With friendship to all, subservience towards none

The “Butterfly Effect” is proving to grow uglier by the day. A missile hitting an installation in Tehran can send prices of essentials spiralling in Dhaka. A vessel held up at the Hormuz Strait can create havoc at our petrol pumps. C’est la vie, that’s life, but that is not how life should be.

Philosophy aside, under prevailing global realities, the newly installed government in Bangladesh has quite a challenge to face when it comes to its foreign policy and international relations. The prosaic and archetypal policy of “friendship to all and malice towards none” no longer holds water. After all, all relationships must be of mutual respect and benefit.

For the government led by Prime Minister Tarique Rahman, treading on geopolitical eggshells will require an astute understanding of the evolving global scenario, as well as the skills of a juggler walking a tightrope. Perhaps that is why Khalilur Rahman has been chosen for the job, rather than any popular political face. Is he up to the task? Time will tell.

In the meantime, it is clear that Bangladesh has moved away from previous unbalanced biases and fawning favouritism. It has embarked on a policy of Bangladesh First. Will the world allow such freedom? Will the bigger powers put on the pressure to choose sides? Will we be able to gamble and emerge as winners? That too, time will tell.

Pragmatically speaking, Bangladesh must maintain friendship with all. But perhaps now the mantra should be, “friendship to all, subservience towards none.” A realistic understanding of events around us, a firm resolve, diplomatic deftness, and a determined commitment to “Bangladesh First” will surely see us through. That is what the people want. And the people will not put up with any power that bows its head to others. They have unwillingly suffered from such subservience for far too long.

This is the nation that struggled for independence in 1971 and won. This is the people that fought against dictator Ershad and won. These are the masses that drove the autocrat Sheikh Hasina from the seat of power. They have voted for a government to speak their minds and implement their vision. They do not want the government to let them down. And if the will of the government tallies with the will of the people, that’s well and good. Can the government meet the expectations of the people who have elected it to power? So far, so good, but the journey has just begun.

For historical, geographical, economic, political, and sociocultural reasons, India remains a prominent factor in Bangladesh’s foreign relations. During the rule of the Awami League government, Bangladesh-India friendship had been at an all-time high. However, this was perceived to be a friendship at the level of the two governments.

On the ground, where the people were concerned, this was more at a “frenemy” level. Initially the “friend” part outweighed the “enemy” part, but this reversed with continued border killings by the Indian Border Security Force (BSF), India’s refusal to keep its commitment to share the Teesta’s waters, playing the anti-Bangladesh card during national and state elections, and so on.

Despite all this, people from Bangladesh would travel to India for tourism, shopping, medical treatment, and even education. But all this abruptly changed when India gave safe refuge to Bangladesh’s toppled prime minister Sheikh Hasina, who was accused in a large number of cases involving killings, enforced disappearances, corruption, and more -- allegations backed by evidence. India also stopped issuing visas to Bangladesh during the interim government''s rule. Now the democratically elected BNP government is in power, and tentative overtures of friendship have been made, but the ice has not thawed.

Bangladesh Foreign Minister Khalilur Rahman’s visit to India looks good on paper, with India committing to reopen visa services soon and to send back certain listed criminals hiding there (not Hasina). But only when these promises are delivered will the scepticism begin to fade.

“US-Bangladesh relations now matter more than ever before,” said Paul Kapur, US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, while speaking recently at a reception organised by the Bangladesh Embassy in Washington DC. He added, “Our cooperation in areas including security, trade, and governance, as well as our shared values, makes our countries more prosperous and secure.”

Sceptics are vocal here as well. For critics, the Agreement on Reciprocal Trade between the US and Bangladesh, concluded on 9 February 2026, has become a cause for concern. It is criticised as highly discriminatory, going against the economic benefits and strategic interests of Bangladesh.

Eminent economist and Distinguished Fellow of the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD), Debapriya Bhattacharya, has said that the trade agreement with the United States is undermining the country’s sovereignty over energy security. He noted, “The current government says it will not pursue country-specific foreign policies, yet that is exactly what is happening in the trade deal. We now need permission regarding whom we can buy oil from.”

Not everyone, of course, is so negative. The two countries cooperate on a wide range of issues, including economics, governance, security, and development. Bangladesh is the second-largest garment exporter to the US, second only to Vietnam, having overtaken China after the US imposed reciprocal tariffs.

During the July uprising of 2024 against Hasina’s rule, the US Ambassador in Dhaka, Peter Haas, was quite open in his support for the movement against non-democratic governance, helping to ease anti-US sentiment at the time. Critics claimed that the US was seeking an ally that would allow it to set up a base on Saint Martin’s Island in the Bay of Bengal, but that has not happened.

Earlier, the US had promoted its Indo-Pacific Strategy, though it did not fully take off and was perceived as a counter to China’s growing influence in the region. When President Trump shut down USAID operations in Dhaka (and elsewhere), many were crestfallen. Numerous development projects had relied on USAID funding, and it seemed like the end of an era.

At present, the BNP government is still new at the helm, and relations with the US appear good. It is still too early to tell, but experts are calibrating the significance of these ties. Meanwhile, tensions in West Asia (the Middle East) have added complexity to global geopolitics, and Bangladesh must fish carefully in these murky waters.

Like India, Russia supported Bangladesh’s struggle for independence in 1971. After independence, many young Bangladeshis went on to study in Russia, then the Soviet Union. Many politicians had close ties with Russia, and that influence lingered. Over time, however, it has waned.

Still, major Russian-backed projects, particularly in the power sector, remain significant. The nuclear power plant in Rooppur, though not yet complete, was implemented at enormous cost and has been mired in allegations of corruption involving the previous government.

At present, however, relations with Russia remain relatively calm, with no major controversies surfacing.

Now a global power to be reckoned with, China’s presence in Bangladesh’s development has long been acknowledged and, for the most part, appreciated. However, relations have not always been smooth. Under Sheikh Hasina, plans were finalised for China to construct a deep-sea port at Sonadia Island, but the deal eventually fell through. Some say Bangladesh scrapped it at the behest of the US; others cite pressure from India.

China, however, has remained deeply engaged, with numerous infrastructure projects completed or underway. These include the Padma Bridge Rail Link Project, Karnaphuli underwater tunnel, Dhaka Elevated Expressway, Payra deep-sea port, and more.

During COVID-19, China provided vaccines and medical assistance. It has also committed to building medical facilities for Bangladeshi patients, and increasing numbers of students are studying in China, many on scholarships.

Critics warn of a potential “debt trap” and question the quality of Chinese products. Yet China has historically maintained ties across political lines in Bangladesh, seeking partnership with the country rather than any particular party. It may also be recalled, at this point, BNP under Prime Minister Khaleda Zia (mother of the present PM) had adopted a "Look East" policy, must to the chagrin of those who viewed China as a rival or a foe.  

Trade is a core pillar of Bangladesh’s relations with the European union (EU). The EU is Bangladesh’s largest export market, especially for readymade garments, supported by duty-free access under the Everything But Arms (EBA) initiative.

The EU is also a major development partner, funding projects in education, climate resilience, governance, and Rohingya refugee support. European companies invest in textiles, energy, and infrastructure, while also promoting labour rights and environmental standards.

As Bangladesh prepares to graduate from Least Developed Country (LDC) status, relations are expected to shift toward more rules-based frameworks such as GSP+, with stricter compliance requirements. However, irritants in EU–Bangladesh relations remain limited.

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), founded in Bangladesh and envisioned by President Ziaur Rahman, was meant to foster regional cooperation. There are so many commonalities among the countries and shared experiences would be beneficial for all around. But alas! enmity between India and Pakistan did not allow this cooperation bloc to flourish as it should have. Plus, ostensibly, India couldn''t rid itself of its Big Brother attitude here too, which the smaller members were having none of.

SAARC remains largely inactive, though discussions of revival persist. Some propose alternatives excluding India, but such prospects appear unlikely, even unviable. What could have been a powerful regional bloc remains an unrealised vision.

Bangladesh often finds itself in a Catch-22 with international lenders such as the World Bank, IMF, and ADB. While it needs their funding, these institutions impose conditions that are not always popular. Governments must balance public expectations with reform commitments.

In 2023, Bangladesh entered a $4.7 billion programme with the IMF. However, the funder has taken a stricter stance on reforms, delaying subsequent tranches due to unmet conditions. Negotiations are ongoing.

Bangladeshi diaspora communities are spread across the globe. Migrant workers in the Middle East are particularly vulnerable amid regional conflict, which threatens remittance flows, a key source of foreign exchange.

US President Trump''s strict stance against illegal immigrants has also been a cause of alarm for the large Bangladeshi community there, even those with legal immigration papers. The scare is on.
Sterner immigration laws all over, in the UK, Europe, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere also have non-resident Bangladeshis in a worry.

There are so many more issues to be taken into cognizance -- climate change, human rights, advanced technologies and more.

As global crises continue to morph, Bangladesh must remain firm in its “Bangladesh First” stance while staying flexible and adaptable. Tarique Rahman has cultivated a positive image domestically and internationally, but challenges remain.

Building a strong national image takes time, but it can be undone quickly by poor decisions. In foreign policy, there is little room for error. Bangladesh has steadily strengthened its global standing, particularly with the advancement of democracy. The people expect progress, and the government must work alongside them to ensure that Bangladesh is ready to face the changing world.

There is only one direction for Bangladesh to go, and that is forward.