Trade deal with US raises many questions

On the eve of a national election, the signing of a Reciprocal Trade Agreement (RTA) with the United States is not merely a commercial arrangement; it raises fundamental questions about the political use of state power, policy priorities, and the country's long-term economic direction. When an interim or limited-mandate government commits to an agreement capable of reshaping the nation's revenue structure, agricultural policy, trade balance, and geopolitical positioning, the decision transcends economics. It becomes a test of political prudence, legitimacy, and accountability.

According to the government, the agreement will expand Bangladesh's export potential, particularly in the ready-made garment sector in the U.S. market. However, publicly available information indicates that the retaliatory tariff imposed by the United States would decrease from 20 percent to 19 percent. The critical question is this: in exchange for a mere 1 percentage point reduction in tariffs, why would Bangladesh pledge to reduce tariffs to zero on thousands of product lines? The immediate elimination of duties on approximately 4,500 categories of goods, followed by phased reductions on more than 2,000 additional categories, represents an extensive market liberalization. Is this a balanced exchange, or does it reflect asymmetrical bargaining power at the negotiating table?

Bangladesh's revenue structure remains heavily dependent on import duties. If tariffs are reduced to zero on a vast range of products, a significant revenue shortfall is inevitable. How will this deficit be addressed? By increasing value-added tax (VAT)? By raising direct taxes? Or by resorting to borrowing? Ultimately, the burden will fall on ordinary citizens. If political leadership fails to present these calculations transparently before the public, it signals a troubling deficit in policy transparency.

The agricultural dimension is even more sensitive. If the commitment to open the market to U.S. agricultural, dairy, poultry, and other products is fully implemented, Bangladesh's marginal farmers and small-scale producers will face direct competition from an economy characterized by substantial subsidies, advanced technology, and superior productivity. Is the agricultural sector of a developing country prepared for such competition? Could the hard-won achievements in food self-sufficiency over the past decades be put at risk?

The potential import of genetically modified (GM) seeds and food products has also sparked debate. While there is no global scientific consensus on all aspects of GM technology, the pertinent question remains: how prepared are Bangladesh's biosafety frameworks, research capacity, and regulatory institutions? If seed ownership becomes tied to multinational patent regimes, to what extent will farmers retain autonomy? Agricultural policy is not merely about production; it is also about sovereignty.

''Perhaps most concerning is the lack of transparency. The rapid signing of such a consequential agreement without full public disclosure of its terms runs counter to democratic accountability. Long-term economic commitments, undertaken without parliamentary debate, expert review, and public consultation, rest on politically fragile foundations”
. Any government particularly one operating on the eve of an election must recognize that entering into such arrangements without a clear public mandate inevitably generates controversy''

Perhaps most concerning is the lack of transparency. The rapid signing of such a consequential agreement without full public disclosure of its terms runs counter to democratic accountability. Long-term economic commitments, undertaken without parliamentary debate, expert review, and public consultation, rest on politically fragile foundations. Any government particularly one operating on the eve of an election must recognize that entering into such arrangements without a clear public mandate inevitably generates controversy.

Opposition political forces must also confront their own responsibilities. Those who criticize the agreement today must clarify whether they would seek to review or renegotiate it if in power. If the agreement includes termination clauses, withdrawal may be legally possible with due notice; under international law, including the Vienna Convention framework, challenges could also be contemplated. In practice, however, the risks of international arbitration, compensation claims, and diplomatic pressure are significant. Political rhetoric alone is insufficient. Parties must articulate coherent and realistic policy positions.

Participation in the global trading system is essential; there is little disagreement on that point. Yet there is a subtle but critical distinction between engagement and policy capitulation. If a developing country opens vast segments of its market in exchange for limited tariff concessions-while exposing its revenue base, agriculture, and domestic industries to heightened vulnerability-the long-term consequences may include economic strain and political instability. Economic decisions inevitably generate social repercussions.

At this juncture, what is required is not emotive sloganizing but political candor. The government should publish the full text of the agreement, present detailed estimates of potential revenue losses, and outline concrete strategies to safeguard agriculture and domestic industry. At the same time, opposition parties must propose credible alternatives-demonstrating how expanded access to the U.S. market can be achieved while preserving domestic economic resilience.

A nation's economic policy is not the property of any individual or single administration; it is an inheritance of future generations. Whatever the ultimate decision regarding the Reciprocal Trade Agreement, it must be guided by national interest rather than short-term political expediency. Otherwise, history may pose a difficult question: in pursuit of limited gains, did we compromise our long-term policy autonomy?