Mohammd B. Rana, PhD :
The recent decision to internationalize three major container terminals in Bangladesh has sharply divided public opinion.
While business communities have welcomed the move as essential for enhancing logistics efficiency, political parties and port labour groups have adopted a defensive and regressive stance.
The first project involves the proposed green container terminal at Laldia, where Denmark’s AP Møller is set to invest nearly USD 550 million as greenfield FDI to construct South Asia’s first 100% green container terminal by 2030.
Located on an unused river island near the Karnaphuli in Chattogram, the terminal promises world-class technology, high safety standards, and renewable energy integration.
The second initiative concerns the New Mooring container terminal on the Karnaphuli River, already built but now handed over to DP World of the UAE for operational management. DP World plans to invest nearly USD 1 billion to upgrade systems and elevate handling efficiency to global standards.
The third investment, by Switzerland’s MSC Group, aims to expand and operate the inland container terminal at Pangaon beside the Dhaka-Mawa-Bhanga Expressway.
This development will shift freight movement from congested highways to low-emission inland waterways, significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving logistics performance.
Collectively, these three terminals will reshape Bangladesh’s export ecosystem beyond 2030, aligning it with the European Union’s carbon-neutral supply chain requirements.
Where Is the Debate Going Wrong?
Instead of informed and fact-based dialogue, we are witnessing political rhetoric, emotional sloganeering, and fear-driven narratives. Professors, political elites, and labour unions have opposed these investments without offering a single academic rationale for how such internationalization could harm the nation-or what superior alternative exists. Their claims follow a predictable script: foreigners will own our ports, national security will be compromised, and workers will lose jobs. But do these arguments withstand scrutiny?
Understanding the Logic of Internationalization
Internationalization of strategic assets and logistics infrastructure has been central to global business since the 1950s. Firms invest abroad for three core reasons:
1. Asset/Resource Seeking – to access strategic materials or lower-cost skills (e.g., global fashion brands sourcing from Bangladesh).
2. Strategic Advantage Seeking – to secure logistics efficiencies, optimal locations, and green supply chains.
3. Market Seeking – to expand sales in new geographies.
These principles drive the competitiveness of advanced economies-from Europe and the United States to Japan, China, Singapore, and Australia. Why should Bangladesh assume these global business dynamics do not apply to us?
Why These Investments Matter
AP Møller, a 100% foundation-owned conglomerate rather than a traditional profit-maximizing enterprise, is investing in Laldia to ensure that Danish and EU supply chains remain compliant with the 2030 carbon-neutrality mandate. Without green ports and renewable logistics, EU buyers will eventually be forced to divert sourcing away from Bangladesh.
Crucially, AP Møller does not own any Bangladeshi land. Bangladesh retains full ownership of the terminal and receives per-container fees for 30 years. During this period, Bangladeshi engineers, technicians, and managers will gain world-class operational skills. In return, the country acquires green infrastructure and vital know-how-without bearing the investment cost.
DP World’s management of New Mooring and MSC’s inland logistics investment follow the same logic: replacing outdated systems, eliminating inefficiencies, and bringing in modern technology, all of which are prerequisites for a 21st-century export economy where efficiency and sustainability are the central focus.
Why Efficiency Matters: A Reality Check
These figures show why efficiency, not emotion, determines competitiveness. We cannot aspire to global leadership while operating with 1980’s port logic, which demonstrates higher turnaround time,higher operational cost, and lower efficiency compared to our nearest competitor Vietnam.
Debunking the Myths
Myth 1: Foreigners will own our ports
In correct. Bangladesh retains land and asset ownership. Foreign firms manage operations under time-bound concessions-exactly how ports in Greece, Belgium, India, Morocco, the UK, and the Netherlands operate.
Myth 2: National security is at risk
Security agencies, not foreign firms, control intelligence, surveillance, and customs data. If data was the concern, then Facebook, Google, and YouTube pose a far greater risk than AP Møller or DP World or MSC.
Myth 3: Workers will lose jobs
Laldia and Pangaon create many new jobs. Workers will be trained in advanced technologies. Skill renewal, not political patronage, must determine employment.
Myth 4: Interim government cannot take such decisions
The current setup emerged from a mass movement against corruption and politicization. For instance, if constitutional reforms by this government are legitimate, why not make infrastructure decisions crucial for economic survival?
The Way Forward: Bangladesh at a Crossroads
Three strategic actions are essential:
1. Establish joint training programs between port operators and institutions like the Marine Academy/University to build local capability, making sure that the technology and management knowledge are absorbed by the Bangladeshi institutions.
2. Gradually nationalize management expertise-not through force, but through learning-so Bangladesh can operate green terminals independently with renewable energy systems.
3. Enact a Data Protection Act ensuring all port-generated data remains on sovereign servers located in Bangladesh.
Closing doors due to fear is not nationalism; it is insecurity. True patriotism lies in harnessing global knowledge, capital, and technology to strengthen Bangladesh. Bangladesh is now standing at the intersection of history. We either embrace the inevitable transition to green logistics and global integration-or consign ourselves to irrelevance.
The choice is simple: Do we want a Bangladesh that competes with Yangshan, China, and Cai Mep in Vietnam, or one that keeps debating while the world moves ahead? Let us choose wisely. Let us put Bangladesh First, not in slogans, but in strategy.
[Author is Associate Professor of International Business and Strategy at Aalborg University Business School, Denmark, and Director of the Sustainability Lab, AAUBS]
