When Power Was Stolen: Dr. Yunus’s Role in Surrendering Bangladesh’s Sovereignty to the U.S.

In a move both symbolically charged and materially consequential, the United States has imposed a composite tariff of 20%—from 35% but plus earlier 15% e.g. totaling now stands at 35% on exports from Bangladesh.

In response, the interim administration, operating under the informal leadership of Nobel laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus, has pursued a conciliatory strategy. It has committed to purchasing 25 Boeing aircraft and markedly increased the import of American agricultural commodities, including wheat, cotton, and soybean oil. 

These gestures, couched in the language of diplomatic pragmatism, fail to redress the looming threat to Bangladesh’s export-dependent garment sector. With the tariff implementation deadline of August 1, 2025, fast approaching, the economic measures appear less as strategic negotiation and more as desperate appeasement.

This is not merely an error in statecraft or a misstep in diplomatic calibration. It is a deliberate capitulation—an abdication of national sovereignty in exchange for transient economic leniency.

To fully appreciate the ramifications of the recent U.S.-Bangladesh arrangement, one must situate it within the broader context of national defense infrastructure. Bangladesh’s military posture has long relied on defense cooperation with China and Russia. Of the Army’s 320 main battle tanks, 281 are of Chinese origin. The country operates 77 rocket launchers, of which 49 are sourced from China and 28 from Turkey. Its armored personnel carriers (APCs), essential for tactical mobility and internal stability, are primarily of Russian and Soviet lineage.

Though Bangladesh possesses a nominally indigenous ammunition industry, it remains functionally reliant on Chinese raw materials and machinery. The Navy, for its part, consists of 117 vessels, including two Chinese submarines and an array of frigates procured from China, South Korea, and the United States. The Air Force inventory includes 212 aircraft, prominently featuring Chinese F-7 fighters and Russian MiG-29s. Its helicopter fleet—73 in number—is dominated by Russian-made MI-series aircraft.

These military assets are not incidental acquisitions; they constitute the structural core of Bangladesh’s deterrent capabilities. It is in this light that one must scrutinize the recently signed Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) embedded within the U.S.-facilitated tariff reduction deal. Quietly, but with immense consequence, this NDA binds Bangladesh to cease all defense procurement from China and Russia. This is not diplomacy—it is coercion. It is the forfeiture of strategic autonomy under the guise of economic partnership.

No parliamentary debate has preceded this shift. No democratic consultation has occurred. This seismic reconfiguration of foreign and defense policy has been undertaken by an unelected, interim administration—functioning outside the bounds of constitutional legitimacy. Dr. Yunus, elevated to de facto leadership not through the ballot but through obscure foreign and domestic arrangements, has unilaterally committed the nation to a path of strategic realignment with staggering implications.

The involvement of foreign pressure in this development is not speculative. Credible reports indicate that U.S. Chargé d’Affaires Tracey Ann Jacobson held a closed-door meeting with the Principal Staff Officer of the Armed Forces Division. In this meeting, an unequivocal ultimatum was reportedly delivered: continued military transactions with China or Russia would provoke targeted sanctions against the Bangladesh Armed Forces. A similar threat was conveyed directly to Yunus himself. Thus, the NDA cannot be construed as the outcome of unmuzzle negotiation; it is the product of geopolitical coercion—an imposition thinly veiled as diplomacy.

The repercussions of this coerced policy reversal are potentially catastrophic. Should China or Russia respond by suspending the supply of spare parts, maintenance services, or operational support, substantial portions of Bangladesh’s military could become non-functional. Such an outcome would not stem from enemy aggression but from the recklessness of a government that has traded strategic readiness for transient economic concessions.

Moreover, the fallout is not confined to the military sphere. Bangladesh’s economic backbone—its manufacturing and export sectors, particularly garments—relies heavily on Chinese inputs. From raw textiles to industrial machinery, Chinese supply chains are deeply embedded in the country’s production apparatus. A deterioration of bilateral ties with China may trigger inflation, supply disruptions, and mass layoffs.

In an era defined by intricate global interdependence, the proposition that trade and geopolitics can be treated as hermetically sealed domains is no longer tenable. The boundaries between commerce and strategy have blurred, and for developing nations like Bangladesh, statecraft must embrace this complexity rather than retreat into nostalgic notions of self-contained sovereignty. The decision to deepen economic and strategic ties with the United States—even at the expense of recalibrating long-standing defense relationships with China and Russia—must not surrender to the US interests.

And what has Bangladesh gained in return for this wholesale recalibration? The acquisition of Boeing aircraft—reportedly at above-market rates—and the importation of U.S.-grown wheat under inflated contracts. These are not the hallmarks of bilateral cooperation; they resemble a neocolonial template of commercial dependency. What is presented as economic diplomacy is, in truth, an embrace of economic subservience.

Contrast this with the foreign policy of the previous government under Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. While often criticized for its perceived alignment with New Delhi, her administration pursued a pragmatic and multipolar diplomacy. It maintained robust relations with China and Russia while deepening ties with the United States and India. This equilibrium safeguarded Bangladesh’s strategic agency and avoided entanglement in great-power rivalries. That delicate architecture has now been dismantled. The current regime has replaced a calibrated foreign policy with a one-dimensional alignment that renders Bangladesh dependent on a singular geopolitical patron or bondage.

This is not a policy pivot; it is a transformation of national identity on the international stage—from autonomous actor to client state. The implications of this realignment are not theoretical; they are practical, urgent, and dangerous. It is no exaggeration to say that Bangladesh’s sovereignty, both in its defense orientation and economic posture, has been mortgaged for ephemeral gains.

And crucially, this surrender of sovereignty has occurred absent any democratic mandate. The people of Bangladesh were not consulted, nor were they informed. They did not vote for this government, nor for the policies it now pursues. Yet it is they who will bear the cost—militarily, economically, and diplomatically. A decision of such gravity, made behind closed doors, subverts the very principles of people’s republic’s governance. What no foreign invasion could enforce, what no domestic insurgency could achieve, has been enacted quietly through bureaucratic fiat and elite collusion.

This chapter will not be recorded as a noble compromise. It will be remembered as an inflection point at which Bangladesh’s hard-won independence was diluted—not under external conquest, but through internal submission.

When a state permits foreign influence to dictate the configuration of its armed forces, it is not modernization—it is disarmament. When a nation's economic policy is shaped by external pressures rather than internal priorities, it is not globalization—it is dependency. And when governance is exercised without electoral legitimacy, it is not leadership—it is usurpation.

The Bangladeshi people deserve more than this. They deserve governance grounded in accountability, not in secrecy. They deserve a defense posture that reflects national interest, not foreign imposition. And above all, they deserve the right to determine their own future—through participatory processes, democratic institutions, and sovereign policy-making.

History will not judge this moment kindly. The betrayal of 2025 may well come to be seen as a negation of the ideals for which the nation was born in 1971—self-determination, dignity, and sovereignty. The true cost of this so-called compromise will not be measured in tariff percentages or aircraft purchases. It will be reckoned in the erosion of independence, the distortion of national identity, and the abdication of democratic agency.

Let it be said clearly and without euphemism: this is not diplomacy—it is subjugation. It is not reform—it is surrender. And it is not governance—it is coarse betrayal for Bangladesh by its usurper regime and its mango-twigs.

By: Anwar A. Khan

Anwar A. Khan, is a freedom fighter and independent political analyst, writing on politics, human-centered leadership, and international affairs.

×