U.S. Involvement in Bangladesh? Sheikh Hasina’s Claims Ignite a New Political Storm

 

After stepping down from her long-held position as Bangladesh’s Prime Minister and taking refuge in India, Sheikh Hasina made waves with her explosive statements accusing the United States of orchestrating her removal from power. Her claims suggest that her refusal to cede control of Saint Martin’s Island to the U.S., which allegedly sought to establish a military base there, played a central role in the political manoeuvring that led to her departure. These allegations have intensified the heated discussions surrounding U.S. involvement in global politics, echoing a recurring theme of accusations levelled against the superpower by various countries throughout history.

Sheikh Hasina’s assertion that she chose to resign to prevent further bloodshed underscores the volatility of the situation in Bangladesh before her exit. The political unrest that preceded her resignation began as student-led protests against a job quota system, but the movement rapidly evolved into broader anti-government demonstrations. Hasina, however, argued that these protests were fueled by distorted narratives intended to destabilize her government. She has stated that she could have remained in power if she had surrendered Saint Martin’s Island, but her refusal was driven by her commitment to safeguarding Bangladesh’s sovereignty. According to her, this stance was the tipping point that led to her ouster, with the U.S. allegedly backing her political opponents to achieve its strategic goals in the region.

The U.S. government has vehemently denied any involvement in Hasina’s resignation, labelling her claims as baseless and asserting that the political turmoil in Bangladesh is purely a domestic issue. White House representatives emphasized that the future of Bangladesh should be determined by its own people, free from external influence. Despite these denials, Hasina’s allegations have sparked significant debate, both within Bangladesh and beyond, about the broader implications of foreign interference in national politics.

This controversy is part of a broader narrative in which the U.S. has been accused of intervening in the political affairs of other nations under the guise of promoting democracy or protecting strategic interests. Over the years, numerous countries have pointed fingers at Washington for allegedly orchestrating regime changes to align global politics with American interests. The history of U.S. involvement in such actions spans several continents and decades, raising questions about the ethics and legality of these interventions.

In Latin America, U.S. influence has been particularly pronounced. The 1973 coup in Chile, which saw the democratically elected socialist President Salvador Allende replaced by the military dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet, is a notorious example. Declassified documents have since revealed how the CIA actively worked to destabilize Allende’s government, to prevent the spread of socialism during the Cold War. The Chilean case remains a powerful symbol of how U.S. actions can have devastating consequences for the sovereignty and stability of other nations.

In the Middle East, the U.S. has also faced longstanding accusations of meddling in domestic politics. The 1953 coup in Iran, which toppled Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalized the country’s oil industry, was directly orchestrated by the CIA and British intelligence. This intervention, driven by fears of losing Western control over Iranian oil, set the stage for decades of tension between Iran and the West. Even today, the legacy of this coup continues to fuel Iranian distrust of U.S. intentions in the region.

Similar allegations have emerged in other parts of the world, including in Venezuela, where President Nicolás Maduro has frequently accused the U.S. of trying to overthrow his government. The Trump administration’s support for opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the legitimate president of Venezuela in 2019 was widely viewed as an attempt at regime change. This move drew international criticism, with many seeing it as yet another example of the U.S. using its influence to shape the political landscape of another nation.

In Ukraine, the 2014 Maidan Revolution, which led to the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych, has also been framed by some as a U.S.-backed coup. While the official narrative emphasizes the popular uprising against corruption, Russian authorities and certain analysts argue that U.S. support for the opposition was a critical factor in Yanukovych’s downfall. This interpretation has contributed to the ongoing geopolitical tensions between Russia and the West, with Ukraine caught in the middle.

Sheikh Hasina’s claims fit into this broader pattern of countries accusing the U.S. of interference, whether through direct military intervention, covert operations, or political pressure. The situation in Bangladesh, however, is unique in its own right. As a key player in South Asia, Bangladesh occupies a strategically important position in the Bay of Bengal, making it a focal point for global powers. Throughout her tenure, Hasina carefully balanced relationships with India, China, and the U.S., but her recent allegations suggest that this balancing act may have come at a cost.

The emergence of Muhammad Yunus, a Nobel laureate, as the leader of the interim government in Bangladesh adds another layer of complexity to the situation. Yunus’s role is ostensibly to oversee the transition to a new administration through upcoming elections, but his elevation has raised questions about the extent to which external forces might be shaping the future of Bangladesh. Hasina’s supporters argue that Yunus’s involvement is indicative of foreign influence, particularly given his well-established connections with Western institutions.

As this situation continues to evolve, the debate over U.S. involvement in Bangladesh will likely persist, both within the country and in international circles. For Hasina, the narrative of foreign intervention aligns with a broader discourse on national sovereignty and the right of countries to determine their own futures without external interference. Whether her claims are fully substantiated or not, they serve as a reminder of the deep-seated suspicions that many nations harbour regarding U.S. intentions, particularly in geopolitically sensitive regions.

Sheikh Hasina’s allegations are not just about a personal political loss; they reflect the wider tensions that arise when smaller nations feel caught between global powers. The U.S. has consistently denied playing any role in her downfall, but the broader context of its history of involvement in regime changes worldwide casts a long shadow. As Bangladesh moves forward, the reverberations of these claims will be felt not only in Dhaka but across the broader geopolitical landscape, where questions of sovereignty, influence, and power continue to shape the destinies of nations.