US Should Not Make Bangladesh’s Poor Suffer
The United States should not impose policies that make life harder for Bangladesh’s poor people while presenting itself as a global champion of democracy, human rights, free markets and good governance.
The US has repeatedly applied these principles selectively, supporting authoritarian regimes when doing so serves its geopolitical or economic interests. This ‘double standard’ has become more pronounced under President Donald Trump, whose aggressive tariff, visa and bilateral trade policies have increasingly prioritised US interests over those of other countries.
Against this backdrop, serious questions have emerged over the bilateral trade agreement Bangladesh signed with the United States on February 9, just three days before the national parliamentary election and at the end of the then interim government’s tenure. The agreement appears, on closer examination, to be a form of ‘covert unequal treaty’, with potentially serious consequences for Bangladesh’s food security and economy. The impact is already becoming evident in wheat imports. Due to disruptions in international shipping amid the US-Israel-Iran conflict, the cost of importing wheat from the US could rise nearly threefold. Yet Bangladesh could potentially purchase wheat at much lower prices from Russia, Ukraine or neighbouring India through open tenders.
Despite this, Bangladesh is required under the agreement to purchase 800,000 tonnes of wheat from the United States, bearing higher prices as well as the additional costs and risks associated with transporting the grain over a much longer distance. Bangladesh has a limited economic capacity, while a large section of its population continues to struggle with poverty. ‘Forcing them to buy grain from the United States at high prices in the name of a trade agreement can in no way be reasonable or just,’ the editorial argues. It describes the arrangement as a ‘trade hostage situation’, with ordinary and poor Bangladeshis ultimately paying the price.
The expected benefits for Bangladesh’s export sector are also questionable. The country had hoped to secure greater market access and other advantages for its ready-made garment industry by accepting US demands. However, exports to the US market have not shown the expected progress. Instead, new tariff and non-tariff barriers are creating the risk of a gradual decline in exports. The editorial also raises concerns over provisions involving Boeing aircraft purchases, defence equipment and military technology. It argues that the promised ‘technology transfer’ could largely give US corporations opportunities to assemble components in Bangladesh rather than helping the country develop independent technological capabilities. Such arrangements could instead facilitate a substantial outflow of foreign currency.
In addition, greater US military and strategic involvement in the Bay of Bengal could put pressure on Bangladesh’s balanced and neutral foreign policy and its relations with China, described as a longstanding economic partner.The circumstances surrounding the agreement also demand scrutiny. It was signed by an unelected interim government immediately before a democratic national election and involved sensitive economic, military and strategic issues. The editorial questions whether such a government should have had the authority to enter into a long-term agreement of this nature.
The then government led by Dr Muhammad Yunus and officials at the foreign ministry should therefore explain why they accepted what are described as one-sided conditions. It is also necessary to determine whether any hidden geopolitical pressure or ulterior motive influenced the decision. The current elected government should immediately place the agreement before Parliament for detailed examination. If a parliamentary committee finds that the deal undermines Bangladesh’s economic or diplomatic interests, the democratic government has every right to cancel or amend it.
If an investigation establishes that officials of the former administration acted against national interests or with ulterior motives, they should also face a transparent investigation and, where warranted, legal proceedings. Washington should change its approach towards Bangladesh and other emerging economies. A country seeking genuine global leadership must pursue constructive and friendly relations rather than aggressive policies that place weaker economies under pressure. Bangladesh’s economy, food security and sovereignty cannot be placed at the mercy of a foreign power’s commercial or military interests.
