is actually a good outcome. Keeping them indefinitely on CAS is really not humane or reasonable.

When we talked about that yesterday, I hope that you will be able to give this committee a list of the countries that you are negotiating with or the ones that have said yes before everything is finalized. I just want to close with the few minutes I have left. I read up on you. I know you care about this region. I believe we have the same goals, that we want partnership, predictability, and peace in the region. I have to tell you this issue with the Afghan policy is incredibly alarming. I am serious when I say that this country, that your position, your position will be carrying that legacy and if those women, if those girls, if those allies are beaten, killed, tortured, murdered, taken by the Taliban, it will be something that you have to answer to. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.

Gentlelady's time has expired. With that, the chair now recognizes the the subcommittee chair on Europe, Mr. Self of Texas, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You wrote a book, Jihad as Grand Strategy: Islamist Militancy, National Security and the Pakistani State. The summary of it starts that the Islamist militants based in Pakistan have played a major role in terrorism around the world and pose a significant threat to regional and international security. Are there Islamist groups operating in the from the South Central Asia region of the world operating in the United States today?

Well, it depends on what you mean by operating. I mean there could be members of those groups around. I I can't give you exact numbers or where they might be. The point of the of the book was to look back at Pakistani strategy and and discuss how the Pakistanis had interacted with militant and terrorist groups.

Okay. So you're saying that you don't know of South Central Asia Islamic groups that are importing Sharia into the United States? Is that your statement?

Groups as coherent organizations, I there may be members of those groups that are here. They could be anywhere. That's one of the challenges of dealing with terrorism is that there are you know small numbers of people that blend into the population. It's very hard to know.

Okay. Moving to China and India, obviously the two largest countries by population in the world. This this new found relationship with India, what is your assessment of how India is going to support our efforts, our increasing allied efforts around the the Indo-Pacific region to counter an increasingly aggressive China, setting trade routes aside?

Well, an India that can be independent and stand up for itself and preserve its freedom of action actually actually works to our strategic advantage and and promotes our strategic interests because what we're trying to do fundamentally is not to keep China out of the region, but to prevent China or any single hegemon from taking over or imposing coercive leverage on the region. So an India that is able to be independent and preserve its freedom of action takes a huge swath of the Indo-Pacific off of China's plate and almost by definition prevents it from becoming the dominant power in the region.

Do you think that China has a true blue water navy?

They have blue water capabilities.

Okay. What how is and I understand India is not a a fan of the Belt and Road Initiative. How were they impacting that in the South Central Asia area?

Well, the Belt and Road is about getting Chinese enabling the Chinese to get influence over regional countries...

And how are they countering?

...through development. Well, when India develops its economy and develops its infrastructure and develops its military independent of China and is able to be to maintain its freedom of action, it prevents the Chinese from using the Belt and Road strategy in a again, a big swath of the Indo-Pacific.

So India is replacing the Belt and Road Initiative in some places?

Well, it's if Belt and Road doesn't take root in India, for instance, that means that there's a very large part of the Indo-Pacific that is not under Chinese sway.

So you're not saying they're impacting it beyond India.

I think at this point the goal is to ensure that an India that India can stand up for itself, be independent, and of course it is, but the more wherewithal that it has economically, militarily in terms of its defense, in terms of its technology, the better it is able to maintain its independence from China.

How about its actions in the Quad?

India has been an active member of the Quad and we interact with India both bilaterally and in the Quad context and that is a I think a promising venue for us to cooperate and for us to cooperate with other like-minded states in the region.

Are they aggressive in the Quad?

I don't know if I'd say they're aggressive, but they're but they are important members of the Quad.

Yeah, Secretary, I think India is an important ally in our in our move against China. So I'm trying to pick at your brain to see how they are supporting our broader global effort against China and I'm not...

So I guess what I take you back I understand your question. I mean, what I'm saying is that they don't have to they don't have to go far afield to support our strategic interests. And an independent, strong, prosperous India takes a big swath of the Indo-Pacific away from China and that is actually a strategic win for us.

Mr. Chairman, I yield.

The gentleman's time has expired. With that, the gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Assistant Secretary, I appreciate your statement in the opening comments. This is a vital region and we're playing a long game here. You know, our competitors, adversaries in the region are playing an equally long game. I implore you to work with Congress and certainly take a message back to the administration because it's my I'm starting my 14th year in Congress and having been on this committee, have deep relations and have been focused on the region. So we're always going to get better policy when we're working with Congress, we're playing long game, we're appropriating and authorizing long-term strategy. So I'll take you at your word on that and again, think it is better for us to work closely with the administration so it doesn't change from one administration to the next, but we play that long game. I'm going to ask a quick question about Central Asia. It's an issue that we've been working on for a long time, the repeal of Jackson-Vanik, which really is a Cold War relic that doesn't really apply to today's world. It does inhibit U.S. companies from fully investing in some of the Central Asian nations and it hasn't been a partisan issue. You know, we've introduced legislation in a bipartisan fashion and administrations, Democratic and Republican administrations, have all said it is a relic of the past. Secretary Rubio in his confirmation hearing also acknowledged that. So I think now's the time for us to fully repeal Jackson-Vanik. They want our companies investing. They are critical minerals, energy resources, etc. And they're in a tough neighborhood between Russia and China. So I'd love your commitment to say you'll work with us on getting that repeal across the finish line.

Yes, sir. This is a great a great example of a bipartisan issue as you point out. We believe that Jackson-Vanik is a relic of the Cold War as you said. The Secretary has said the same thing and we appreciate bipartisan support here.

Okay. Let's go to South Asia and India. I was there in September. The relationship was not a great place at that point. Lots of reasons. I think there was concern about President Trump's welcoming some senior Pakistani leaders into the Oval Office, concerns about the 50 percent tariff. You know, I got on a plane on a Friday, landed on a Saturday and there was a H-1B visa $100,000 fee. So spent a lot of time addressing these issues. But also spent a lot of time speaking through the media to the public that nothing has changed from a congressional perspective in terms of a three-decade strategy going back to President Clinton, through President Bush, through President Obama, through President Trump's first term, President Biden, that has deviated our strategy. We see India as a strategic piece of the puzzle in stabilizing the Indo-Pacific. They still see that. We see the economic relationship. So I'm cautiously optimistic about the trade deal that still a lot of details to be worked through. India is not always the easiest place with their bureaucracy, but it has been an ever-elusive trade deal. So again, that would be a place where I would urge you to work closely with Congress. We also introduced a resolution, H. Res. 880, which is a bipartisan resolution that re-established and re-codified 24 members of Congress, 12 Democrats, 12 Republicans, the importance of this relationship. So again, I don't think anything's changed in how Congress looks at the strategic importance. If you could just give us a quick update. We saw the tensions between India and Pakistan. Obviously, you've studied this region quite a bit. It seems quieter at this juncture, but if you could update us on what you're seeing with relationship to India and Pakistan.

Thank you. And I think that was a very insightful summary of the of the relationship, frankly. I agree with you that this is this kind of strategic thinking has transcended both Democratic and Republican administrations. And I would say that I mentioned this earlier, but I'd repeat it, that despite some of the uncertainties around the trade negotiations, we we continued to move forward on most axes of the relationship in a pretty robust way. You know, and we and we got civil nuclear legislation and we got the defense framework. So a lot of good things happened.

And again, hopefully the nuclear that's always been elusive as well. That's in a better place. I guess just in my last few seconds, the one thing I've pushed the Indians on is I'll take the President face value that he really does want to bring the Ukraine conflict to an end. The Indians do have lines of communication with the Russians that we don't. You know, this is an opportunity for India to flex some of its diplomatic muscle, get the President a win that he wants. As you interact with your Indian counterparts, if you could push them to use their diplomatic lines of communication to help bring this conflict to an end and then the post-conflict, I think India can play a big role here.

Yes. Thank you.

Gentleman's time has expired. We are going to do a second round of questioning. I'll recognize myself for five minutes as well. I don't know if you wanted to expand I kind of ended on the Bangladeshi elections, but we also have the Nepalese elections upcoming. If you want to briefly comment on that and then what I'd like to do is talk a little bit about the strategic issues regarding the Maldives and Sri Lanka and the sort of the Chinese view of their string of pearls theory of how they are going to spread their influence around the Indo-Pacific.

Sure. Thank you. I think we talked about Bangladesh and again, that election is going to happen tomorrow. I think it's a great great thing to see and we're we're very optimistic about it. And our approach to Nepal is similar. I mean, these are both examples of youth movements overthrowing older governments and and now creating the opportunity for democratic participation in their countries. So with Nepal, we we also trust that that we'll have a secure and peaceful process, electoral process, and we're prepared to work with whoever wins.

Great. How about Sri Lanka and the Maldives and any other string of pearls issues that we'd like to be looking at?

Sure. So the so those smaller oceanic South Asian states have, I think, outsized importance because of their location.

I believe I heard Sri Lanka has something like 75 percent of all the world's energy passes within miles of its shores.

Yeah, I think that's right. And probably about half of the container shipping I believe whatever the exact number is, it's a lot. And so those SLOCs, sea lanes of communication, are really important. Very important to keep them free and open for for the world economy. And those countries are positioned in ways that they can have actually undue or not undue, but outsized impact on trade and energy flows through there. So it's very important that those countries are able to maintain their freedom of action and not be coerced by China by predatory lending and the kinds of things that you talked about earlier. Some of the ways that we can do that is to engage these countries with financing to kind of identify strategic infrastructure projects, I guess is what I would say, and not allow them all to go to be dominated by China. I think which is really what China wants to do. If you think about Sri Lanka and Hambantota Port, they have a 99-year lease on it. Those are the kinds of dangers that we see with Chinese development schemes. So we need to be able to offer alternatives, high-quality transparent non-coercive alternatives, and I think we can do that with our financing mechanisms, our technology, and our private enterprise, our private business, and it's something very important to President Trump to be able to create opportunities for U.S. business.

Have we seen some of that same infrastructure in the Maldives? Chinese infrastructure?

Yeah, so there's a port in the Maldives, Thilafushi Port. It was actually designated a port of the future by the Quad, I believe. And so there's been some Chinese investment there. Not not the whole thing, but but they're interested for sure.

You heard it, folks. He's encouraged us to go investigate the Maldives. So happy to take that suggestion. Well, with that, I do appreciate and I'll I'll I will yield back the balance of my time and turn to Representative Self for five minutes as we if we do have one of our other Democrat colleagues come back, we'll recognize them. But Mr. Self.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go to Russian oil because the sale of Russian oil continues to fund the Ukraine war. Let's just be honest. So if supposedly India has pledged to cease importing Russian oil, how are you going to enforce that? Because we're talking about does that include third-party traders, blended cargo, ship-to-ship, ghost ships? How are you going to enforce that?

Well, fortunately enforcement I won't be in the enforcement business. That will be I think probably my DOE colleagues will will be thinking about ships that are that are traveling around. But I think...

Well, then maybe the question for you is how are you going to measure it?

Yeah, I don't know the details of of how that's going to be worked out. I'm happy to stay in touch with you about it. But the Indians have been reducing their their purchases of Russian oil and diversifying away, which is what we wanted them to do. And they've actually been buying more U.S. energy and that's a I think a promising possibility is to substitute some U.S. energy for the for the Russian energy. But other and buying from other places around the world too, of course.

Yeah, because we we have credible reports, in fact, I don't think there's any question that Russia sold energy to India, who turned around and then exported it to Europe. So it's a and that could be opaque to you. So I think this is important in our efforts to control the sale of Russian energy, just making sure it doesn't go through a third party through India, even if it doesn't touch Indian pipelines or territory. I think that's an important issue in terms of cutting off the sale of Russian energy. China's also implicit in that, I got it, but India heretofore has been has been a major participant in that. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. With that, the chair recognizes the ranking member for five minutes.

Thank you. And I just want to apologize for leaving because I'm doing double duty on another committee. So wanted to get back to the questions around Afghanistan. The State Department has confirmed that it is offering payments to Afghan allies at CASE to self-deport back to the Taliban using funds specifically appropriated by Congress to support the Afghan relocations. I know you said that some are going voluntarily, but do you know how many Afghan allies have accepted payment so far?

I believe it's in the neighborhood of 150, but I can check on those numbers.

Okay, great. And how many of those individuals were trying to reunite with family members in the United States?

I don't have that number for you.

Okay. Could you when we have our briefing, would love it if you could...

I will see what I can find in terms of numbers.

Great. And do you know how many of the Afghans who took the payment and self-deported, do you know how many of them are still alive?

I don't know individual cases.

All right. That would also be great because I think one of the things that we are interested in is how we are supporting our allies and making sure that obviously if they're going back, voluntarily or not, that they are alive. So Congress passed a law requiring the appointment of a coordinator for Afghan relocation efforts in 2024 and in July, Deputy Secretary Rigos told us that the coordinator would be the new SCA Assistant Secretary. So Mr. Kapur, are you the new coordinator for Afghan relocation efforts?

Well, I am the Assistant Secretary of South and Central Asia and CARE comes under SCA, the Office of Afghan Affairs.

Right. So you're either that coordinator and you're doing multiple jobs like Marco Rubio, the Secretary, or that person yet has not been identified.

Well, I play I have that responsibility structurally now.

Okay. I think it's also important that we get that information. I think that's something that should have been coordinated with Congress or at least we should have been alerted, given it was a law passed by us. So the U.S. used to provide scholarships for Rohingya and Afghan women to attend the Asian University for Women in Bangladesh, a crucial educational lifeline for women in the region deprived of schooling opportunities. Do you think that it's in the U.S.'s interest to support women's education in the region?

We we support that women should and girls should be educated just like boys and men.

So would you consider resuming U.S. support for the university?

I don't know about the particular case of the university. I know that we support scholarships for Afghan girls and women to study. We also have a virtual program that I think is beamed into Afghanistan and so it's located outside so it doesn't benefit the Taliban, but we we have we do take that seriously and I certainly believe that girls and women should be educated.

I'm glad that you do and I actually think that educating women and girls tends to be a bipartisan issue and so it would also be great to get that information. As you can see, we have been waiting for you, for someone, to come before this committee and answer some questions that will help us in how we are engaging with our partners in the region and putting our best foot forward and it's hard to do that, as we shared with you, when there's no one here and when we don't get a call back and we can't get briefings. So the Quad, I think is very important and how we can get it back on track. From your perspective, are there issues that need to be resolved as preconditions before the United States participates in a Quad leaders summit?

I think the Quad is a very important platform. It it has done well. It was defunct in I think 2017 when it was kind of revived during the first Trump administration and it's grown in importance since then and we it's a platform that enables us to connect and cooperate in unique ways with our like-minded partners. You were talking about India earlier in the Quad and India's been an active participant, but we can promote our humanitarian, tech-related, defense, and econ-related and trade-related interests also supply chain...

I want I if you don't mind, I want to take I want to make sure I get my last 18 seconds in. But I appreciate you saying all of that and sharing those examples because I think it underscores that you believe that the Quad is very important. I was concerned that it's only mentioned twice in the 2025 National Security Strategy, so I hope you can lean in in your role and remind everyone else how important the Quad is and how strategic it is to the work we're trying to do in the region. Thank you and I yield back.

Sir, could I just respond very briefly to that?

Very briefly.

Yeah, so I would just point out that it is the Quad's important to us and Secretary Rubio's I think first engagement when he became Secretary of State was in fact a Quad engagement. So it's important to us.

He should come back and tell us all about it. You should tell him he should come back and tell us all about it.

With that, I want to thank you, Assistant Secretary Kapur, for your very valuable information and testimony and for answering members' questions. Members of the subcommittee are reminded they may if they have additional questions for the witness, they can submit those in writing to the chair. We will pass those along and ask you to respond to those in writing. And pursuant to committee rules, all committee members have five days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record subject to the length limitations. And without objection, the committee stands adjourned. Thank you.

Thank you.