THE world is increasingly becoming impatient with ambiguity. No matter which regions or what issues are involved, countries find themselves under increasing pressure to take sides. Competition between the United States and China is growing. Economics and security become ever more intertwined. Technology becomes geopolitics. Trade deals acquire strategic undertones. And, in an environment like that, flexibility of diplomacy looks increasingly constrained.
It is a major challenge for a country like Bangladesh. Not a question of whether Bangladesh should engage with major powers. It does. But whether Bangladesh will be able to continue pursuing its foreign policy interests without getting entangled in rivalries it did not initiate. For decades, Bangladesh has enjoyed a remarkable diversity of its international partnerships.
The United States has remained the biggest export market and an important investor in Bangladesh, a source of technology and development cooperation, and even education. China has played a key role in the development of Bangladesh’s infrastructure, industry, and economy. India is an indispensable neighbour, whose stability, connectivity, and economic partnership are directly tied to Bangladesh’s prosperity. Japan, Europe, the Gulf states, and multilateral organisations have all been contributing to Bangladesh’s development process.
Diversity has been one of the country’s major assets. While other countries have fallen prey to the temptation of becoming overly dependent on a single partner, Bangladesh has pursued its pragmatic international policies. This has enabled the country to remain flexible in its diplomacy, attract investment from diverse sources, and diversify its economic relationships. However, the geopolitical environment has changed.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has merely reinforced a trend in international affairs that is far from limited to any administration. Interdependence between economies acquires new meaning from the perspective of national security. Countries have become increasingly concerned about the vulnerability of their supply chains, technological dependencies, and strategic interests. Trade policy becomes an instrument of statecraft again. Countries are assessed not only economically but also strategically.
At the same time, China’s growing economic and technological capabilities continue to reshape international politics. Beijing’s growing presence across Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East creates both opportunities and concerns. For some developing countries, Chinese investments and financing have accelerated infrastructure and industrial development. Others started worrying about dependencies, strategic influence, and long-term leverage.
The consequence is an increasingly competitive international order. But for Bangladesh, the choice is much more complicated than it might look in some foreign capital. For Washington, engagement with China poses a strategic challenge. In Beijing, developments in the region are interpreted through the lens of American containment. Both approaches reflect valid concerns from their own vantage points. But neither represents Bangladesh’s national interests.
These interests are related to economic growth, job creation, increased exports, technological development, energy security, and sustainable development. It means that engagement with multiple partners, rather than dependence on just one, is required. Especially given that Bangladesh finds itself in an unprecedented geopolitical position today.
The Bay of Bengal is an important part of the Indo-Pacific region, a place where maritime trade routes, energy flows, digital connectivity, and regional security converge. In situations where major powers compete for influence across the region, countries located in strategically important geographies receive increased attention.
Bangladesh is one of these countries. Economic growth, strategic location, demographic weight, and regional influence — all ensure that the decisions made in Dhaka are increasingly becoming a matter of interest for Washington, Beijing, New Delhi, Tokyo, and beyond. This increased importance gives the country an opportunity to benefit from the situation. At the same time, it puts additional pressure on them.
Infrastructure projects become geopolitically significant. Defence purchases are subjected to international scrutiny. Technology partnerships are discussed from a strategic angle. Even economic agreements get interpreted in terms of geopolitics.
The reciprocal trade framework signed recently by the US and Bangladesh serves as an example. It is, of course, a purely economic deal. But it also reflects discussions around supply chains, investment models, technologies, and strategic cooperation. The same is true for Bangladesh’s economic engagement with China, where infrastructure and investment projects are geopolitically interpreted beyond their immediate economic value.
What it means for Bangladesh is that the task is not to choose between the competing great powers. It is to preserve the ability to engage them all on terms beneficial for the country’s interests. And this requires confidence and clarity.
Confidence, since countries lacking confidence, allow external actors to define their interests. Clarity, since strategic flexibility should not be mistaken for strategic vagueness. Engagement with multiple partners is only possible with a clear understanding of national interests and long-term objectives.
It is important to distinguish non-alignment from strategic autonomy. The former was an answer to the bipolar confrontation during the cold war. The latter is about preserving independent decision-making in a world that has become more complicated and interconnected. Non-alignment does not mean avoiding partnerships. Neither does it mean equal distance from all great powers. It means being able to make decisions based on national interests rather than external expectations.
It is becoming increasingly relevant for Bangladesh. The country’s future prosperity will depend on its access to international markets, foreign investments, advanced technologies, regional connectivity, and economic partnerships of different kinds. Achievement of these objectives will require successful cooperation with the United States, China, India, Japan, Europe, and many other parties. Hard to think of any realistic development strategy that would not involve at least one of these major relationships.
Fortunately, Bangladesh enters this period in a relatively good position. With its economic achievements, diplomatic weight, and growing international profile, the country is in better shape than many other countries. However, this advantage should not be taken for granted.
The coming decade will likely see more competition, not less. Pressure to side with either camp will become stronger. The temptation to view every international issue from the standpoint of great-power rivalry will persist. Bangladesh should resist this temptation.
Its interests are better served not by taking sides, but by choosing wisely. The goal should not be either equidistance or alignment. It should be the pursuit of partnerships that help to build up national capacities, create additional economic opportunities, and preserve freedom of action.
In an increasingly rivalrous world, such an ability to make independent judgements may become a valuable strategic asset for the country. For Bangladesh, it is worth protecting.
Zillur Rahman is a political analyst and president of the Centre for Governance Studies. He hosts Tritiyo Matra on Channel i.
