Connect with us

Features

Ramifications of Trump Corollary

Published

on

President Donald Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth look on, at the White House, in Washington, Dec. 2, 2025

President Trump is expected to close the deal on the Ukraine crisis, as he may wish to concentrate his full strength on two issues: ongoing operations in Venezuela and the bolstering of Japan’s military capabilities as tensions between China and Japan over Taiwan rise. Trump can easily concede Ukraine to Putin and refocus on the Asia–Pacific and Latin America. This week, he once again spilled the beans in an interview with Politico, one of the most significant conversations ever conducted with him. When asked which country currently holds the stronger negotiating position, Trump bluntly asserted that there could be no question: it is Russia. “It’s a much bigger country. It’s a war that should’ve never happened,” he said, followed by his usual rhetoric.

Meanwhile, US allies that fail to adequately fund defence and shirk contributions to collective security will face repercussions, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth declared at the 2025 Reagan National Defense Forum in Simi Valley, California. Hegseth singled out nations such as South Korea, Israel, Poland, and Germany as “model allies” for increasing their commitments, contrasting them with those perceived as “free riders”. The message was unmistakably Trumpian: partnerships are conditional, favourable only to countries that “help themselves” before asking anything of Washington.

It is in this context that it becomes essential to examine the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy, issued last week, in order to consider how it differs from previous strategies and where it may intersect with current US military practice.

Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy is not merely another iteration of the familiar doctrine of American primacy; it is a radical reorientation of how the United States understands itself, its sphere of influence, and its role in the world. The document begins uncompromisingly: “The purpose of foreign policy is the protection of core national interests; that is the sole focus of this strategy.” It is the bluntest opening in any American NSS since the document became a formal requirement in 1987. Whereas previous strategies—from Obama to Biden—wrapped security in the language of democracy promotion and multilateralism, Trump’s dispenses entirely with the pretence of universality. What matters are American interests, defined narrowly, almost corporately, as though the United States were a shareholder entity rather than a global hegemon.

It is here that the ghost of Senator William Fulbright quietly enters, warning in 1966 that “The arrogance of power… the belief that we are uniquely qualified to bring order to the world, is a dangerous illusion.” Fulbright’s admonition was directed at the hubris of Vietnam-era expansionism, yet it resonates with uncanny force in relation to Trump’s revived hemispheric ambitions. For despite Trump’s anti-globalist posture, his strategy asserts a unique American role in determining events across two oceans and within an entire hemisphere. The arrogance may simply be wearing a new mask.

Nowhere is this revisionist spirit more vivid than in the so-called “Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine”, perhaps the most controversial American hemispheric declaration since Theodore Roosevelt’s time. The 2025 NSS states without hesitation that “The United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere.” Yet unlike Roosevelt, who justified intervention as a form of pre-emptive stabilisation, Trump wraps his corollary in the language of sovereignty and anti-globalism. The hemispheric message is not simply that outside powers must stay out; it is that the United States will decide what constitutes legitimate governance in the region and deny “non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities… in our Hemisphere”.

This wording alone has far-reaching implications for Venezuela, where US forces recently seized a sanctioned supertanker as part of an escalating confrontation with the Maduro government. Maduro, emboldened by support from Russia, Iran, and China’s so-called shadow fleet, frames Trump’s enforcement actions as piracy. But for Trump, this is precisely the point: a demonstration of restored hemispheric authority. In that sense, the 2025 NSS may be the first strategic document in decades to explicitly set the stage for sustained coercive operations in Latin America. The NSS promises “a readjustment of our global military presence to address urgent threats in our Hemisphere.” “Urgent threats” is vague, but in practical military planning, vagueness functions as a permission slip. It is not difficult to see how a state accused of “narco-terrorism” or “crimes against humanity” could be fitted into the category.

The return to hemispheric dominance is paired with a targeted shift in alliance politics. Trump makes it clear that the United States is finished subsidising alliances that do not directly strengthen American security. The NSS lays out the philosophy succinctly: “The days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over.” This is a direct repudiation of the language found in Obama’s 2015 NSS, which emphasised that American leadership was indispensable to global stability. Trump rejects that premise outright. Leadership, in his framing, is merely leverage. Allies who fail to meet burden expectations will lose access, influence, and potentially even protection. Nowhere is this more evident than in the push for extraordinary defence spending among NATO allies: “President Trump has set a new global standard with the Hague Commitment… pledging NATO countries to spend 5 percent of GDP on defence.”

In turn, US disengagement from Europe becomes easier to justify. While Trump speaks of “negotiating an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine”, it requires little sophistication to decode this as a form of managed abandonment—an informal concession that Russia’s negotiating position is stronger, as Trump told Politico. Ukraine may well become a bargaining chip in the trade-off between strategic theatres: Europe shrinks, Asia and Latin America expand. The NSS’s emphasis on Japan, Taiwan, and China is markedly sharper than in 2017.

China looms over the 2025 NSS like an obsession, mentioned over twenty times, not merely as a competitor but as a driving force shaping American policy. Every discussion of technology, alliances, or regional security is filtered through Beijing’s shadow, as if US strategy exists solely to counter China. The strategy’s relentless focus risks turning global priorities into a theatre of paranoia, where the United States reacts constantly, defined less by its own interests than by fear of what China might do next.

It is equally striking that, just nine days after Cyclone Ditwah, the US Indo-Pacific Command deployed two C130 aircraft—capable of landing at only three locations in Sri Lanka, well away from the hardest-hit areas—and orchestrated a highly choreographed media performance, enlisting local outlets and social media influencers seemingly more concerned with flaunting American boots on the ground than delivering “urgent” humanitarian aid. History shows this is not unprecedented: US forces have repeatedly arrived under the banner of humanitarian assistance—Operation Restore Hope in Somalia (1992) later escalated into full security and combat operations; interventions in Haiti during the 1990s extended into long-term peacekeeping and training missions; and Operation United Assistance in Liberia (2014) built a lasting US operational presence beyond the Ebola response.

Trump’s NSS, meanwhile, states that deterring conflict in East Asia is a “priority”, and that the United States seeks to ensure that “US technology and US standards—particularly in AI, biotech, and quantum computing—drive the world forward.” Combined with heightened expectations of Japan, which is rapidly rearming, Trump’s strategic map shows a clear preference: if Europe cannot or will not defend itself, Asia might.

What makes the 2025 NSS uniquely combustible, however, is the combination of ideological framing and operational signalling. Trump explicitly links non-interventionism, long a theme of his political base, to the Founders’ moral worldview. He writes that “Rigid adherence to non-interventionism is not possible… yet this predisposition should set a high bar for what constitutes a justified intervention.”

The Trump NSS is both a blueprint and a warning. It signals a United States abandoning the liberal internationalist project and embracing a transactional, hemispherically focussed, sovereignty-first model. It rewrites the Monroe Doctrine for an age of great-power contest, but in doing so resurrects the very logics of intervention that past presidents have regretted. And in the background, as Trump weighs the cost of Ukraine against the allure of a decisive posture in Asia and the Western Hemisphere, the world is left to wonder whether this new corollary is merely rhetorical theatre or the prelude to a new era of American coercive power. The ambiguity is deliberate, but the direction of travel is unmistakable.

[Correction: In my column last week, I incorrectly stated that India–Russia trade in FY 2024 25 was USD 18 billion; the correct figure is USD 68.7 billion, with a trade deficit of about USD 59 billion. Similarly, India recorded a goods trade surplus of around USD 41.18 billion with the US, not a deficit of USD 42 billion, with exports of USD 86.51 billion and imports of USD 45.33 billion. Total remittances to India in FY 2024 25 were roughly USD 135.46 billion, including USD 25–30 billion from the US. Apologies for the error.]

by Nilantha Ilangamuwa



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Fractious West facing a more solidified Eastern opposition

Published

on

An Iranian attack on a neighbouring Gulf state. Image courtesy BBC.

Going forward, it is hoped that a reported ceasefire agreement between the US and Iran would provide a basis for a degree of stability in the Middle East and pave the way for substantive peace talks between the powers concerned. The world is compelled to fall back on hope because there is never knowing when President Donald Trump would change his mind and plans on matters of the first importance. So erratic has he been.

Yet, confusion abounds on who has agreed to what. The US President is on record that a number of conditions put forward by him to Iran to deescalate tensions have been accepted by the latter, whereas Iran is yet to state unambiguously that this is so. For instance, the US side claims that Iran has come clear on the point that it would not work towards acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, but there is no official confirmation by Iran that this is so. The same goes for the rest of the conditions.

Accordingly, the peace process between the US and Iran, if such a thing solidly exists, could be said to be mired in uncertainty. Nevertheless, the wider publics of the world are bound to welcome the prospects of some sort of ceasing of hostilities because it would have the effect of improving their economic and material well being which is today under a cloud.

However, questions of the first magnitude would continue to bedevil international politics and provide the breeding ground for continued tensions between East and West. Iran-US hostilities helped highlight some of these divisive issues and a deescalation of these tensions would not inevitably translate into even a temporary resolution of these questions. The world community would have no choice but to take them up and work towards comprehending them better and managing them more effectively.

For example, there are thorny questions arising from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Essentially, this treaty bans the processing and use of nuclear weapons by states but some of the foremost powers are not signatories to it.

Moreover, the NPT does not provide for the destroying of nuclear arsenals by those signatory states which are already in possession of these WMDs. Consequently, there would be a glaring power imbalance between the latter nuclear-armed states and others which possess only conventional weapons.

Such a situation has grave implications for Iran’s security, for instance. The latter could argue, in view of the NPT restrictions, that the US poses a security threat to it but that it is debarred by the Treaty from developing a nuclear arms capability of its own to enable it to match the nuclear capability of the US. Moreover, its regional rival Israel is believed to possess a nuclear weapons capability.

Accordingly, a case could be made that the NPT is inherently unfair. The US would need to help resolve this vexatious matter going forward. But if it remains, US-Iran tensions would not prove easy to resolve. The same goes for Iran-Israeli tensions. Consequently, the Middle East would remain the proverbial ‘powder keg’.

Besides the above issues, the world has ample evidence that it could no longer speak in terms of a united NATO or West. Apparently, there could be no guarantee that US-NATO relations would remain untroubled in future, even if the current Iran-US standoff is peacefully resolved. US-NATO ties almost reached breaking point in the current crisis when the US President called on its NATO partners, particularly Britain, to help keep open the Hormuz Straits for easy navigation by commercial vessels, militarily, on seeing that such help was not forthcoming. Such questions are bound to remain sore points in intra-Western ties.

In other words, it would be imperative for the US’ NATO partners to help pull the US’ ‘chestnuts out of the fire’ going ahead. The question is, would NATO be willing to thus toe the US line even at the cost of its best interests.

For the West, these fractious issues are coming to the fore at a most unpropitious moment. The reality that could faze the West at present is the strong opposition shown to its efforts to bolster its power and influence by China and Russia. Right through the present crisis, the latter have stood by Iran, materially and morally. For instance, the most recent Security Council resolution spearheaded by the US which was strongly critical of Iran, was vetoed by China and Russia.

Accordingly, we have in the latter developments some marked polarities in international politics that could stand in the way of the West advancing its interests unchallenged. They point to progressively intensifying East-West tensions in international relations in the absence of consensuality.

It is only to be expected that given the substance of international politics that the West would be opposed by the East, read China and Russia, in any of the former’s efforts to advance its self interests unilaterally in ways that could be seen as illegitimate, but what is sorely needed at present is consensuality among the foremost powers if the world is to be ‘a less dangerous place to live in.’ Minus a focus on the latter, it would be a ‘no-win’ situation for all concerned.

It would be central to world stability for International Law to be upheld by all states and international actors. Military intervention by major powers in the internal affairs of other countries remains a principal cause of international mayhem. Both East and West are obliged to abide scrupulously with this principle.

From the latter viewpoint, not only did the West err in recent times, but the East did so as well. Iran, for instance, acted in gross violation of International Law when it attacked neighbouring Gulf states which are seen as US allies. Neither Iran nor the US-Israel combine have helped in advancing international law and order by thus taking the law into their own hands.

Unfortunately, the UN has been a passive spectator to these disruptive developments. It needs to play a more robust role in promoting world peace and in furthering consensual understanding among the principal powers in particular. The need is also urgent to advance UN reform and render the UN a vital instrument in furthering world peace. The East and West need to think alike and quickly on this urgent undertaking.

Continue Reading

Features

Science-driven health policies key to tackling emerging challenges — UNFPA

Published

on

Dr. Dayanath Ranatunga

Marking World Health Day on April 7, health experts have called for a stronger commitment to science-based decision-making to address increasingly complex and evolving health challenges in Sri Lanka and beyond.

Dr. Dayanath Ranatunga, Assistant Representative of the United Nations Population Fund, stressed that health is no longer confined to hospitals or traditional medical systems, but is shaped by a broad spectrum of social, environmental, and technological factors.

“This year’s theme, ‘Together for Health. Stand with Science,’ reminds us that science is not only for laboratories or policymakers. It is a way of thinking and a tool that shapes everyday decisions,” he said.

Dr. Ranatunga noted that modern health challenges are increasingly interconnected, ranging from infectious diseases such as COVID-19 to climate-related risks, demographic shifts, and emerging forms of online violence.

He warned that maternal and newborn health continues to demand urgent attention despite progress. Globally, an estimated 260,000 women died from pregnancy and childbirth-related causes in 2023 alone—many of them preventable through timely, science-based interventions.

“In countries like Sri Lanka, where fertility rates are declining and survival rates improving, every pregnancy carries greater significance—not just for families, but for the future of communities and economies,” he said.

The UNFPA official also highlighted the growing threat of Technology Facilitated Gender-Based Violence (TFGBV), including cyber harassment and online abuse, noting that these forms of violence can have deep psychological consequences despite lacking visible physical harm.

He emphasised the need for multidisciplinary, science-informed approaches that integrate mental health, digital safety, and survivor-centered care.

Turning to demographic trends, Dr. Ranatunga pointed out that increasing life expectancy is bringing new challenges, particularly the rise of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular illnesses, and cancers.

In Sri Lanka, nearly 13.9% of mothers develop diabetes during pregnancy, a trend attributed to obesity and unhealthy lifestyles, underscoring the urgent need for preventive healthcare strategies.

“Are we investing enough in prevention?” he asked, noting that early intervention and healthier lifestyles could significantly reduce long-term healthcare costs, especially in a country with a free public healthcare system.

He underscored the importance of data-driven policymaking, stating that scientific research and analytics enable governments to identify gaps, anticipate future needs, and allocate resources more effectively.

The UNFPA, he said, is already leveraging tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to improve access to maternal healthcare, including mapping travel times for pregnant women to reach health facilities.

Digital innovation is also transforming healthcare delivery, from telemedicine to real-time data systems, improving efficiency and ensuring continuity of care even during emergencies.

In Sri Lanka, partnerships between the government and development agencies are helping to modernise training institutions, including facilities in Batticaloa, equipping healthcare workers with both clinical and digital skills.

However, Dr. Ranatunga cautioned that technology alone is not a solution.

“It must be guided by evidence and grounded in equity,” he said, pointing out that women’s health remains significantly underfunded, with only about 7% of global healthcare research focusing on conditions specific to women.

He also drew attention to the growing health impacts of climate change, including extreme weather, food insecurity, and displacement, describing it as an emerging public health crisis.

“Health does not begin in hospitals. It is shaped by the environments we live in, the choices we make, and the systems we build,” he said.

Calling for renewed commitment, Dr. Ranatunga urged stakeholders to invest in prevention, embrace innovation, and ensure that science remains central to policy and practice.

“Science is not just about knowledge—it is about ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to live healthy, dignified lives, and that no one is left behind,” he added.

 

By Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Features

Sharing the festive joy with ‘Awurudu Kaale’

Published

on

The visually impaired who make up Bright Light Band in Awurudu attire

Melantha Perera is well known as a very versatile musician.

He was involved with the band Mirage, as their keyboardist/vocalist, and was also seen in action with other outfits, as well, before embarking on a trip to Australia, as a solo artiste.

I now hear that he has plans to operate as a trio.

However, what has got many talking about Melantha, these days, is his awesome work with the visually impaired Bright Light Band.

They have worked out a special song for the Sinhala and Tamil New Year, aptly titled ‘Awurudu Kaale.

Says Melantha: “This song has been created to celebrate the spirit of the Sinhala and Tamil New Year and to share the joy of the Awurudu season with all Sri Lankans”.

Yes, of course, Melantha composed the song, with the lyrics written collaboratively by Melantha, Badra, and the parents of the talented performers, whose creative input brought the song to life during moments of inspiration.

Melantha Perera: Awesome work with Bright Light Band

This meaningful collaboration reflects the strong community behind the Bright Light Band.

According to Melantha, accompaning the song is a vibrant video production that also features the involvement of the parents, highlighting unity, joy, and togetherness.

Beyond showcasing their musical talents, the visually impaired members of Bright Light Band deliver a powerful message, through this project, that their abilities extend beyond singing, as they also express themselves through movement and dance.

Melantha expressed his satisfaction with the outcome of the project and looks forward to sharing it with audiences across the country during this festive season.

He went on to say that Bright Light Band extends its sincere gratitude to Bcert Australia for their generous Mian sponsorship, the CEO of the company, Samath Fernando, for his continuous support in making such initiatives possible, and Rukshan Perera for his personal support and encouragement in bringing this project to completion.

The band also acknowledges Udara Fernando for his invaluable contribution, generously providing studio space and accommodating extended recording sessions to suit the children’s availability.

Appreciation is warmly extended to the parents, whose unwavering commitment from ensuring attendance at rehearsals to supporting the video production has been instrumental in the success of this project.

Through ‘Awurudu Kaale’, Bright Light Band hopes to spread festive cheer and inspire audiences, proving that passion and talent know no boundaries.

Continue Reading

Trending