In line with the region's tradition, Sheikh Hasina, the former Prime Minister of Bangladesh, has attributed her sudden ousting from office to the machinations of the United States. It is not uncommon for leaders like Hasina to desire a legacy defined by economic prosperity and infrastructural development rather than acknowledging the authoritarian excesses that have marked her tenure. However, her departure has introduced an intriguing dynamic into the foreign policy landscape of the Bay of Bengal.
In what was supposed to be her last speech before departing the PM's office in Bangladesh, but one which she never got the chance to deliver and was later printed by several Indian media outlets, including The Economic Times, Sheikh Hasina reportedly claimed, "I resigned so that I would not have to witness the procession of dead bodies…I could have remained in power if I had surrendered the sovereignty of Saint Martin’s Island and allowed America to exert influence over the Bay of Bengal." She also suggested that the US was harbouring ambitions of establishing a 'Christian state' akin to East Timor.
However, this statement was later refuted by her son, Sajeeb Wazed Joy, who blamed Bangladesh's regime change on China and Pakistan’s interference—a claim as absurd as it is unfounded. The statement alluded to the United States' strategic interests in the region. Specifically, it prompted a closer examination of the US objectives in the Indo-Pacific to counter growing Chinese influence.
This begs the question whether Sheikh Hasina’s statement was merely an emotionally convenient narrative, fuelled by continuous critiques of her undemocratic practices, much like her resignation from politics.
What is of greater significance perhaps is what Hasina’s alleged statement points towards, a perceived interest of the US in pursuing permanent military installations in the Bay of Bengal via Saint Martin’s Island to monitor China’s activity. Located at Bangladesh's southernmost tip, the island has been subject to discussion since the 1980s—a dialogue from which the United States has explicitly distanced itself. Nevertheless, Bangladesh has consistently refuted any overtures for stationing US troops on the island in keeping with its non-aligned status.
Although the US’ history of interventionism warrants scrutiny, the notion that it directly influenced Hasina’s ousting seems unlikely, especially given the growing US-India relationship. The United States has invested heavily, tactically and financially, in India, positioning it as the policeman of the region, which reduces the need for a US military presence on Saint Martin’s Island. India, as a regional power, would likely resist any US military presence near its borders or the surrendering of any Indian land for a Christian state. Moreover, the long-term strategic partnership between India and the United States ensures that Washington would avoid actions that might antagonise New Delhi, especially over a relatively minor issue that has been the subject of speculation for decades.
Was Sheikh Hasina’s statement merely an emotionally convenient narrative, fuelled by continuous critiques of undemocratic practices, much like her resignation from politics
Notably, throughout Sheikh Hasina’s tenure, Bangladesh’s foreign policy consistently aligned with the US-led Quad and Indo-Pacific strategies, demonstrating a strategic inclination towards India and, by extension, the United States. For instance, President Joe Biden's visit to New Delhi for the G20 summit in September 2023 saw the attendance of both Hasina and her daughter, the presumed successor, Saima Wazed. In 2023, Bangladesh issued a policy paper expressing alignment with the Quad and Indo-Pacific strategies. Additionally, under pressure, it refused to allow China to develop a deep-sea port on Sonadia Island, further rejecting the Payra Port project and preferring India over China to execute the $1 billion Teesta River development project. The question then arises: why did Sheikh Hasina blame the United States?
Despite a positive political relationship, the US has always voiced concerns over the country's electoral and judicial processes, capital punishment practices of political opponents, and human rights record. Hasina's exclusion from the 2023 Democracy Summit highlighted these strained relations. She would readily claim American efforts to oust her while denying any issues of concern with Bangladesh’s democratic process. The frozen relationship and Hasina’s fear grew even more apparent as the US ambassador in Dhaka engaged with opposition leaders before the 2023 elections.
This begs the question whether Sheikh Hasina’s statement was merely an emotionally convenient narrative, fuelled by continuous critiques of undemocratic practices, much like her resignation from politics.
China has a far greater interest in Bangladesh compared to the US. Chinese investment in Bangladesh exceeds $1.4 billion, with bilateral trade reaching $26.8 billion, compared to India's $1.4 billion and the US’ $8.3 billion.
While maintaining relationships with the US and India is crucial for Bangladesh, China’s strategic interest is notably larger, particularly within the framework of its 'String of Pearls' strategy. In 2023, both countries reinforced their strategic partnership, and Bangladesh chose not to officially join the Quad, wary of jeopardising its ties with China and the substantial investments it receives in infrastructure, defence, and trade.
As Bangladesh’s foreign policy becomes more complex amid competing regional interests, its strategic position in the Bay of Bengal will increasingly make it a sub-theatre of Great Power competition. It is now for the world to see how Bangladesh can best use this intricate geopolitical landscape to re-launch itself as a hub of socio-economic development whilst adhering to its policy of ‘Friendship to all, malice to none’ and preserving its cultural identity.