The appointment of a Bangladeshi-American with alleged ties to the CIA as Foreign Minister has sparked widespread debate and suspicion across the country. Critics, particularly those aligned with nationalist circles, argue that the BNP—after waiting 20 years to return to power—has effectively sold Bangladesh’s sovereignty to the United States in exchange for political support. While this claim may carry some truth, it is important to examine the bigger picture without falling into simplistic narratives.
It is undeniable that the United States and its Western allies were not the primary force behind the 16-year authoritarian rule Bangladesh endured under the Awami League. Responsibility must be shared: India bears around 60% of the blame for enabling and sustaining that regime through diplomatic cover, economic leverage, and strategic silence. The US and Western countries, along with the United Nations (which claims to represent the global community), account for the remaining 40%. For years, these powers endorsed or turned a blind eye to nearly every election conducted by the Awami League—until 2024.
In 2024, only the United States openly questioned the fairness of the polls, but we all know the real motives: shifting geopolitical interests, pressure on regional influence, and perhaps a desire to install a more compliant government. In past Sheikh Hasina herself often reminded the public that FBI agents had appeared as witnesses in corruption cases against the BNP chairman—proof, in her view, of Western meddling when it suited their agenda.
In this context, where Bangladesh’s democracy has long been shaped and judged by foreign powers, the decision to include a figure linked to the world’s most powerful intelligence and regime-change apparatus (the CIA) in the cabinet appears deliberate. It is an attempt and a strategy to maintain maximum transparency—or at least the appearance of it—under constant scrutiny. Bringing in such an individual is like deliberately infecting your own computer with spyware to prove to the watcher that you have nothing to hide and we are clean. It signals submission: “Look, we are open; we have no dirty secrets from you.”
After all, what real secrets does Bangladesh have left to protect from the West? On the global stage, Bangladesh has remained a peaceful nation since independence. It has no external enemy states and has never positioned itself as a threat to others. The only consistent “enemy” we have been told about since 1971 is internal—division, corruption, and betrayal from within.
Historically, the demands and statements made by our Foreign Ministers on international platforms have rarely been taken seriously or led to meaningful change. Their primary role has been limited to securing foreign aid, negotiating or delaying loan repayments, managing expatriate Bangladeshi affairs, and—unfortunately—overlooking or facilitating money laundering by powerful parliamentarians and elites.
Appointing someone with CIA connections carries risks, however. The biggest danger is not espionage itself, but the potential for abnormal, behind-the-scenes deals that could prove deadly to Bangladesh’s long-term interests. Such arrangements might prioritize foreign agendas over national welfare, leading to concessions on territory, resources, or policy that ordinary citizens would never accept.
In the end, this move reflects the harsh reality of our position: a small nation caught between giants, where survival often requires uncomfortable compromises. True independence demands vigilance against all external influences—whether from the West, India, or elsewhere—and a commitment to building internal strength so we no longer need to invite “spies” into our highest offices just to prove our loyalty and cleanness. Until then, such appointments will continue to fuel suspicion and debate among those who still dream of a truly sovereign Bangladesh.