One of the most widely discussed allegations against the government of Sheikh Hasina was its extreme lack of transparency in state governance, commission-driven corruption, and the signing of one after another mega projects and international agreements disregarding public interests. A large proportion of these projects has imposed long-term economic pressure on the country, increased the burden of foreign debt, heightened environmental risks, and jeopardised people’s livelihoods.
Following the fall of that government through a mass uprising, the principal responsibility of the interim government was to review these projects and agreements, make them all public, and create pathways to cancel those that were unreasonable, harmful, and contrary to national interest.
In practice, however, the interim government appears to be moving in the opposite direction. Not only have the controversial agreements and projects undertaken during the previous government been retained, but new long-term and highly questionable agreements are now being signed. Many of these contracts extend for 30, 40, or even more than 50 years, with profound implications for public finance, national security risks, and sovereign decision-making.
Taking such far-reaching long-term decisions does not fall within the legitimate mandate of an interim government. Instead of upholding the moral and political standards that were expected in the aftermath of the mass uprising, the government is setting a troubling precedent.
The most glaring and alarming example of this process concerns agreements related to Chittagong Port. Despite widespread objections and protests over the Laldia and Pangaon terminals, the government did not retreat. It is now visibly pressing ahead, almost forcibly, towards finalising the handover of the New Mooring Container Terminal (NCT) to a foreign company.
Workers at Chittagong Port have launched protests against this agreement. They are on strike, facing threats of dismissal, bans on assemblies, and arbitrary transfers—yet they continue their movement. This is not merely a labour protest; it is a struggle to protect national interest. The nation owes them gratitude for taking this risk.
This agreement is effectively subordinating in nature. It compels Bangladesh to import unnecessary goods, including military equipment, at high prices and restricts future freedom to enter trade agreements with other countries.
The New Mooring Container Terminal is neither loss-making nor dysfunctional. It is a profitable terminal, and over the past six months its efficiency and capacity have increased further. The government’s claim that a foreign operator is necessary to enhance capacity does not align with reality.
The structural barriers to capacity expansion lie primarily in customs management, vessel congestion, and bureaucratic complexity. Addressing these issues was the government’s policy and administrative responsibility. Pathways for reform and investment to strengthen national capacity were open, and there was no shortage of financial resources as well. Instead, the government is handing over control of the country’s principal port to a foreign entity through an opaque process and without open tender.
As a result of this agreement, government revenue will decline. Already, various fees on imports and exports have been increased, raising import costs, undermining export competitiveness, and placing additional pressure on the national economy. The government claims these increases are necessary to expand capacity, yet this argument is untenable. The terminal generates more than Tk 2,000 crore (20 billion) in surplus annually, a figure that has risen further in recent months. Necessary development could easily be financed from its own funds. Therefore, the government is taking resort to misinformation, falsehoods, and flawed reasoning to move in the opposite direction of genuine capacity enhancement.
The most questionable and mysterious aspect is the haste to finalise this agreement immediately before the national election, at a time when the government’s primary responsibility should have been to ensure a free and fair election, maintain law and order, and keep the administration neutral. Why are the objections of workers, experts, and port users being ignored? Why is there such urgency to hand over this strategically vital national infrastructure to a state-owned company based in Abu Dhabi? Whose interests, then, matter most to the government?
The responsibility of the next elected government will be to publish white papers on these agreements, investigate the roles of those involved, and ensure that no one connected to these activities is allowed to leave the country before investigations are concluded.
Chittagong Port is Bangladesh’s principal port, handling nearly 90 per cent of the country’s imports and exports. Establishing foreign control over this port is not only an economic risk but also a national security concern. It is often argued that foreign companies operate ports in many countries. But those contexts are fundamentally different. Those countries have hundreds of ports, and foreign participation occurs on a limited scale within a strong framework of national capacity. In Singapore, India, Malaysia, or China, the core strength of port management lies with the state. In Bangladesh, despite having that capacity, it is being deliberately portrayed as weak in order to justify foreign control.
Apart from the Chittagong Port, several other agreements undertaken by the interim government have generated deep concern. One prominent example is the tariff-related agreement with the United States. The tariff policies of the Trump administration created global instability, provoking protests within the US itself and strong international reactions. Even in such circumstances, when there was scope for negotiation and reassessment, the government rushed to sign a nondisclosure agreement and proceeded towards a final deal while keeping the people of Bangladesh completely in the dark.
This agreement is effectively subordinating in nature. It compels Bangladesh to import unnecessary goods, including military equipment, at high prices and restricts future freedom to enter trade agreements with other countries.
In addition, there has been renewed activity involving large-scale LNG imports, arms purchases from China, Japan, Turkey, and Pakistan, and agreements on military equipment manufacturing—all at enormous cost. Meanwhile, the dire state of budget allocations for essential sectors such as education and healthcare remains unchanged from the previous government. The government’s priorities appear clear: depriving the people of essential resources in order to serve the interests of global arms traders.
Even more troubling is the role played by certain individuals behind these agreements. The excessive enthusiasm displayed by some advisers and special assistants is both unsightly and dangerous; they appear to be acting as lobbyists for foreign corporations. Many of them reside abroad, and questions remain regarding foreign or dual citizenship. Questions have to be asked about the obligations that are driving their haste. Are they motivated by corporate interests, commissions, pressure from foreign states, or personal gain? These questions demand serious investigation.
The responsibility of the interim government was to suspend harmful agreements, ensure the election, and pave the way for institutional reform. Instead, it is continuing, and in some cases surpassing, the previous government’s legacy of secrecy, opacity, and decisions against public interest. Through these actions, the government is undermining the moral foundation of the mass uprising itself.
At this juncture, all activities related to Chittagong Port agreements must be halted immediately, and normal port operations restored. Agreements signed in this manner will not carry legitimacy. Issues of such national importance must be openly debated and left to the next elected parliament.
Currently, political parties are making numerous promises on the electoral field, about democracy, accountability, transparency, and national interest. If these commitments are genuine, why are they not demanding a halt to the government’s agreements that go against national interest? It is the responsibility of political parties to clarify their positions. If they truly seek democratic transformation and a non-discriminatory Bangladesh, they must break their silence against these activities. Business communities, too, must speak out, if only in their own long-term interest.
The responsibility of the next elected government will be to publish white papers on these agreements, investigate the roles of those involved, and ensure that no one connected to these activities is allowed to leave the country before investigations are concluded. This minimum obligation to protect national interest is what the present moment demands.
* Anu Muhammad is a teacher, writer, and editor of the quarterly journal Sarbojonkotha
* The views expressed are the author’s own