Print: 02 Nov 2025
At the centre of every discussion at the diplomatic table of any state, there are some products, some statistics and some mutual interests. The 35% counter-tariff that the United States imposed on Bangladesh’s export products has now been reduced to 20%. As much as this is a message of relief in economic terms, it is also a silent question in the context of state thinking: what have we gained, and what have we sacrificed? This decision is undoubtedly news of relief for the country's export sector, especially the ready-made garment industry. However, there is considerable concern about what promises the state has to make in exchange for this relief.
It is said that the state never makes decisions alone; it makes decisions in the shadow of history, geography and the future. The United States is the largest single export destination for Bangladesh, where ready-made garments are the main product. In the 2023-24 fiscal year, the country exported goods worth $8.76 billion, of which $7.59 billion were ready-made garments. In contrast, Bangladesh imported only $2.5 billion worth of goods. In the context of this trade deficit, the Trump administration imposed countervailing duties. The harshness of tariffs comes from the reality of this inequality. But the scope of the discussion is not limited to this, where products are not just objects of exchange but also some ideals, some relationships and even some strategic contributions roam as shadows.
In the discussions, along with government representatives, private sector entrepreneurs visited the United States and made some promises. It is reported that an agreement has been reached to increase imports of scrap iron, soybeans, cotton and LPG from the United States. This will reduce the trade deficit in the future, and there is a possibility of smooth relations with the US administration. The question is, what other promises have been made beyond the attempt to reduce this deficit?
‘Tariffs have been reduced’— this phrase is not only an economic but also a social breath. But if it is tied exclusively to the trap of dependence, that breath will not last long. Considering the internal political situation in Bangladesh, these discussions took place during the interim government. And if a government whose constitutional limits are questionable enters into diplomatic and strategic agreements, questions may arise in the minds of the public about its acceptability. After the previous two rounds of discussions, allegations of ‘secret agreements’ were raised. This time too, we are walking in a similar foggy forest.
The information that has caused the most stir in particular is the proposal to buy military equipment from the United States instead of China. This is not just trade, but a dark side of geopolitics. If this issue is indeed part of the agreement, it can undoubtedly affect the multilateral diplomatic balance. A state’s defence strategy is not determined in a single discussion; it is based on many considerations, many consequences.
The importance of strategic relations in the reality of world politics is immense. But that does not mean that a state will prioritise a single relationship by ignoring its multilateral trading partners. Our export market is not only the United States; the European Union, China, India, Japan and Canada are also important partners. If a particular agreement with the United States discriminates against other partners, it may be contrary to our overall economic interests. Many say that this tariff reduction has brought an opportunity for the future. If the trade deficit is reduced, more concessions can be obtained. But this argument also points to a kind of self-controlled dependence. If our product market is so dependent on a single country, isn’t that our real weakness?
A question inevitably comes to the fore: is Bangladesh becoming dependent on the United States? If we rely only on one market, and reduce our strategic independence in meeting the conditions of that market, then it is not development, but a kind of self-selling. Economic diplomacy is not just a calculation of profit, it determines the position, status and future path of the country. Similarly, if one party secretly imposes conditions in negotiations on investment or non-tariff barriers, it can also become an obstacle to independent economic policy-making. Our immigration, foreign debt or remittance flows are all bound up in complex realities where a promise can have unintended long-term effects.
In this reality, governments should make the key points of the agreement public. Especially if there is something that affects national security, strategic relations, or economic freedom, its transparency is essential. Transparency is the foundation of democracy. When the state does not share information with its people, it only becomes powerful, not accountable.
If diplomacy, politics or trade are wrapped in secret promises, the meaning of the word ‘dependence’ is no longer just economic, but it is reduced to a kind of psychological surrender. The most important thing today is to ensure that the limits of freedom do not narrow by falling between development and foreign relations. The balance of import-export, geopolitical needs and strategic understanding determine the position of the state. But if these decisions are made in the guise of a non-disclosure agreement, then those treaties actually become a pseudonym for self-sacrifice, which had been the case in the 16 years of Awami League regime.
The writer is an Editorial Assistant at Daily Sun
For all latest news, follow the Daily Sun's Google News channel.
US tariff cut and its shadow
At the centre of every discussion at the diplomatic table of any state, there are some products, some statistics and some mutual interests. The 35% counter-tariff that the United States imposed on Bangladesh’s export products has now been reduced to 20%. As much as this is a message of relief in economic terms, it is also a silent question in the context of state thinking: what have we gained, and what have we sacrificed? This decision is undoubtedly news of relief for the country's export sector, especially the ready-made garment industry. However, there is considerable concern about what promises the state has to make in exchange for this relief.
It is said that the state never makes decisions alone; it makes decisions in the shadow of history, geography and the future. The United States is the largest single export destination for Bangladesh, where ready-made garments are the main product. In the 2023-24 fiscal year, the country exported goods worth $8.76 billion, of which $7.59 billion were ready-made garments. In contrast, Bangladesh imported only $2.5 billion worth of goods. In the context of this trade deficit, the Trump administration imposed countervailing duties. The harshness of tariffs comes from the reality of this inequality. But the scope of the discussion is not limited to this, where products are not just objects of exchange but also some ideals, some relationships and even some strategic contributions roam as shadows.
In the discussions, along with government representatives, private sector entrepreneurs visited the United States and made some promises. It is reported that an agreement has been reached to increase imports of scrap iron, soybeans, cotton and LPG from the United States. This will reduce the trade deficit in the future, and there is a possibility of smooth relations with the US administration. The question is, what other promises have been made beyond the attempt to reduce this deficit?
‘Tariffs have been reduced’— this phrase is not only an economic but also a social breath. But if it is tied exclusively to the trap of dependence, that breath will not last long. Considering the internal political situation in Bangladesh, these discussions took place during the interim government. And if a government whose constitutional limits are questionable enters into diplomatic and strategic agreements, questions may arise in the minds of the public about its acceptability. After the previous two rounds of discussions, allegations of ‘secret agreements’ were raised. This time too, we are walking in a similar foggy forest.
The information that has caused the most stir in particular is the proposal to buy military equipment from the United States instead of China. This is not just trade, but a dark side of geopolitics. If this issue is indeed part of the agreement, it can undoubtedly affect the multilateral diplomatic balance. A state’s defence strategy is not determined in a single discussion; it is based on many considerations, many consequences.
The importance of strategic relations in the reality of world politics is immense. But that does not mean that a state will prioritise a single relationship by ignoring its multilateral trading partners. Our export market is not only the United States; the European Union, China, India, Japan and Canada are also important partners. If a particular agreement with the United States discriminates against other partners, it may be contrary to our overall economic interests. Many say that this tariff reduction has brought an opportunity for the future. If the trade deficit is reduced, more concessions can be obtained. But this argument also points to a kind of self-controlled dependence. If our product market is so dependent on a single country, isn’t that our real weakness?
A question inevitably comes to the fore: is Bangladesh becoming dependent on the United States? If we rely only on one market, and reduce our strategic independence in meeting the conditions of that market, then it is not development, but a kind of self-selling. Economic diplomacy is not just a calculation of profit, it determines the position, status and future path of the country. Similarly, if one party secretly imposes conditions in negotiations on investment or non-tariff barriers, it can also become an obstacle to independent economic policy-making. Our immigration, foreign debt or remittance flows are all bound up in complex realities where a promise can have unintended long-term effects.
In this reality, governments should make the key points of the agreement public. Especially if there is something that affects national security, strategic relations, or economic freedom, its transparency is essential. Transparency is the foundation of democracy. When the state does not share information with its people, it only becomes powerful, not accountable.
If diplomacy, politics or trade are wrapped in secret promises, the meaning of the word ‘dependence’ is no longer just economic, but it is reduced to a kind of psychological surrender. The most important thing today is to ensure that the limits of freedom do not narrow by falling between development and foreign relations. The balance of import-export, geopolitical needs and strategic understanding determine the position of the state. But if these decisions are made in the guise of a non-disclosure agreement, then those treaties actually become a pseudonym for self-sacrifice, which had been the case in the 16 years of Awami League regime.
The writer is an Editorial Assistant at Daily Sun