Google Alert – Bangladesh Army
As Bangladesh braces for the third round of negotiations with the United States, starting from today (Tuesday), the stakes have never been higher. The escalating tariff crisis, triggered by the Trump administration’s decision to impose a nearly 50 per cent reciprocal tariff on Bangladeshi exports — primarily ready-made garments and leather goods — has rattled the foundations of the country’s trade-based economy. For Bangladesh, this is not merely a trade dispute but a litmus test of its diplomatic acumen, trade resilience, and long-term economic strategy.
The first two rounds of talks failed to produce tangible outcomes, leaving exporters, businesses, and policy circles disillusioned and frustrated. Many economists and business leaders have begun to publicly criticise the government’s negotiation strategy, calling it inadequate in the face of mounting economic pressure. Against this tense backdrop, the latest round of negotiations offers a glimmer of hope. But expectations are now tempered by urgency.
If the U.S. proceeds with enforcing a 50 per cent tariff on Bangladeshi goods starting August 1 — as declared in a formal letter from President Donald Trump to Chief Adviser Dr. Muhammad Yunus — the consequences could be economically catastrophic. The ready-made garment (RMG) and leather sectors, which collectively constitute the lion’s share of Bangladesh’s export earnings and employ millions, will be hit the hardest. A sharp rise in prices would diminish their competitiveness in the U.S. market, which is currently one of Bangladesh’s largest export destinations.
Moreover, such a tariff spike would inevitably cause order cancellations, job losses, factory shutdowns, and potential labor unrest. In an export-driven economy where garments alone account for over 80 per cent of total export revenue, even a marginal disruption sends shockwaves across the macroeconomic spectrum. A 50 per cent tariff is not just a trade policy — it is a threat to social stability.
Given this context, the ongoing negotiations is not simply another round of routine diplomatic engagement. It represents a high-stakes attempt to avert a crisis that could derail years of economic progress. If the U.S. agrees to scale back the proposed tariff to 18-20 per cent — a figure that is being circulated as a possible compromise — it would be seen as a major diplomatic victory for Bangladesh.
More importantly, such a reduction would provide breathing space for exporters and restore investor confidence. In a volatile global market, predictability and policy stability matter as much as price. A successful negotiation outcome would reaffirm Bangladesh’s relevance and reliability in international trade partnerships.
While blame games are counterproductive, it is important to assess why the first two rounds failed to yield results. One factor is timing. The U.S. side, citing national emergency clauses, adopted a unilateral tone from the outset. Their decision was framed as a part of a broader recalibration of trade ties with countries perceived to be benefitting disproportionately. This created an uneven playing field for Bangladesh.
Another challenge has been the lack of clarity and strategic communication on Bangladesh’s part. Critics argue that the government failed to present a cohesive, data-driven, and forward-looking case in the initial stages. Moreover, the absence of a robust lobbying effort in Washington — unlike other trade-dependent nations — meant that Bangladesh’s narrative was underrepresented in U.S. policy circles.
To its credit, the interim government has not remained passive. Recognising the threat posed by the tariffs, Bangladesh has launched a flurry of diplomatic and commercial initiatives aimed at addressing American concerns and reducing the bilateral trade deficit.
One of the key measures has been a proactive shift in import policy. Bangladesh has initiated plans to purchase wheat, soybean, and cotton from the U.S., along with a major procurement plan involving 25 aircraft from Boeing. These steps are expected to narrow the trade imbalance while also creating goodwill in Washington’s political economy.
Additionally, 600 acres of land have been allocated in the Mirsarai Economic Zone for the storage and maintenance of imported cotton — signalling the seriousness of Bangladesh’s commitment to long-term trade reciprocity.
These strategic decisions mark a clear pivot towards rebalancing the relationship and demonstrate that Bangladesh is willing to play by global rules — provided the playing field is plain and fair.
However, trade balances are not the only issue on the table. One of the major stumbling blocks in the negotiations has been the United States’ insistence on stronger protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). The U.S. has accused Bangladesh of failing to curb the circulation of counterfeit goods across a range of sectors, including garments, pharmaceuticals, consumer electronics, and software.
Although Bangladesh is already a signatory to global frameworks such as the TRIPS Agreement, the Paris Convention, and the WIPO arrangements, the U.S. maintains that enforcement remains weak and inconsistent. To address these concerns, Washington has demanded that Bangladesh sign 13 additional international treaties and conventions, along with enforcing 11 new policy commitments — ranging from legal protection for U.S. goods to stricter anti-counterfeiting regulations.
This presents a complex challenge. On one hand, it is crucial for Bangladesh to align with global standards and protect IPR to attract high-value foreign investment. On the other hand, the legal and administrative overhaul required to meet U.S. demands is neither simple nor immediate. IPR reform involves changes in domestic legislation, regulatory infrastructure, and inter-ministerial coordination — all of which take time and political consensus.
Given this multilayered backdrop, what can Bangladesh realistically expect from the third round of negotiations?
First, it is unlikely that the U.S. will revoke the tariff decision entirely before August 1. However, there is a plausible path toward a phased reduction or temporary relief — especially if Bangladesh can present a credible roadmap to address IPR concerns and continue rebalancing bilateral trade.
Second, the government must adopt a more comprehensive negotiation strategy. This includes assembling a high-powered delegation of trade, legal, and diplomatic experts who can respond convincingly to technical queries. Emotional appeals or vague promises will no longer suffice.
Third, a concrete and transparent action plan must be shared with U.S. negotiators — one that outlines a timeline for treaty ratification, legal reforms, and anti-counterfeiting enforcement. Even partial commitments, if sincere and time-bound, can help restore trust.
Finally, Bangladesh must improve its communication efforts — not just with U.S. policymakers, but also with the global business community. A coordinated outreach campaign showcasing the country’s reform agenda, investment opportunities, and commitment to fair trade could shift perceptions and attract allies.
The latest round of negotiations will be a defining moment in the evolution of Bangladesh-U.S. trade relations. A successful outcome could stabilise export earnings, protect millions of jobs, and reposition Bangladesh as a responsible player in global trade. Failure, on the other hand, could lead to serious economic disruptions and dent the credibility of the country’s diplomatic machinery.
While the road ahead is undoubtedly steep, it is not insurmountable. Bangladesh must stay focused, engage constructively, and act decisively. The world is watching — not just for how the tariff dispute is resolved, but for how Bangladesh navigates this complex intersection of trade, diplomacy, and economic policy.
This is more than a negotiation. It is a defining test of national capacity, and one that Bangladesh must pass — not just for the present, but for the promise of its economic future.
mirmostafiz@yahoo.con