A US-Bangladesh trade agreement that grants Bangladeshi garment exports zero-duty access to the American market is drawing sharp criticism from Bangladeshi academics, who argue the deal structurally replicates colonial-era dependency rather than delivering genuine economic partnership. The analysis, published in Dhaka's The Daily Star, was authored by Moshahida Sultana, Associate Professor at Dhaka University.

The Cotton Clause and Its Consequences

At the centre of the controversy is a mandatory sourcing condition: Bangladesh must produce its garment exports using cotton and fibre imported from the United States. Critics argue this single clause transforms a market-access concession into a structural dependency. According to Sultana's analysis, Bangladesh's accumulated labour, investment, and sectoral skills now hinge on US agricultural policy — including how much cotton America produces, the subsidies it offers, and the prices it sets.

The article draws a direct historical parallel: just as nineteenth-century Lancashire–India trade ties reduced India to a supplier of raw materials and a captive market for finished British goods, today's 'zero duty, but use our cotton' arrangement is reportedly tethering Bangladesh's largest export sector to upstream US agricultural and corporate supply chains. 'If those policies change one day, if cotton shifts to other markets, or if new conditions are imposed, the shock will hit Bangladeshi factories, workers' jobs, and bank loans directly,' the article warned.

Defence Deals: Subtle Pressures and Single-Ecosystem Lock-In

Beyond trade, the analysis flags what it describes as sharp but understated pressures embedded in US-Bangladesh defence agreements. According to the article, diplomatic language — sometimes bluntly — steers Bangladesh away from suppliers in Russia and China, nudging defence procurement toward an exclusively American ecosystem: platforms, ammunition, software, encryption, and spare parts, each stage subject to US export licences.

'Publicly, it is about 'maritime security' and 'threat response'. But the budget books reveal the old colonial logic in a modern uniform: a dependent state's foreign-exchange reserves used to secure profits for foreign arms companies,' the article stated. Critics argue that framing such arrangements as 'shared security' obscures a flow of public funds from Dhaka into distant corporate headquarters.

Boeing Purchases and the Debt Trap Warning

The analysis also scrutinises Bangladesh's purchases of Boeing aircraft from the United States, describing them as a potential pathway to a debt trap. These deals are priced in dollars, structured through long-term loans or leases, and tied indefinitely to American parts, software, maintenance, and training.

Notably, even before such contracts fully take effect, Bangladesh's imports of aircraft engines from the US have already surged — from Tk 137 crore to Tk 1,852 crore, according to the article. The analysis warns that even if passenger forecasts prove inaccurate or the national airline becomes inefficient, loan repayments will continue, forcing the public to bear the losses and draining foreign-currency reserves. 'For a debt-burdened economy, this is literally a recipe for a debt trap,' Sultana's piece concluded.

Broader Context

The critique arrives as Bangladesh navigates a delicate geopolitical position — balancing its historically close ties with India, its largest neighbour, alongside growing engagement with the United States under the Trump administration. Dhaka's foreign-exchange reserves have faced pressure in recent years, making the terms of any large-denomination dollar-denominated commitment particularly consequential. This is not the first time Bangladeshi academics and commentators have raised concerns about asymmetric trade frameworks, but the specificity of the cotton-sourcing mandate has sharpened the debate considerably.