After having former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed ousted by force half a year ago, on August 5, Professor Dr. Muhammad Yunus was appointed as chief adviser to the caretaker government, in reality, Prime Minister in all but name. Everyone expected that to herald a changeover, a new dawn, a period of reform, accountability, and respite. But months into what was hailed as a revolution, Bangladesh is in the midst not of change but of chaos. The highly touted changes have been nothing but smoke and mirrors, and instead of stability, dysfunction, unrest, and increased desperation have set in.
The city’s streets boil over with rage. The protests rage on. People’s lives are upturned. The populace that had high expectations of change now stands disillusioned. The period, which was touted to be an age of rejuvenation, was turned into a nightmare of political vendetta, state-sponsored violence, as well as economic instability.
Little surprise, then, that questions have started to arise over the head of the interim regime. Charges of Yunus’s pro-American inclinations have a foundation to them, it now appears. Favorite of the West’s elite more in Washington than Dhaka, his contacts with Western organizations, NGOs, and diplomats alike make his allegiance a done deal. His appointment as head of the interim regime has witnessed his moves as much as appointments give signals of alignment closer to strategic Western interests, as against national ones.
It’s impossible not to sense the increased speculation at an increasingly frantic pace of a potential United States military presence in Bangladesh, most especially on or about Saint Martin’s Island. While some propose that the island’s relative size and geographical vulnerability make it an impossible location for a fully-fledged base, such speculation isn’t a product of paranoid fantasy. Strategic realignments, such as China’s in the South China Sea, can quite plausibly make such installations feasible in the future.
And it’s not Saint Martin alone. The real concern is the more vulnerable, strategic places like Chittagong and Cox’s Bazar. With Matarbari deep sea port, in the process of development with Japanese support, a U.S. ally, on its way, the signs already begin to appear. The United States, in exchange for humanitarian aid in a broad context of strategic cooperation, can ask for permanent control of these areas. The Yunus government has already begun administrative reconfiguration in the Chittagong region, opening the doors to foreign presence in the guise of reforms. These happen to be no surprises.
Why, after all, does America need a base in Bangladesh in the first place?
With that said, to rule out the entire argument as irrelevant would be irresponsible and foolish. Although it’s an absolute fact that Saint Martin’s Island, given its limited geographical extent and exposure, may not currently be a desirable location for a fully-fledged naval base, the issue isn’t entirely baseless. The international military playbook has shown that geography can be reshaped and militarized, look at what China’s done in the South China Sea, turning reefs and rocky outcrops into functional military strong points. With enough geopolitical wherewithal and engineering investment, even Saint Martin’s could be moulded to fit future demand. So remote in the short term, the idea isn’t beyond strategic plausibility.
Far more ominous, and far more likely, is that increasingly, the United States moves to establish military or naval installations in mainland Bangladesh, in Chittagong or Cox’s Bazar, two of South Asia’s most vital coastlines. The concern deepens in context of what, in fact, increasingly happens behind the scenes in administrative re-configurations of Chittagong Port and the areas around it, by the caretaker regime of Yunus. The re-configurations are not random, they are systematic, calculated, and highly suspect. It seems to pave the way for a foreign, American presence and control over perhaps Bangladesh’s most prized logistical as well as maritime asset.
Furthermore, Cox’s Bazar’s deep-sea port of Matarbari, which Japan is developing with considerable investment, presents yet another potential future site for US naval presence. Japan, naturally, is among Washington’s most staunch allies in the Indo-Pacific, which means any high-profile project backed by Japan isn’t going to happen from a politically neutral perspective. Finished, Matarbari would have no problem hosting foreign naval vessels in the guise of “logistical cooperation” or “cooperation in disaster relief.” Don’t be misled, this kind of language often amounts to little more than diplomatic doublespeak for extended military presence.
With all these interlocking alliances and convergent interests, it’s not unreasonable to suspect that U.S.-backed allies already quietly pressure the interim regime to welcome a U.S. military presence. And here’s the crux of the threat: Yunus’s interim regime is openly pro-American in ideology, in tune with the liberal-internationalist ruling class of satellite capitals of Washington. If pressured, they won’t say no. Instead, they’ll welcome in the interests of “strategic partnership” or “regional stability“, terms of no significance to ordinary Bangladeshis but everything to foreign policymakers set on extending their reach into this strategic place.
The rationale for the U.S. is simple enough: global hegemony demands presence worldwide. America’s not a regional player, it’s a hegemon, and its ongoing permanency necessitates constant strategic outposts along the great geopolitical corridors. South Asia, the Bay of Bengal in particular, is a corridor. It borders the Indian Ocean, abuts the Malacca Strait, and can contain yet control Chinese sea power as proximity to both. On this great power chess board, Bangladesh, despite our reservations, is becoming a pawn.
While America continuously speaks of dependence upon India for “regional balance,” the reality is more self-interest-oriented. The U.S. does not want to exert influence through New Delhi, rather, it wants to exert influence in spite of New Delhi. And to that, it needs to have a presence in Bangladesh. With Chittagong or Matarbari ports in some manner of control by America, America would have the leverage to project its military as much as diplomatic clout in all directions, towards Myanmar, towards the Bay of Bengal, most importantly, towards China. If there’s a scenario of conflict in a future, more explicitly any theatre in the Indo-Pacific, U.S. vessels would have the wherewithal to moor, refuel, or function from the waters of Bangladesh. This would make our nation a foreign agenda launch pad, rather than an equal actor in regional politics.
In short, Bangladesh is being positioned, dangerously, intentionally, by this self-styled caretaker regime for a future not in accordance with its people’s desires but in accordance with foreign generals’ agendas and foreign capital. If current trends continue, we may wake up one day to find that the same ports we built at a cost of blood, sweat, and tears indeed serve as staging points for a foreign nation’s war.
One very glaring example of this ominous tendency is the appointment of Khalilur Rahman, a foreigner, a US citizen, to serve as defense adviser. On what grounds can a foreigner, even a person with prior military experience, hold such a crucial place in any independent nation? Not only unheard of, unconscionable. And yet, a supposed civil society that screamed justice and change in bygone seasons fell mute today as a foreign-backed government toying with national defense’s fundamental axis.
These pseudo-reformers have misguided the nation. Their definition of reform has been a sham. Here’s a comparison: When activists of the newly established National Citizens Party (NCP) protested against the Awami League in the street and demanded a ban, they received clemency, or even water bottles and commodities from government personnel. But a peaceful anti-rape protest outside the Jamuna State Guest House was met with bloodshed. Is that impartiality?
And what of the thousands of Awami League activists, thrown into jail without bail? Even if most of them were involved in crimes, such mass arrests reek of cleansing of a sort. The new judiciary, we were told, was to be even-handed and impartial. And yet, it’s turning out to be a tool of repression masquerading as neutrality.
The people are awakening. The facade of change is fading. What remains is the fact that the Yunus regime is the most foreign-faced, disconnected government the nation has seen in a while. If the caretaker government is really working in the interest of the people, then it must make its military inclinations clear. It must stop any clandestine dealings with foreign nations that could compromise our sovereignty. And most importantly, it must stop serving foreign powers in the name of reforms. Bangladesh must follow a pragmatic, balanced foreign policy. We can turn to America and Europe to obtain defense technology in advance as well as support over the issue of the Rohingya, but we must turn to China, Russia, as well as BRICS+ simultaneously to avoid dependence on a single bloc. The 2023 vision of the Indo-Pacific, as introduced by an out-going government, was a prudent step, it did not give in to Washington’s campaign against China. We must chart our own course, proud, autonomous, principled. There can be no other choice. The government of Yunus must return to reality among our people or find itself the establishment to have bartered away our sovereignty in hope of reform.
