The recent remarks by the United States Ambassador to Bangladesh, Brent T. Christensen, warning Dhaka about the supposed “risks” of engagement with China are not merely ill-judged — they are deeply troubling. They reflect a persistent and outdated mindset that views Bangladesh not as an independent actor, but as a theatre in which great-power competition is to be played out.
Bangladesh is a sovereign nation. It alone decides its national security priorities, defence partnerships, and procurement strategies. No external power, including the United States, has a seat at that table. Attempts to caution, instruct, or “articulate risks” to Bangladesh regarding its choices are likely to be widely unpopular, deeply offensive, and strategically counterproductive.
These comments are not occurring in a historical vacuum. For Bangladesh, issues of military partnership, external influence, and trust are inseparable from the traumatic experiences surrounding its birth as a nation.
The Shadow of 1971: When US Weapons Were Used Against Bengalis
In March 1971, the Pakistan military launched Operation Searchlight in East Pakistan, initiating a campaign of mass killing, systematic rape, and forced displacement. Hundreds of thousands were killed; millions fled to neighbouring India. What followed is widely recognised as genocide.
During this period, Pakistan’s armed forces made extensive use of military equipment supplied by the United States under Cold War security arrangements. American-origin aircraft, armoured vehicles, small arms, and logistical support systems were part of the Pakistan military inventory deployed in East Pakistan. These weapons were used not against a foreign adversary, but against the Bengali population — students, intellectuals, professionals, women, and children.
US diplomats stationed in Dhaka at the time documented these atrocities in chilling detail. In one of the most famous acts of internal dissent in American diplomatic history, officials sent cables to Washington explicitly describing the events as genocide and condemning the moral failure of US policy. These warnings were ignored at the highest levels of the US government.
Instead, Washington chose to maintain its strategic alignment with Pakistan, viewing Islamabad as a Cold War ally and a conduit for opening relations with China. Geopolitical calculations took precedence over humanitarian responsibility. The United States continued to support Pakistan diplomatically even as its military carried out atrocities with US-supplied equipment.
For Bangladeshis, this history is not abstract. It is personal, remembered, and foundational. Any modern discussion of defence partnerships that ignores this past risks appearing not only tone-deaf, but morally hollow.
Early Requests, Early Rejections
After independence, Bangladesh faced the enormous task of building a defence force from scratch. The country approached multiple international partners, including the United States, seeking military hardware and support to secure its sovereignty and rebuild after devastation.
Those requests were largely declined by Washington. Despite extensive awareness of Bangladesh’s suffering and its urgent post-war security needs, the United States offered little in the way of meaningful military assistance. Congressional debates from the time openly criticised US policy for supplying arms to Pakistan while offering none to the victims of that aggression.
Denied access to Western equipment, Bangladesh was forced to seek alternatives. Eastern Europe and China stepped in to fill the gap. Over time, this necessity evolved into enduring defence relationships, institutional familiarity, and logistical ecosystems that continue to shape Bangladesh’s armed forces today.
This trajectory was not the result of ideological alignment, but of necessity born from exclusion. The United States bears responsibility for this outcome.
China as a Pragmatic Partner, Not a Sudden Choice
Bangladesh’s defence relationship with China is often portrayed as a recent strategic shift. This is factually incorrect. Bangladesh has been procuring Chinese military equipment for decades, across all service branches.
The reasons are clear and practical:
- Chinese defence equipment is affordable for a developing economy.
- Its quality has proven satisfactory for Bangladesh’s operational requirements.
- Delivery schedules have been reliable.
- Maintenance, training, and support have been accessible.
- Procurement has not been burdened by excessive political conditions.
Bangladesh’s military doctrine, training systems, logistics, and maintenance infrastructure have been built around these platforms over generations. Suggesting that Bangladesh can simply abandon such systems without massive cost, disruption, and risk reflects a lack of understanding of military planning realities.
The Absence of a Credible US Alternative
Despite expressing concern about Bangladesh’s defence partnerships, the United States has not offered a comprehensive, structured alternative.
There is no overarching defence framework agreement that ensures predictable supply chains, long-term cooperation, or meaningful technology transfer. Mechanisms commonly offered to other partners — such as logistics support agreements or secure information-sharing arrangements — remain absent.
US defence engagement with Bangladesh has largely been limited to training exercises, seminars, and goodwill visits. While useful, these do not substitute for sustained industrial cooperation or reliable procurement pathways.
It is unreasonable to warn Bangladesh away from one supplier while failing to provide a realistic alternative.
Reliability, Trust, and Unilateralism
Beyond procurement, Bangladesh’s strategic thinking is shaped by perceptions of reliability. In recent years, the United States has increasingly been seen as unpredictable in its foreign policy, prone to unilateral actions shaped by domestic political shifts rather than long-term commitments.
Sanctions regimes, abrupt policy reversals, and unilateral interventions in various parts of the world have raised questions among partners about the durability of US assurances. Even close allies have found themselves surprised by Washington’s actions.
For a country like Bangladesh, strategic autonomy and diversification are not ideological preferences — they are safeguards against uncertainty.
A Patronising Narrative That Will Not Resonate
Ambassador Christensen’s remarks suggest that Bangladesh must be guided or cautioned in its engagement with China. This framing is not only patronising; it is politically and culturally misjudged.
Bangladeshis do not respond well to external lectures on sovereignty. Memories of 1971, of being abandoned while facing annihilation, remain vivid. Any suggestion that Bangladesh cannot be trusted to judge its own interests risks reigniting historical grievances and public resentment.
Viewing Bangladesh primarily through the lens of US-China competition reduces it to a pawn, rather than recognising it as a mature state with its own strategic agency.
What Respectful Engagement Would Look Like
If the United States genuinely wishes to deepen its defence relationship with Bangladesh, it must recalibrate its approach:
- Treat Bangladesh as an equal, not a subordinate.
- Engage without framing every discussion around China.
- Offer affordable, long-term defence solutions.
- Establish comprehensive defence cooperation frameworks.
- Acknowledge historical context honestly.
- Respect Bangladesh’s right to maintain diversified partnerships.
Influence cannot be coerced. It must be earned through consistency, respect, and reliability.
Bangladesh’s defence partnerships are shaped by history, necessity, and national interest — not by pressure from external powers. From the trauma of genocide to the challenges of modern statehood, Bangladesh has learned hard lessons about trust, sovereignty, and self-reliance.
The US Ambassador’s comments may reflect Washington’s anxieties, but they do not reflect Bangladesh’s reality. Sovereign nations do not require permission to defend themselves, nor do they need to justify their partnerships to outside observers.
Bangladesh will continue to chart its own course. Any partner that wishes to walk alongside it must do so with humility, respect, and an honest understanding of the past.
Ayesha Farid is a regional security specialist focusing on South Asia, with over a decade of experience analysing inter-state tensions, cross-border insurgency, and regional power dynamics. She has worked with leading policy think tanks and academic institutions, offering nuanced insights into the complex security challenges shaping the subcontinent. Ayesha’s expertise spans military doctrines, border disputes, and regional cooperation frameworks, making her a vital contributor to BDMilitary’s coverage of South Asian strategic affairs. She leads the Geopolitics & Diplomacy section at BDMilitary. Ayesha holds a dual master’s degree — a Master in International Relations from the IE School of Politics, Economics & Global Affairs, Spain, and a Master of Public Policy from the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, Canada — combining deep academic insight with practical policy expertise.
