The involvement of external forces in the internal politics of sovereign nations remains a contentious issue in global affairs, and Bangladesh has recently become a focal point of this debate. Professor Jeffrey Sachs, a distinguished economist from Columbia University, has raised serious concerns about the role of the United States in the political crisis that led to the removal of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Known for his criticism of U.S. interventionist policies, Sachs has called for an independent United Nations investigation, citing circumstantial evidence pointing to Washington’s role in Hasina’s downfall amidst orchestrated student-led protests. His warnings align with broader concerns over U.S. actions aimed at destabilizing foreign governments for strategic purposes.
Sachs has drawn attention to what he describes as covert interference by the U.S. “deep state” in Bangladesh’s political landscape. “For a nation so wary of foreign meddling in its elections, the U.S. seems unperturbed by its own interference in Bangladesh and beyond,” he stated. His remarks contribute to the growing discourse on the consequences of external influence on Bangladesh’s internal stability.
The controversy intensified after former President Donald Trump publicly condemned a U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) project worth $29 million, ostensibly designed to “strengthen the political landscape” in Bangladesh. The contract, awarded to an obscure firm, raised suspicions about Washington’s strategic interests in the region. Analysts argue that this was not an isolated incident but part of a larger U.S. effort to reshape Bangladesh’s political trajectory, particularly concerning its relations with major global powers.
Sheikh Hasina’s forced resignation on August 5, 2024, has been widely viewed as the result of a deliberate and coordinated effort by both domestic and international actors. Reports suggest that the U.S. “deep state,” in collaboration with Pakistan’s intelligence agency (ISI), elements within the Bangladeshi military, and extremist groups such as Jamaat-e-Islami, Hizbut Tahrir, and Ansarullah Bangla Team, played pivotal roles in her removal. The initial catalyst for this turmoil appeared to be student protests against the government’s job quota system, which escalated into violent clashes, leading to hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries. External forces skillfully exploited this chaos, ultimately destabilizing Hasina’s administration.
U.S. diplomatic and economic pressure on Hasina’s government became more evident during the visit of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Donald Lu to Dhaka on May 17, 2024. Shortly thereafter, Washington imposed sanctions on retired Bangladesh Army General Aziz Ahmed, citing corruption charges. Many saw this sequence of events as part of a broader geopolitical strategy to weaken Hasina’s government. Hasina herself pointed to the influence of foreign powers in her ouster, particularly highlighting the strategic significance of St. Martin’s Island. She warned that an opposition-led government might cede the island to the U.S. for military use, reinforcing speculation that Washington’s interests in Bangladesh extend beyond mere political realignment.
Bangladesh finds itself at the center of a geopolitical tug-of-war between the U.S. and China. China, which has long supported Bangladesh’s economic development through loans and infrastructure projects, has maintained a policy of non-interference. Meanwhile, the U.S. has sought to integrate Bangladesh into its broader Indo-Pacific strategy, including the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) alliance, alongside India, Japan, and Australia. This rivalry over Bangladesh’s strategic allegiance has raised concerns about the erosion of its sovereignty and the implications of foreign entanglements on its domestic affairs.
The notion that Hasina’s removal was orchestrated by Washington has gained traction among various political figures in Bangladesh. Rashed Khan Menon, leader of Bangladesh’s Workers Party, accused the U.S. of engineering a regime change to secure strategic dominance in the Bay of Bengal. His claims evoke historical grievances regarding U.S. interference in Bangladesh’s 1971 Liberation War, where Washington’s actions were perceived as exacerbating political instability.
Further suspicions of foreign interference were fueled by the U.S. visa policy announced in May 2023, which threatened travel restrictions on individuals accused of undermining Bangladesh’s electoral process. Analysts believe that Hasina’s growing alignment with China, particularly her securing of multi-billion-dollar infrastructure deals, played a significant role in Washington’s decision to pressure her administration. Hasina’s reluctance to accommodate U.S. military interests, including allowing defense facilities on Bangladeshi soil, appears to have been another key factor contributing to her government’s downfall.
Professor Sachs has drawn parallels between Bangladesh’s current crisis and previous U.S.-backed “color revolutions,” where genuine public grievances were leveraged to advance foreign strategic interests. He pointed to similar patterns in countries like Pakistan, where external interference contributed to the removal of former Prime Minister Imran Khan. Sachs warned that these interventionist policies, if left unchecked, could further destabilize nations and escalate global tensions.
Sachs has therefore called for an independent UN investigation into allegations of U.S. involvement in Bangladesh’s political crisis. He emphasized that Washington’s long history of undermining foreign governments necessitates a transparent inquiry. He proposed that the UN Security Council take up the issue and, if the U.S. vetoed such a motion, the matter should be escalated to the UN General Assembly to ensure impartial scrutiny.
In a subsequent article, Sachs reiterated the urgency of addressing U.S. involvement in Bangladesh and Pakistan, citing overwhelming evidence of Washington’s role in regime-change operations. He stressed that the international community must take a firm stand against foreign interference to safeguard the sovereignty of affected nations. He warned that unchecked interventionism could set dangerous precedents, further destabilizing regions already struggling with political and economic challenges.
As the situation in Bangladesh continues to evolve, the specter of foreign interference looms large over its political future. The growing calls for a UN investigation underscore the need for greater accountability and transparency in global affairs. Professor Sachs’ critique of U.S. interventionism serves as a reminder of the importance of preserving national sovereignty amid intensifying geopolitical rivalries. The ramifications of this crisis will likely extend beyond Bangladesh, influencing the broader strategic landscape of South Asia and shaping the global discourse on foreign interference in domestic politics.
