As expected, the recent visit to Dhaka by the US delegation led by Brent Neiman, assistant secretary for international finance at the US Department of Treasury, accompanied by Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu, and USAID and trade officials, was the subject of much speculation by all and sundry here, both prior to their arrival and since their departure.
The symbolic value of the visit and its timing cannot be overemphasised, this being the first such visit from any country since the change of guards in Dhaka on August 5—that, too, from Washington. Added to this is the fact that Donald Lu, a key figure in Bangladesh-US relations, landed in Dhaka after spending four days in Delhi attending the 2+2 dialogue, a regular event in the framework of Indo-US bilateral strategic relations, in which the confluences outweigh the divergences—or more appropriately, the diversions.
Official comments from both sides following the meetings between the US delegation and Chief Adviser Prof Muhammad Yunus, Foreign Affairs Adviser Touhid Hossain, Finance Adviser Salehuddin Ahmed, Bangladesh Bank Governor Dr Ahsan H Mansur, and the foreign secretary focused, among other things, on an “expression of strong commitment [from the US] to work with the interim government.” The US embassy in Dhaka posted on its Facebook page, “Our delegation met Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus, affirming our dedication to fostering inclusive economic growth, institution building, and development to benefit the people of Bangladesh. As Bangladesh looks to chart a more equitable and inclusive future, the US stands ready to support those efforts.”
On the face of it, the emphasis was on Washington’s readiness to provide economic, technical and financial support for reforms in areas such as the banking sector, which has been weakened as a primary vehicle for large-scale corruption and money laundering over the last decade and a half. The signing of an agreement under which the US would provide $200 million to Bangladesh as development support was possibly the first step in this journey.
For his part, Prof Yunus highlighted his administration’s goals to quickly “reset, reform and restart” the economy, initiate financial sector reforms, and strengthen institutions. He then spelt out the steps taken so far in this pursuit, including the formation of six separate commissions to address reforms in key areas and state institutions, the most important of which was amending, or refixing, the country’s constitution. The US delegation, in response, praised the chief adviser’s leadership and expressed Washington’s willingness to support his reform agenda.
In remarks to the media, Bangladesh Foreign Secretary Md Jashim Uddin noted that the US side also brought up the recent developments in Myanmar and humanitarian assistance for the Rohingya in Bangladesh. He said, “We spoke about eliminating the root causes of the Rohingya crisis.” The significance of talking of the “recent developments in Myanmar” and linking that to “eliminating the root causes of the Rohingya crisis” cannot be lost, because implicit in this is a possible assessment of the role of military junta in Myanmar. Were they alluding to a regime change in Myanmar to facilitate the return of the Rohingya? One can only speculate.
In reviewing the public language from the US delegation, three words that should stand out are “support,” “equitable,” and “inclusive.” It appears that Washington is focused on helping Prof Yunus and his team advance a process of political, social, and economic reforms, emphasising that sustainable and durable economic development is best achieved in a truly democratic environment—one that involves all segments of society. To achieve that, setting an arbitrary time frame for the interim government’s tenure may not be the best path forward.
This aligns with comments made by US deputy secretary of state for management and resources, Richard Verma, at the Hudson Institute in Washington, where he said, “It is in everyone’s interest to support a democratic, peaceful, and lawful transition in Bangladesh,” adding that “the timing of fresh elections and the duration of the interim government is for the people of Bangladesh to decide.” Verma’s remarks should be viewed within the broader context of the US position on the dramatically changed situation in Bangladesh.
It is perhaps necessary to try and discern, if at all possible, what the hard political content of the discussions with the chief adviser was and what, if anything, was discussed in Delhi regarding the current situation in Bangladesh. Understandably, there were no public statements by either side on this. The US delegates’ meeting with the chief adviser lasted at least an hour, and it is reasonable to assume that this time was not solely spent discussing the reform process, which is already publicly known.
Further inquiry should focus on the political talking points, as well as the immediate, mid-term and long-term implications for Bangladesh on the broader geopolitical stage, especially given Washington’s visible support for the interim government in Dhaka. In the prevailing global political climate, relations between states, large and small, do not remain confined to the bilateral frame only—they spread wider into the region and beyond. Similar visits, therefore, from others including Washington’s allies before the year is over cannot be ruled out. It will also be of great interest to watch what transpires at the meeting between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Bangladesh Chief Adviser Prof Yunus on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly this month in New York, assuming such a meeting takes place.
Observers believe the visit signals a retooling of Bangladesh-US relations, which have been noticeably strained in recent times. The imposition of sanctions on the Rapid Action Battalion (Rab) and some of its officials by the US Department of Treasury, along with a visa restriction policy affecting certain officials, did not go down well in Dhaka. At the same time, repeated public references by the former prime minister to the US seeking a military base in St Martin’s Island in exchange for Washington’s support were cases in point. Washington’s open criticism of the non-participatory and severely flawed national elections, particularly in 2018 and 2024, further strained the relationship.
Shamsher M Chowdhury, Bir Bikram is a former foreign secretary of Bangladesh.
Daily Star
