In contemporary times, globalization has amplified the importance of foreign policy. No nation can function in isolation, and history vividly illustrates that successful diplomacy often forms the backbone of a nation’s economy and internal stability. Whether it was Chanakya during the Mauryan dynasty or Marco Polo under Kublai Khan, diplomatic relations have consistently driven national success.

Take Kublai Khan’s Vietnam policy, for example. Vietnam, then a thriving commercial hub and an economically prosperous state in Southeast Asia, held strong trade and cultural ties with India. Establishing relations with Vietnam enabled China to consolidate its dominance in global trade routes. Similarly, many small rulers across Asia, Europe, and Africa owed their success more to skilled diplomacy than military conquests.

The enduring lesson is clear: a nation’s prosperity has always been tied to its diplomatic achievements. Connectivity—via maritime, land, or air routes—relies on relations with neighboring countries, regional alliances, and the global community. Additionally, no country is entirely self-sufficient in resources due to natural diversity. For instance, Switzerland’s unique humidity supports fine craftsmanship, allowing it to produce superior quality goods like eyewear compared to Austria. This global interdependence underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of foreign policy that adapts to shifting dynamics.

The State of Bangladesh’s Diplomacy

A critical question today is how effectively Bangladesh’s current government comprehends the complexities of global diplomacy. While the authorities may believe they are navigating the geopolitical landscape effectively, evidence suggests otherwise.

Relations with India Post-August 5

The political changes on August 5 have introduced notable shifts in Bangladesh-India relations. Before assuming power, Bangladesh’s ruling authorities made statements regarding India’s northeastern regions, raising concerns. A recent Facebook post by a high-ranking advisor has further complicated matters.

Although the situation has not reached the level of a formal diplomatic downgrade—such as India’s recent tensions with Canada—a noticeable cooling in bilateral relations is evident. India has neither withdrawn its High Commissioner nor downgraded to a Deputy Commissioner level, but the tenor of engagement has shifted from a political to an administrative one.

This cooling is significant given Bangladesh’s heavy reliance on India. The two nations share 54 rivers, vital trade and service connections, and extensive border ties. Bangladesh has only 271 kilometers of land border with Myanmar; the remainder of its borders are shared with India. Furthermore, Bangladesh’s maritime and air connectivity relies heavily on agreements with India.

Despite this interdependence, current Bangladesh-India relations appear to be at their lowest point since Bangladesh’s independence—arguably even lower than during the brief tenure of Khondaker Mostaq Ahmad’s government.

Myanmar and Changing Dynamics

Bangladesh’s relationship with Myanmar, its only other land neighbor, also holds strategic importance. The 271-kilometer shared land border and mutual maritime routes are crucial for trade. However, since August 5, significant changes have taken place in the character of these borders. This sudden shift in Bangladesh’s diplomatic posture towards Myanmar requires careful analysis to understand its implications for the nation’s foreign policy.

Relations with China and Japan

Beyond India, two major economic powers in Asia—China and Japan—hold significant stakes in Bangladesh. Both nations prioritize economics over politics in their diplomatic strategies and have made substantial investments in Bangladesh. Currently, their primary concern is the regular return of investment profits and opportunities for further investment. This focus has prompted both countries to adopt a “wait and see” approach. They are closely observing whether the Bangladeshi government can emerge from its current instability and move toward a stable governance model.

Additionally, both nations have sensitive concerns tied to their investments. Japan’s experience with the 2016 Holey Artisan attack has left a lasting impression. The reopening of “bottled demons” from that incident raises security concerns. For China, the Uyghur issue remains a critical factor. Uyghur militants are known to receive training in Afghanistan, which explains China’s cautious approach to investments in Afghanistan, limiting itself to acquiring rare metals. Similarly, reports of Uyghur militants being trained in Pakistan shape China’s restrained approach to Pakistan. Although China has been a long-standing supporter of Bangladesh’s economic development, it has not extended similar levels of assistance to Pakistan.

On November 5, just three months after the political shift in Bangladesh on August 5, a significant change occurred in global politics: Donald Trump won the U.S. presidential election with a sweeping victory in the popular vote and secured majorities in both the Senate and Congress. Mentioning the popular vote is crucial because Trump won in states traditionally considered Democratic strongholds. Foreign policy played a significant role in securing these popular votes, which signals that a majority of Americans have now rejected the “global policing” policies of Clinton, Hillary, Obama, and Biden. Even a considerable section of Democrats is dissatisfied with this “global policing” strategy, which is why this group within the party, although aging, seems to be rapidly losing relevance.

The Pre-Election UN General Assembly and Bangladesh’s Misstep

Before November 5, during the UN General Assembly, most world leaders and foreign ministers avoided interactions outside the established U.S. system, mindful of future diplomatic strategies. Sound diplomacy dictates caution before the conclusion of an election or the people’s verdict. However, the leader of Bangladesh, driven by the euphoria of victory or old friendships, attended a Clinton Foundation event outside the established system and celebrated with them. During this event, she introduced her meticulous strategist, who had publicly shared a plan to “expand Bangladesh’s territory,” revealing this vision to both the nation and the world.

While sharing the joy of victory with close allies may be gratifying, the diplomatic implications of such actions are worth considering. It is also noteworthy that questions about the Clinton Foundation’s hidden agenda persist both within the U.S. and abroad. By openly aligning with this U.S. lobbying group, Bangladesh may have exposed itself diplomatically, especially in a rapidly changing geopolitical context.

The Post-Election Shift in Global Dynamics

The outcome of the U.S. election not only marked Trump’s victory or the triumph of the “Make America Great Again” policy but also heralded significant shifts in global politics. For instance, India and China have begun addressing their border issues and are moving toward economic cooperation. Simultaneously, Trump’s victory has initiated steps to align future U.S.-Russia relations more closely with those of India and China regarding Russia. As a result, a cordial meeting involving Trump, Modi, Xi, and Putin is no longer far-fetched.

Similarly, while the U.S. may not immediately engage with Iran at the level maintained by Russia, China, and India, it is likely to come closer to this axis. Seeing Trump in Tehran, alongside leaders like Putin or Modi, should not come as a surprise.

Developments in the Middle East

The United Arab Emirates had already embraced an “inclusive Middle East” policy. However, an unexpected attack by Hamas on Israel derailed Saudi Arabia’s similar policy, halting progress toward inclusivity in the Middle East. Changes in U.S.-Russia relations are likely to reinvigorate the inclusive Middle East approach.

Bangladesh’s Challenges in This Landscape

For Bangladesh, establishing itself firmly within the spheres of influence of India, China, Russia, and the U.S. is essential to building ties with an inclusive Middle East. Without such positioning, Bangladesh risks becoming overly dependent on Pakistan. Yet even Pakistan faces uncertainties in the post-November global political landscape. A critical question is whether Imran Khan can be forcibly removed from Pakistani politics. Will China and the U.S. fuel such efforts? Will India reconsider its Pakistan policy in this new context? And if Imran Khan is released from prison, can Pakistan’s invisible powers maintain their current stance?

Author: Nationally awarded journalist and Editor of Sarakhon and The Present World.