The Eastward Pivot of Civilization: The Global South and Bangladesh's Drift Toward U.S. Dependence

No nation or civilization has ever held a permanent monopoly over power, knowledge, or capital. History shows that the world's economic and political center of gravity has never remained fixed. There was a time when the Indian subcontinent accounted for a massive share of global GDP. History offers a stark reminder: when the British East India Company occupied Bengal, Bihar, and Odisha, Britain itself had only a handful of industrial banks. Yet, driven by the immense wealth plundered from Bengal, more than 20 new industrial banks were established in Britain within just one year. That very capital laid the foundation for the so-called British Industrial Revolution.

The British Empire, which once boasted that the sun never set on its territories, has now faded, effectively serving as a junior partner to the United States on the global stage. Yet, the rise of the United States as a global hegemon carries a complex history of its own—built by settlers, fortune-seekers, and violent adventurers through the displacement and killing of Native Americans. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US emerged as the undisputed global power. But history does not offer a permanent throne, and the decline of Western dominance is now evident. As Western influence wanes, the "Global South," led by Asian nations like China and India, has emerged as a powerful geopolitical bloc. Wealth, knowledge, and military strength are increasingly concentrated in the Indo-Pacific.

The Eastward Shift of Economic Power

History suggests that economic power, technological leadership, and military capability usually move together. The era of looking solely toward the West for higher education and technological advancement is drawing to a close. IMF data on global growth contributions illustrate the scale of this shift.

Nearly half of the world's real economic growth currently comes from just two countries: China and India. According to recent projections published by the International Monetary Fund, China alone accounts for roughly 26% of global GDP growth, while India contributes around 17%. China is no longer simply a hub for low-cost manufacturing. It has also emerged as a formidable competitor to the US in areas like space science, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and hypersonic weaponry.

Moreover, if Global South nations distance themselves from Beijing to align with Washington, they face a challenging reality: comparable Western alternatives are often difficult to secure. China remains one of the few nations capable of deploying massive infrastructure financing through initiatives like the Belt and Road (BRI), while simultaneously supplying the world with affordable high-end consumer technology. In many cases, neither the US nor traditional lending institutions can match the scale or speed of Chinese development capital without imposing stringent economic conditionalities.

Take Indonesia, for example. Contributing 3.8% to global growth, the country banned raw nickel exports to stem the outflow of its mineral wealth. Consequently, global tech giants were compelled to build battery and technology factories locally, helping transform Indonesia into a crucial hub in the global electric vehicle (EV) supply chain. Alternatives to China, it turns out, are developing within Asia rather than the West. With a 1.6% growth contribution, Vietnam has largely avoided Western geopolitical pressure, balancing China and the US to become a global center for advanced semiconductors. Malaysia, too, is relying on technology and modern infrastructure to grow into a key global hub.

In stark contrast, the US and Germany contribute roughly 9.9% and 0.9% to global growth, respectively. Viewed together, these trends suggest a broader shift in the global economy. While the West's relative share of global economic dynamism has declined, much of today's economic momentum lies in Asia and the wider Global South.

Yet, in the face of this reality, Bangladesh is moving in the opposite direction.

Bangladesh on a Reverse Trajectory: A Path of Subservience

As the world enters a multipolar era, independent Bangladesh appears to be tying itself to a declining US power structure. Even in a unipolar world after the Soviet collapse, Bangladesh never displayed this level of alignment. By largely abandoning its historically balanced foreign policy, the country seems to have chosen a path of subservience.

 The clearest example was the signing of a highly unequal trade agreement with the US on February 9. Through this pact, crucial sectors like agriculture, technology, health, and pharmaceuticals were effectively exposed to greater American strategic influence. Following the national election, the BNP formed the government. The public expected the newly elected administration to scrap this deal; however, they chose not to do so.

That is where the deeper concern begins.

The Blueprint of Influence: How Foreign Caucuses Operate

In the vocabulary of international politics, dedicating a foreign parliamentary faction directly to the "United States" is highly unusual. Parliaments in the UK, India, and Australia generally rely on standard "Friendship Groups." Prior to Bangladesh, parliamentary bodies formally bearing the hallmark of a "US Caucus" have existed in only a handful of jurisdictions, including Israel, Taiwan and Hungary.

While these groups are presented as parliamentary friendship mechanisms, critics argue that some have evolved into vehicles for advancing Washington's strategic priorities. For instance, in Israel's Knesset, alliances focused on US ties frequently champion legislative measures securing billions in military supplements, while tracking closely with Washington’s regional postures—including strong opposition to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In Taiwan's Legislative Yuan, legislative focus on US relations often parallels significant US arms sales and broader technological alignment against Beijing. In Hungary's National Assembly, groups engaged with American relations have at times served as a conduit to encourage Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government toward the broader NATO consensus.

Elsewhere, aligned factions in Washington, such as the Congressional Venezuela Caucus, supported sanctions—including measures contained in the VERDAD Act—which critics argue contributed to Venezuela's severe economic deterioration. Operating from within the Bangladesh Parliament, whose interests will this new caucus truly serve? Rather than safeguarding national priorities, such a body risks acting as a localized mechanism to advance Washington’s strategic priorities in the Bay of Bengal.

The Burma Act, the Cox's Bazar Corridor, and Geopolitical Risks

For Washington, Bangladesh is unlikely to be viewed solely through an economic lens. Many regional analysts argue that its broader objective includes countering China's strategic footprint in the Indian Ocean, particularly Beijing's investments in Myanmar. Through the BURMA Act of 2022, the US authorized non-lethal support for anti-junta ethnic armed organizations—a move that critics fear could inadvertently accelerate the fragmentation of Myanmar’s Rakhine (Arakan) State.

Any effort to support armed groups operating near the border would inevitably raise logistical questions. Consequently, some regional observers have expressed concern that Washington might seek to leverage the Cox's Bazar corridor, or seek access to facilities associated with St. Martin's Island, to establish channels for aid and influence into northern Rakhine.

If Bangladesh allows itself to become deeply entangled in such a proxy conflict, it could invite profound risks. Permitting foreign powers to channel support through border regions frequently attracts retaliatory actions from rival powers. Extended border instability could disrupt trade, discourage foreign investment, and place additional pressure on Bangladesh's export-oriented economy, including its readymade garment sector. One need only look at Syria to understand the dangers of proxy wars; once drawn into larger power struggles, the country was reduced to a landscape of devastation. If Bangladesh becomes the new front line for American influence in the Arakan conflict, it risks facing a similarly tragic trajectory.

Since August 5, the public mobilization of extremist factions has already unsettled the nation. Introducing a significant foreign military presence and creating a new front for transnational militant activity in this fragile environment could pose profound risks to national stability. Under the guise of transforming the nation into an economic powerhouse like Singapore or South Korea, Bangladesh risks becoming a theater for prolonged geopolitical conflict.

Bangladesh now faces a stark strategic choice.

Following the development path of countries such as Malaysia or Indonesia requires independent policymaking—not accommodating proxy caucuses that risk drawing Bangladesh into broader geopolitical competition. The era of undisputed unipolarity is fading, and global economic leadership is steadily shifting toward the East. If Bangladesh misreads these geopolitical changes and tethers itself to Washington’s regional calculus, it risks becoming increasingly isolated within its own region.

__________

Author: Editor, Dhaka Papers

Email: [email protected]