The political landscape of Bangladesh has often been tumultuous, marked by shifts in power and allegations of foreign intervention. The recent political turmoil in Bangladesh, highlighted by the resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on August 5, 2024, has sparked heated debates about its implications for democracy, regional stability, and international relations.
Hasina’s abrupt departure, following a series of dramatic events, has left the nation at a crossroads, raising concerns about the future of Bangladesh and its minorities. This crisis, however, is part of a broader pattern of American interventionism and geopolitical manoeuvring, often referred to as the ‘CIA playbook’.
Sheikh Hasina, a prominent advocate for minority rights and a key figure in maintaining a fragile balance between democracy and extremism in Bangladesh, resigned amidst escalating political unrest. Her departure has triggered a wave of violence against minorities, particularly the Hindu community.
Hasina’s tenure was marked by her efforts to promote secularism and protect minority rights, making her a target for extremist groups. Her resignation has emboldened these groups, leading to increased attacks on minorities and creating an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty. The erosion of minority rights not only undermines the democratic fabric of Bangladesh but also poses a significant threat to regional stability.
The notion of foreign interference, particularly by the CIA, in Bangladeshi politics is not new. During the Cold War, the United States had a vested interest in the region, primarily to counter Soviet influence. Sheikh Hasina’s claim, a few weeks ago, about being offered hassle-free re-election in exchange for allowing a foreign country by a white man to build an air base is quite significant. This statement, reported by the Daily Star Bangladesh, implies external influence and pressure on Bangladesh’s domestic politics. However, the specific country she referred to was not named officially, unofficially, sources close to her revealed that she was referring to the US.
When questioned about her response to the offer, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina reaffirmed her steadfast stance, similar to her reply in 2001 when the US proposed selling Bangladesh’s gas to India. She firmly stated her identity as the daughter of the Father of the Nation, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and emphasized her commitment to the country’s sovereignty, stating, “We won our Liberation War, I don’t want to come to power by renting part of the country or handing it over to some other country, and I don’t need power.” Hasina stressed that her tenure in office is contingent upon the people’s support and desire for her leadership.
At that point in time, Sheikh Hasina highlighted the ongoing challenges and conspiracies she faced both domestically and internationally. She expressed concern over attempts to create a new country from parts of Bangladesh and Myanmar, similar to East Timor, by establishing a Christian nation with a base in the Bay of Bengal. Hasina pointed to Chattogram as a targeted area, though she did not provide specific details. She warned of plots to destabilize her government and drew parallels to the tragic fate of her father, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, indicating the severity of the threats she perceived.
In November of last year, reports surfaced in Dhaka alleging that ruling party politicians had threatened U.S. Ambassador Peter Haas due to perceived interference in Bangladesh’s electoral process. The State Minister, however, denied these allegations and expressed confidence in the country’s ability to ensure the security of foreign dignitaries like the ambassador.
Further complicating the situation, a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson accused the U.S. ambassador and a senior opposition figure of planning to incite mass anti-government protests in Bangladesh. The spokesperson labelled this as gross interference in Bangladesh’s internal affairs by Washington and its allies. In response, Washington countered by accusing Moscow of deliberately mischaracterizing its foreign policy actions.
In March 2024, U.S. Under Secretary Victoria Nuland visited Bangladesh and met with various civil and business leaders. Following her visit, the situation in Bangladesh began to deteriorate rapidly.
Sheikh Hasina attributed the escalation of initially peaceful student protests into violence and chaos to the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the banned Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami. According to Hasina, these groups, marginalized and out of power for a long time, used the agitation to reassert themselves politically. She stressed that students were not responsible for the violence, placing the blame squarely on Jamaat-e-Islami and BNP. After the second wave of violence, a frustrated Hasina declared, “Those who are carrying out violence are not students but terrorists who are out to destabilize the nation.”
New Delhi and Washington had differing views on Bangladesh’s political dynamics. India was opposed to giving Jamaat-e-Islami a political role, concerned about its potential for radicalization and its influence in the region. The United States, on the other hand, was wary of pushing Jamaat-e-Islami underground, fearing it could lead to increased radicalization. Additionally, India was concerned that the U.S. might support a leadership change in Bangladesh, potentially favouring Muhammad Yunus over Sheikh Hasina, who was seen as a reliable ally for India.
There is a history of animosity between Sheikh Hasina and Muhammad Yunus. Sheikh Hasina viewed Muhammad Yunus as a political threat and suspected his connections with the BNP, despite Yunus’s denials. Her suspicions were exacerbated when Yunus was nominated by the BNP for a role in the interim government in 2006. Hasina also found Yunus’s relationship with the U.S., particularly his ties to Hillary Clinton, troubling and believed Yunus was conspiring against her government. When Hasina returned to power in early 2009, Yunus’s efforts to change a law that gave Hasina control over his position at Grameen Bank were unsuccessful. Hasina refused to ratify the interim government’s removal of the law and rebuffed Yunus’s attempts to resolve the issue through cabinet members. In May 2009, Yunus sought the U.S. ambassador’s assistance in convincing Hasina to reverse her stance. However, Hasina never agreed to meet Yunus and eventually removed him from Grameen Bank in 2011 through a court order after a prolonged political struggle. Hasina was also angered by Yunus’s statement about the Grameen Bank members’ potential electoral influence, which she perceived as a threat to her party’s chances in the elections.
Within 24 hours of Sheikh Hasina fleeing Bangladesh, two significant developments occurred. First, the leaders of the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement, which spearheaded the agitation, decided to propose Nobel Peace Prize winner and Grameen Bank founder Muhammad Yunus as the head of an interim government. They had already discussed this with Bangladeshi President Shahabuddin and the three service chiefs. Yunus, to the uninitiated in the world of geopolitics, is a CIA stooge and is known to be close to the US Administration.
Second, despite Hasina’s expectations of receiving asylum in the UK, the Labour government showed reluctance to grant it, likely to avoid antagonizing the USA. Instead, the UK called for a UN-led investigation into the recent events in Bangladesh. Meanwhile, the Biden-Harris administration in the US had already cancelled Hasina’s visa, further isolating her diplomatically. These actions reflect the intense international and domestic pressures surrounding Hasina’s departure.
The United States’ opposition to Sheikh Hasina’s government is rooted in several factors. One key issue is Bangladesh’s increasing alignment with China and Russia, which contrasts with US interests in the region. Additionally, the US has criticized Hasina for restricting democratic practices and limiting the opposition’s ability to operate. The US ambassador in Dhaka has engaged with opposition leaders, bypassing traditional diplomatic protocols, which has further strained relations.
US sanctions on Bangladesh have been imposed in response to these issues, particularly as Bangladesh continued trading with Russia despite the US warning, following the Ukraine conflict. Hasina’s stance on Taiwan, where she reiterated support for China’s one-China principle and opposed external interference, also irked the US.
Furthermore, Bangladesh’s involvement with China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which started in 2016, has deepened its economic ties with China. By the end of 2023, Bangladesh had received $1.4 billion in Chinese investment for infrastructure projects, such as roads, bridges, and power initiatives, further aligning it with China’s global strategy.
During her recent three-day visit to Beijing, Sheikh Hasina strengthened Bangladesh’s ties with China, resulting in an upgrade of their relationship to a comprehensive strategic partnership. In their joint statement, China emphasized deepening political mutual trust and reaffirmed support for Bangladesh’s sovereignty and opposition to external interference. Sheikh Hasina was disappointed by the outcome, as Bangladesh had sought a financial aid package of $1 billion but was offered only $5 million. The limited financial support and the ongoing student movement in Bangladesh prompted Hasina to cut her visit short by a day and return to Dhaka. Before her China visit, Hasina had already committed to a major redevelopment plan for the Teesta River with India, which likely contributed to China’s dissatisfaction. The decision to collaborate with India on the Teesta project rather than China may have influenced Beijing’s response and affected the tone of the discussions during her visit.
Bangladesh is part of a broader pattern of American interventionism aimed at reshaping the geopolitical landscape. The ‘CIA playbook strategy has been employed in various contexts, from the Middle East to Latin America, to install regimes favourable to U.S. interests. In the case of Bangladesh, the perceived threat of Chinese influence and strategic interests in the Bay of Bengal would have prompted American intervention.
The United States has a history of supporting democratic movements and advocating for human rights, but its interventions are often viewed with suspicion, especially when they align with strategic interests. The crisis in Bangladesh serves as a reminder of the complexities and unintended consequences of foreign intervention. And there is no doubt that the CIA intervened. Not known to many, the grapevine in the intelligence circles is that leaders behind the intensifying of the protests in Bangladesh had special WiFi routers provided by the allegedly CIA operatives to communicate with protestors without being identified or tracked by the local authorities.
The resignation of Sheikh Hasina marks a significant turning point for Bangladesh, with profound implications for democracy, regional stability, and international politics. The violence against minorities and the potential disappearance of the Hindu population within three decades underscore the urgent need for a stable and inclusive government.
