When a official visit is shortened by one party or a program is unilaterally canceled, everyone—from the general public to diplomats—can read the underlying language of this behavior. They assume that whatever the objective of the visit was, it fell short somewhere. Thus, this conduct serves as a polite way of conveying that message.

However, this never means that diplomacy or bilateral relations come to a halt. For instance, a BNP leader recently asked, “India helped us in everything regarding this election, starting from our leader's return, and they even worked through some Hindu leaders so that Hindus would vote for us. Even after all this, why are they still allowing Hasina to engage in politics?” It feels almost refreshing when a politician displays such innocence. If nothing else, he is practicing politics with the heart of a simple child. At any rate, I replied to him that during Atal Bihari Vajpayee's tenure, a war was ongoing with Pakistan on one hand, while the India-Pakistan bus service was operational on the other.

During his recent visit to Bangladesh, Sergio Gor, the US President’s Special Envoy for South and Central Asia appointed as Ambassador to India, cut short several scheduled programs. Nevertheless, he invited Bangladesh to join the "Pax Silica" initiative. Pax Silica is an American-led supply chain network centered around semiconductors, AI, and critical minerals—some of the most vital elements for today's world and the world of tomorrow. It has been formed by a coalition of countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, the Netherlands, Australia, and later joined by India, among others.

I realized back in 2022 or 2023, while attending an economic connectivity conference in India's Northeast, that Bangladesh would eventually need to move toward joining such an alliance. The Japanese Ambassador to India (who was also accredited to Nepal) was essentially a key figure at that conference. During a brief exchange of pleasantries with him, I gathered from just a few words that the connection between Japan's massive investment in the development of India's Northeast and Bangladesh's Matarbari Deep Sea Port was immensely significant. He was a seasoned diplomat; when I referred to the Matarbari Deep Sea Port as a major "game changer" for this region in my speech, he merely repeated it with a subtle shift in his facial expression, conveying a great deal and making the matter even easier to grasp.

Ever since World War II, just as America bound Japan and South Korea closely to itself, Japan—an exceptionally intelligent and industrious nation—also mastered how to move forward in tandem with the United States.

Therefore, Sergio Gor’s invitation is naturally a continuation of the efforts over the past decade to explore and advance the economic potential in this region. However, it can be assumed that Sergio Gor had to state this anew because changes have occurred in Bangladeshi politics over the past two years. Many things have shifted away from the focal point of economics and politics—or have taken a different trajectory altogether. On the other hand, before Sergio Gor invited Bangladesh to become a partner in this alliance, Bangladesh had already decided to join WAICO—a similar initiative led by China—as an observer. That alliance includes prominent nations such as Russia, Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, and South Africa, alongside 29 other countries including Pakistan, Oman, and Myanmar.

Although Bangladesh took this decision earlier, Sergio Gor still extended the invitation to join Pax Silica, which is fundamentally a continuation of the regional connectivity anchored around Matarbari and the surrounding area.

Of course, another dynamic emerges here, even if subtly. During his recent visit to China, Trump repeatedly emphasized the G-2 (i.e., Great Two) policy in line with his vision. In essence, Trump seeks a return to a two-superpower world similar to the past era of the Soviet Union and America, with the two superpowers now being America and China.

Following Trump's visit, statements from the Chinese Foreign Minister, editorials and key op-eds in the Beijing Review, Global Times, and People's Daily, alongside writings by Chinese think tanks in various Southeast Asian journals, strongly suggested that Trump's G-2 formula is by no means the policy of Xi Jinping. Their assertions echo the views of realistic contemporary think tanks. The wars in Iran and Ukraine have demonstrated that not only have the definitions of military power and economic strength changed, but a new reality has also come to light: it is no longer possible to confine today's world into one or two poles. Rather, the time has come for every nation—even smaller states—to identify its own core strength. Failing to do so could lead to a fate like that of the Caribbean island nation of Saint Kitts and Nevis, which has effectively become a hub for international crypto players and lacks true sovereignty in that sense. It is even reported that many young crypto enthusiasts from Bangladesh have moved there over the past two years. A similar plight has befallen certain countries in Africa, Latin America, and a few Pacific island nations. The primary cause behind this silent loss of sovereignty in these countries is uneducated, incompetent leadership and a lack of sound political governance.

That Bangladesh currently suffers from a lack of sound politics became evident from the Chinese Ambassador's statement on the 3rd. He noted that Bangladesh requires "political unity and stability." Stating that it is a "necessity" inherently implies that there is a shortage of both.

In diplomacy and politics, what is explicitly stated or written by think tanks on their behalf is not always the final word. China claims it does not believe in the G-2 concept; however, that does not mean they will completely eschew G-2 dynamics everywhere. In reality, context, timing, and circumstances always play a role.

Thus, it is quite natural for an observer to piece together the puzzle under a G-2 framework by placing Sergio Gor’s curtailed visit side-by-side with the Chinese Ambassador's emphasis on the necessity of political unity and stability in Bangladesh.

At present, the political forces operating in Bangladesh are Jamaat, BNP, and NCP. They are essentially aligned or natural allies, sharing deep unity or common roots. Why then is the Chinese Ambassador calling for political unity? Whom does this inclusive politics or unity encompass? Regardless of what the government or their natural allies claim, nations with investments in Bangladesh or those to whom Bangladesh holds geopolitical importance have realized one thing: keeping the Awami League and its alliance away from political activities effectively excludes more than 50% of the population from the current political unity.

Furthermore, five months have passed right before the eyes of those who provided all forms of support to bring BNP to power. A clearer picture, even if on a small scale, has emerged regarding how much BNP can deliver on critical issues like the economy, connectivity, and internal security regarding dangerous 'militancy.'

Rather, observing the BNP's actions over the past few days, culminating in Foreign Advisor Humayun Kabir’s recent appeal to Indian Ambassador and Central Minister Dinesh Trivedi to halt Sheikh Hasina's political activities, makes it apparent that Sheikh Hasina remains the primary focal point for the BNP and its natural allies. In many respects, this issue appears to be causing them a degree of panic.

There are, of course, logical reasons for this. For instance, the current Prime Minister and BNP leader, Tarique Rahman, lived in exile in London for 17 years. He was also convicted by Sheikh Hasina's government. Yet, he never stated that he would return to the country to face that conviction directly. Even after August 5, 2024, he did not return immediately. Instead, surrounding his mother's passing, he shared on Facebook that his return to the country did not depend solely on his own decision.

In contrast, while Tarique Rahman received a life sentence, Sheikh Hasina faces a death sentence. Yet, despite carrying a death penalty over her head, Sheikh Hasina provided a deadline within a year and a half, announcing her intention to return to the country. It is clear and factually grounded to many, including the government, that Sheikh Hasina's return to the country is now merely a matter of time. Moreover, Sheikh Hasina is a battle-hardened politician. Regardless of the public deadline she gives, she will likely aim to return even earlier. As her return becomes increasingly certain, the Foreign Advisor's direct request—backed by statements from the State Minister for Foreign Affairs—asking the Indian government to stop Hasina's political activities has rendered Sheikh Hasina even more central to Bangladeshi politics.

A question may arise as to why Tarique Rahman did not wish to return during those seventeen years, and why the BNP and its natural allies are so apprehensive about Sheikh Hasina's return. In reality, the political party led by Tarique Rahman belongs to a category of protective political organizations. They originate under the protection of state power and thrive or remain active on the political field with external backing. Conversely, political parties like the Awami League have emerged through the rugged trials of street politics. Consequently, the extent to which its leaders and activists are willing to risk their lives is difficult to gauge for politicians and analysts accustomed to stable environments, as well as for protected parties like the BNP.

Regardless, alongside the broader picture of Sergio Gor's visit and the Chinese Ambassador's statements, political unity and stability in Bangladesh emerge above all else as the paramount imperative.

Although Sheikh Hasina maintained stability in the country during her tenure, extreme fundamentalism ultimately could not be fended off, and those fundamentalist forces damaged the nation's infrastructure, industries, and state institutions. Far from stopping there, the overall economic indicators of the country have continually declined following the fall of Sheikh Hasina's government.

At such a juncture, countries holding investments here will naturally demand political unity and stability. Learning lessons from the elections of 2018 and 2024 under Sheikh Hasina, as well as the February 12, 2026 election, they recognize that putting Bangladesh back on its core track without a free and inclusive election is nearly impossible. It is precisely at this crossroads that Bangladesh stands today.

Author: Swadesh Roy, Highest State Award-Winning Journalist; Editor, Sarabangla and The Present World.