Where and when the Bangladesh Prime Minister makes his first or next official visit abroad are entirely at his discretion, a matter for his administration and the political choice of the populace he represents. The same applies when nations choose friends and allies.
The world, however, is rarely so straightforward in inter-state and international relations. When Prime Minister Tarique Rahman chose Malaysia as the destination of his first overseas visit, followed by China in June, questions arose as to why he did so and whether he should instead have started with India, Europe, the US, Japan or Saudi Arabia.
Bangladesh's relations with these and other countries should be determined by the common and distinct national interests of the relevant parties. Yet those interests often conflict with those of a powerful third country and, perhaps, its allies.
Thus, diplomacy of tilt, the policy former dictator Sheikh Hasina pursued towards New Delhi for more than 15 years, risks creating more enemies than friends, or at least distancing the country from old friends. Unless policymakers are careful, an "equal and opposite reaction" to Hasina's subservient policy towards a Hindu nationalist India may also push Dhaka towards the same approach at the opposite end, be it communist China or corporate America.
Taking advantage of Bangladesh's dependence on the US market for readymade garment exports, President Donald Trump has blackmailed Bangladesh, alongside many other nations. In exchange for a 19 per cent reduction in tariffs Trump had earlier imposed, Dhaka signed the Agreement on Reciprocal Tariffs (ART) in February 2026, under which Bangladesh would have to comply with 131 conditions, compared with six applicable to the US.
ART is not merely a trade agreement. It contains a provision stating that "Bangladesh shall cooperate in providing information about inbound investment with a view toward increasing transparency and experience sharing with the United States on economic and national security matters." Would the inflow of foreign direct investment into Bangladesh become conditional on American approval?
Despite that negotiated deal, Trump on 23 July replaced the 10 per cent global tariff upon its expiry with new duties ranging from 10 to 12.5 per cent on Bangladesh and more than 60 other countries.
The US is also negotiating two defence agreements with Bangladesh — the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) and the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA). If signed, they would allow the US Navy to deploy warships in the Bay of Bengal, granting American naval vessels access to Bangladesh's ports and airfields for refuelling, maintenance and logistical operations.
Other than fewer than 20 countries that can operate with some degree of independence at the international systemic level, few nations, Bangladesh included, can afford to invite hostility from powers capable of reshaping the system itself through their wealth, technological dominance, diplomatic manoeuvring, and military and nuclear power.
Conventional military or political alliances with a superpower do not guarantee security for a smaller country in the event of war or attack. China did not protect Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro from US pressure, America could not deter Russia from launching and sustaining its war against Ukraine, and global powers refrained from saving Gazans from Israeli genocide.
The Iran war shows that victory for the stronger attacker cannot be taken for granted. Nor are America's allies in the Middle East insulated from the consequences of war. Waging the conflict at the instigation of Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, President Trump has failed to end it because he does not know whether, or how, "the tail is wagging the dog."
Trump on Thursday cancelled a civilian nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia 24 hours after its signing, imposing a new condition that the Saudis would have to join the Abraham Accords, a Trump initiative that prompted several Arab countries to normalise diplomatic relations with Israel.
If demanding that countries like Bangladesh meet whatever conditions he sets is America's actual policy for maximising its interests, then Dhaka may face trouble in due course.
Trump terminated the nuclear deal that President Barack Obama's administration reached with Iran in 2016, attacked Iran and killed its supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei this year, struck a ceasefire to end the war, and later resumed attacks on Iran on grounds that remain unclear.
In his congratulatory message to Premier Tarique Rahman upon his assumption of office in February, the US President asked the new Bangladesh leader to "take decisive action to complete the routine defense agreements that would finally give your military access to high-end, American-made equipment." Trump added, "The partnership between our countries is based on mutual respect and a shared interest in fostering a free and open Indo-Pacific where strong, sovereign nations can prosper."
His use of the phrase "mutual respect" appears largely formulaic, while he sought to project America's strategic priority of containing China onto Bangladesh through the words "shared interest"—which is America's, not necessarily Bangladesh's.
This American position contrasts with China's. President Xi Jinping reportedly told Prime Minister Tarique Rahman in Beijing on 26 June that China firmly supports Bangladesh in safeguarding its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity while explicitly rejecting external interference in its internal affairs.
Trump might say, "It is what it is," but the reality is that China's and America's interests overlap in Bangladesh's neighbourhood, at the heart of the Indo-Pacific, the world's next strategic hotspot.
In the past, countries such as Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Libya suffered after being caught in the crossfire of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. Afghanistan and Iraq later became victims of the West's war on terror—or, in other words, Islamophobia.
As a sovereign republic bound to uphold the interests of its people, Bangladesh has no reason to become a party to a war between other countries. Nor should it become a theatre for proxy conflict between major powers.
Bangladesh should maintain equal distance from hostilities and potential escalation between China and India, the next-door neighbour that has gained notoriety among many Bangladeshis for patronising the fascist Hasina regime. Dhaka is better positioned to mediate between them if necessary.
Washington has lost much of its moral justification for initiating wars against countries, including Iran. Therefore, Dhaka should neither join America's rival states in times of conflict nor collaborate with the US in punishing others pre-emptively.
Khawaza Main Uddin is a journalist. He can be contacted at khawaza@gmail.com.