Since 1971, Bangladesh has lacked a serious authority for foreign policy formulation, which could be a foreign relations committee or a specific national committee responsible for directing foreign relations. The principle of friendship with all and malice to none resembles extra-marital relations with everyone but lacks genuine warmth with any particular nation. For a considerable period, Bangladesh was viewed merely as a buffer state, a dismal designation among the 49 least developed countries (LDCs) globally.
Currently, it is evident that only a few individuals grasp the concepts underlying our foreign policy, which seem to be dictated by changes in leadership and regime. We have not succeeded in establishing a consistent and robust foreign policy due to an incomplete and inconsistent understanding of our geopolitical and geo-economic importance. As a developing nation, we must engage with all parties based on the most sensible strategies available. It is essential to assign an expert team to develop foreign policy that aligns with the evolving circumstances and the global landscape.
The new BNP government has appointed two extremely competent foreign affairs ministry. This is now imperative that all stakeholders getting conscious regarding the rising discontents and all policy makers when an urge to balance foreign policy started. The fascist Hasina regime relied solely on India to do everything in the country. However, this is now a big concern that upcoming global orders have been affecting Bangladesh to the complete mess.
The “Bangladesh First” foreign policy emphasizes national interests, democratic accountability, economic self-sufficiency, and balanced regional relations. The current political landscape mirrors a widespread public demand: Bangladesh must never again permit internal autocracy or external interference to undermine its sovereignty. Although Sheikh Hasina’s administration achieved significant economic growth and infrastructure development, it was also characterized by serious accusations of repression, a diminishing civic space, and an excessive concentration of power. Additionally, there was considerable concern regarding the perception that Bangladesh’s foreign policy was overly aligned with one regional power, which raised alarms about strategic imbalance.
India’s historical contribution to Bangladesh’s liberation is undeniable and remains deeply ingrained in collective memory. However, history alone cannot dictate contemporary diplomacy. Over time, many Bangladeshis began to perceive various bilateral agreements related to trade, transit, security cooperation, and water sharing as disproportionately advantageous to India. Trade imbalances increased, unresolved water disputes like the Teesta agreement persisted, and transit arrangements faced criticism for lacking mutual economic benefits. Regardless of whether these perceptions were entirely justified, they influenced public sentiment and sparked a desire for recalibration. The emerging “Bangladesh First” approach from this new era is neither anti-Indian nor isolationist. Instead, it is founded on the principle that every sovereign nation should develop policies based on its own priorities. This doctrine aims for balance: fostering friendships with all while depending on none. It acknowledges geographical realities but rejects subservience. Within this framework, Bangladesh’s foreign policy is anticipated to pursue diversification.
