Bangladesh: The Perils of a Secret Trade Pact with the US

A republic consigned to shadows is a republic in peril, where opacity supplants accountability and silence corrodes the civic compact. When governance retreats behind veils of secrecy, the sovereign will of the people is diminished, and the Constitution is reduced to a ceremonial relic rather than a living command. Such darkness breeds impunity, distorts justice, and erodes public trust. A nation so obscured cannot sustain liberty, nor can it claim moral authority among nations. The restoration of light—through transparency, lawful conduct, and principled leadership—is not optional; it is imperative for the survival of democratic order and the preservation of the people’s rightful sovereignty in BANGLADESH.

But on 9 February 2026, mere days before a contentious national poll, Bangladesh’s interim administration under Muhammad Yunus concluded a confidential Reciprocal Trade Agreement – Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with the United States—an accord cloaked in non-disclosure and executed with unsettling haste. Such a momentous commitment, forged in opacity, raises grave constitutional, economic, and geopolitical questions for a republic whose founding ethos rests upon transparency, accountability, and the sovereignty of its people.

The Constitution of Bangladesh is neither ornamental nor optional. It is, as articulated in Article 7, the supreme expression of the will of the people, declaring unequivocally that all powers in the Republic belong to them. Any agreement that binds the nation’s economic future, negotiated without public scrutiny or parliamentary oversight, strains this foundational principle. As Abraham Lincoln once warned, “Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Yet secrecy of this magnitude risks eroding precisely that democratic covenant.

The absence of transparency surrounding the agreement has generated unease among exporters, industrialists, and workers alike. A non-disclosure clause in a trade pact of such breadth is not merely a procedural anomaly—it is a democratic deficit. Article 11 of the Constitution enshrines democracy and human rights as fundamental principles, implying participatory governance and informed consent. A “box-ticking exercise,” as critics describe the consultation process, falls far short of these constitutional aspirations.

Beyond process lies substance. The agreement reportedly binds Bangladesh to a framework of “managed trade,” including commitments to purchase $15 billion in American energy commodities and billions more in agricultural imports. Such obligations raise pressing concerns about fiscal sustainability and economic sovereignty. Article 65, which vests legislative authority in Parliament, underscores that decisions with far-reaching fiscal implications must be subject to representative deliberation. To circumvent this process is to marginalize the very institution entrusted with safeguarding the public purse.

Particularly alarming is the potential impact on the ready-made garment sector—the lifeblood of Bangladesh’s export economy. The so-called “cotton clause,” which conditions tariff benefits on the use of American cotton, risks distorting supply chains and undermining competitiveness. While a marginal tariff reduction from 20 to 19 percent offers symbolic relief, it scarcely compensates for the structural constraints imposed. As John Maynard Keynes observed, “The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.” Here, Bangladesh risks entrapment in a trade architecture that privileges external interests over domestic resilience.

Energy security, too, stands imperiled. The long-term commitment to liquefied natural gas imports—costly and environmentally burdensome—may hinder the nation’s transition toward renewable energy. At a time when global consensus increasingly favours sustainability, locking into fossil fuel dependence appears both economically imprudent and strategically regressive. The Constitution’s directive principles, particularly Article 16, call for balanced development and equitable distribution of resources. An energy policy dictated by external compulsion runs counter to this vision.

Geopolitically, the agreement introduces a subtle yet consequential shift. Clauses restricting engagement with so-called “non-market countries” threaten to disrupt Bangladesh’s long-standing policy of balanced diplomacy.

For decades, the nation has navigated complex regional dynamics with prudence, maintaining constructive relations with major powers. To tilt decisively toward one axis risks alienating key partners and constraining strategic autonomy. As Henry Kissinger famously remarked, “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” Bangladesh would do well to remember the same.

Equally troubling is the timing. That such a consequential agreement was signed by an interim administration—one not constitutionally mandated to make enduring policy decisions—raises questions of legitimacy. The present mootness elected government has inherited obligations - it has still neither negotiated nor endorsed, yet will bear full responsibility for their consequences. This inversion of accountability undermines the spirit of constitutional governance.

To be clear, trade agreements are not inherently detrimental. Indeed, they can catalyse growth, expand markets, and foster innovation. But they must be negotiated transparently, debated rigorously, and aligned with national priorities. As Franklin D. Roosevelt cautioned, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”—yet fear thrives in secrecy, and trust withers in its shadow.

Bangladesh now stands at a crossroads. The path forward demands vigilance, scrutiny, and, above all, adherence to constitutional principles. The current government must subject this accord to thorough review, seeking renegotiation where national interests are compromised. Civil society, too, must reclaim its voice, insisting that no agreement of such magnitude be shielded from public gaze.

The past ghoulish Dr. Yunus led marionette administration installed by the American deep state & the CIA in league with their direful local collaborators for gaining their geo-political and economic interests in Bangladesh on 8 August 2024 must be held to strict account for its grave breach of constitutional duty. No government stands above the supreme law, and any willful disregard of its obligations constitutes a betrayal of the Republic’s foundational covenant. When those entrusted with stewardship of the State abandon legality for expediency, they imperil both democratic order and public trust. Justice demands not silence, but scrutiny; not evasion, but answerability.

Down with the American deep state and the CIA tout de suite! Unchecked covert influence and unaccountable power—wherever they arise—must be firmly resisted. No intelligence apparatus or political network should operate beyond democratic scrutiny or the rule of law. When secrecy eclipses accountability, it erodes sovereignty, distorts policy, and weakens public trust. A just order demands transparency, lawful oversight, and respect for national independence. Governments must answer to their citizens, not to hidden agendas or external pressures. The defense of constitutional governance requires vigilance, courage, and an unwavering commitment to truth, accountability, and the dignity of sovereign decision-making.

The Constitution is not a pliable instrument—it is the inviolable charter of the people’s sovereignty. Any violation must invite firm, lawful consequences to restore integrity, uphold accountability, and reaffirm the primacy of constitutional governance.

For a republic born in sacrifice and sustained by the aspirations of its people, sovereignty is not a negotiable commodity. It is a sacred trust. To preserve it requires not only prudent policy but also unwavering fidelity to the Constitution—the enduring guardian of Bangladesh’s democratic soul.

By: Anwar A. Khan

×