Can BNP Government Abort Trade Agreement with the US?

Controversy has resurfaced regarding the trade agreement signed with the United States during Bangladesh's previous interim government, with renewed demands for its cancellation. However, sources close to the current BNP government suggest that the administration is unlikely to scrap the deal.

Several political parties and civil rights activists have labeled the agreement as "one-sided" or "unequal," arguing it primarily serves U.S. interests. Some groups have even launched programs demanding its immediate repeal.

The agreement was signed by the interim government just three days before the national elections in February, a move that drew significant criticism at the time. Allegations have also surfaced that the deal was finalized with "extreme secrecy."

Analysts point out that the details of the agreement only became public after the U.S. side disclosed the contents. However, officials from the former interim government have consistently denied these allegations of secrecy.
What will be the stance of the elected BNP government?

Opponents of the deal believe that the government has the authority to review the agreement through discussions in the National Parliament. They argue that maintaining or canceling the deal is ultimately a matter of political will.
The BNP Government's Position

Dr. Khalilur Rahman played a leading role in the negotiations and final signing of this trade agreement during his tenure as the National Security Advisor to the interim government.

Notably, the elected BNP government has appointed Dr. Khalilur Rahman as the Foreign Minister.

Both analysts and some politicians suggest that the appointment of Dr. Rahman as Foreign Minister sends a clear signal: the government intends to maintain continuity regarding the trade agreement with the United States.

On March 4th, Khalilur Rahman, as the Foreign Minister of the BNP government, addressed journalists' questions regarding the trade agreement with the United States. His response was that the two main parties, BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami, had consented to the deal.

He stated, "The US Trade Representative spoke with the heads of our two main parties before the election, and they also gave their consent".

At that time, Jamaat Ameer Shafiqur Rahman denied this, stating that no discussions had been held with Jamaat regarding the agreement. However, the BNP did not issue any statement on the matter. Analysts suggest that the BNP's silence itself serves as an indication of the government's stance.

The BNP government does not appear to be taking the ongoing controversy and questions surrounding the agreement into account. This is suggested by the fact that there has been no formal discussion within the government regarding the deal, nor even any reported informal discussions.

Conversations with several policy-making leaders of the BNP government suggest that they are prioritizing geopolitics and the improvement of the new government's relationship with the United States. Based on those considerations, the government is unlikely to cancel the agreement.

Is there an opportunity to cancel or review the agreement?

Leaders of various political parties opposing the deal and civil rights activists claim that such an opportunity exists. They demand that the government propose amendments or cancel the agreement after discussions and reviews in the National Parliament.

On Wednesday, independent Member of Parliament Rumeen Farhana took the floor on a point of order, stating that the agreement contains a provision for cancellation within sixty days. She demanded a parliamentary discussion on the deal and its subsequent cancellation.

The agreement mentions a sixty-day probationary period during which it can be terminated. Analysts also note that any agreement with any country can be canceled at any time. However, there is little precedent in Bangladesh's parliament for discussing international agreements.

Following the fall of the Awami League government in the July mass uprising, a National Consensus Commission was formed during the interim government's reform initiatives. During discussions with political parties, including BNP and Jamaat, there was a consensus that international agreements should be discussed in the National Parliament.

Referring to this, civil rights activist Professor Anu Muhammad told BBC Bangla that it would have been easier for the government to resolve the disputes or questions surrounding the deal by discussing it in Parliament.

Is the government willing to take that opportunity or hold a parliamentary discussion? So far, there is no such indication.

Multiple high-level government sources say some within the administration feel the deal needs to be reviewed at a high level. One source told BBC Bangla they would raise the issue of a review with the top levels of government.

However, another government source pointed out that the BNP has returned to power after nearly two decades, and the government is only just over two months old. They questioned why the government would risk straining relations with the United States by taking a stand against the agreement.

Why is there so much controversy or discussion regarding the agreement?

There is criticism regarding both the process of signing the deal and its content. Allegations have surfaced that a secret agreement was made with the U.S. because the Bangladeshi side did not disclose the contents of the deal. There are also claims that the discussions held during the previous interim government were kept secret.

It was only after the United States released the details of the agreement that numerous questions and controversies arose. Furthermore, the national elections were held on February 12th, and the interim government signed the deal just three days prior, on February 9th. This timing further fueled the controversy.

While the previous interim government denies allegations of secrecy regarding the signing of the agreement, their statements have failed to quell the debate.

The content of the agreement has raised significant concerns among various political parties, economists, and civil rights activists.

Their primary allegation is that the agreement fails to protect Bangladesh’s national interests, labeling it as a "one-sided" and "unequal" deal tailored to favor the United States.
Key Areas of Concern and Controversy

Mandatory Imports: Critics argue that the terms prioritize U.S. interests by mandating imports of fuel, 14 Boeing aircraft, and various agricultural products like wheat and soybean. This prevents Bangladesh from sourcing these commodities at more competitive prices or faster delivery times from the global market.

Market Violations: Debapriya Bhattacharya, a Distinguished Fellow at the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD), told BBC Bangla that the agreement was signed in "violation of the principles of a market economy."

National Security Alignment: While framed as a trade deal, analysts believe it entangles Bangladesh with the U.S. national security framework. Under the terms, if the U.S. implements border or commercial measures for its national security, Bangladesh must adopt "complementary restrictions" in alignment with them.

Restrictions on Third-Party Relations: A central point of debate is a clause preventing Bangladesh from entering into agreements with third-party countries that go against U.S. interests. Analysts believe this is specifically aimed at limiting Bangladesh's ties with China and Russia.

Precedent of Dependency: Supporting this view is the recent example where Bangladesh had to seek U.S. permission to import oil from Russia amid a fuel crisis sparked by geopolitical tensions.

The Justification from Former Officials

Sheikh Bashiruddin, a former advisor to the Ministry of Commerce who was involved in the signing process during the interim government, emphasized the context of the deal.

He argued that when the U.S. declared a national emergency and imposed additional tariffs globally, the priority was to negotiate lower tariffs to protect Bangladesh’s export sector. He noted:

Export Survival: Bangladesh’s exports could not have remained competitive while paying a 37% tariff.

Job Protection: A failure in the export sector would have resulted in approximately 1.2 million people losing their jobs.

"These factors should be considered before creating unnecessary confusion or conflict," the former advisor told BBC Bangla.

Despite these justifications from those involved in the negotiations, questions remain regarding how much of the public and the political landscape truly accepts these arguments.