Russell’s Warning and Bangladesh’s Search for Economic Sovereignty
Nearly a century ago, Bertrand Russell wrote about the danger that economic power could undermine the substance of political independence.
In The Problem of China, published in 1922, he warned that if foreign financial interests gained excessive influence, a country might retain the outward appearance of political freedom while losing control over important aspects of its economic life.
Russell was writing about China in a very different historical context. His observations cannot simply be transferred to twenty-first-century Bangladesh.
Yet the question behind his argument remains relevant: Can political sovereignty be fully meaningful when a country becomes excessively dependent on external economic power?
For Bangladesh, this question deserves renewed attention amid its expanding economic relationship with the United States and continuing concerns about its trade relationship with India.
The American Trade Question
Bangladesh and the United States signed an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade on 9 February 2026.
Under the agreement, Bangladesh committed to provide significant preferential market access for a range of U.S. industrial and agricultural products.
The United States, meanwhile, set a 19 per cent reciprocal tariff rate on originating Bangladeshi goods, while providing for zero reciprocal tariffs on specified products.
The agreement also includes provisions concerning textiles and apparel, non-tariff barriers, labour rights, customs procedures, agriculture and investment.
The agreement has understandably generated different reactions in Bangladesh. Supporters can point to improved access to the American market, greater opportunities for trade and investment, and a potentially more predictable bilateral economic relationship.
Critics have raised questions about the concessions made by Bangladesh and their possible long-term implications.
The issue should not be reduced to slogans. The practical questions are more important: Will Bangladeshi exports become more competitive? Will domestic industries acquire technology and skills? Will employment and wages improve? Will the agreement promote diversification, or make Bangladesh more dependent on a major external market?
These are the questions that bring Russell’s old warning into contemporary focus.
Economic Power and Political Sovereignty
Foreign trade and investment do not automatically constitute economic domination. Bangladesh needs capital, technology, markets and international cooperation.
Foreign investment can create employment, improve productivity and connect domestic producers with international supply chains.
The problem arises when alternatives become too limited.
A country that depends excessively on one market for exports, one supplier for essential inputs, one source of energy, or one group of creditors may become vulnerable to external shocks and pressures.
Economic sovereignty, therefore, does not mean isolation. It means having sufficient productive strength and diversified international relationships to make national choices without excessive dependence on any single external power.
India and Regional Dependence
The same principle applies to Bangladesh’s relationship with India.
Geography makes extensive economic relations between the two countries natural and mutually beneficial.
India is an important source of cotton, yarn, fabrics, machinery, food products and other industrial inputs.
Many Bangladeshi manufacturers depend on these supplies because they are competitive and readily available.
At the same time, the trade imbalance remains substantial. According to National Board of Revenue data, Bangladesh imported goods worth about 1.75 billion.
A trade deficit by itself does not prove economic domination. It can reflect differences in productive capacity, domestic demand, geography and industrial requirements. Bangladesh’s manufacturers also benefit from access to Indian raw materials.
The more important question is whether Bangladesh can strengthen its own productive capacity and expand its exports so that the relationship becomes increasingly balanced and mutually beneficial.
Neither Anti-American nor Anti-Indian
Russell’s argument should not be turned into an argument against America or India.
Bangladesh needs economic relationships with the United States, India, China, Japan, the European Union, the Gulf countries and many others.
The United States is a major export market, while India is an important regional economic partner and supplier of industrial inputs.
The sensible objective is therefore not to choose one major power against another. It is to avoid excessive dependence on any single power.
A diversified network of economic relationships gives a country greater room for manoeuvre.
The more alternatives Bangladesh has in trade, investment, technology, energy and finance, the greater its capacity to negotiate on the basis of national interest.
From Cheap Labour to Human Capital
Russell’s concern about long working hours and low wages also has relevance to Bangladesh’s development experience.
Bangladesh has achieved remarkable export success through labour-intensive manufacturing, particularly the ready-made garment industry. But the next stage of development cannot depend indefinitely on low wages.
The country needs to move from cheap labour to skilled labour, from low-value production to higher-value manufacturing and services, and from dependence on imported technology towards greater domestic technological capability.
That requires sustained investment in education, technical training, research, innovation, infrastructure and institutional quality.
Bangladesh should seek to become competitive not simply because its workers are inexpensive, but because they are skilled, productive and capable of producing increasingly sophisticated goods and services.
Economic Sovereignty Through Diversification
Bangladesh’s strategic objective should therefore be diversification.
It should diversify export products and destinations, sources of energy and technology, investment partners and, above all, productive capacity.
Expanding pharmaceuticals, agro-processing, leather, engineering, information technology and other higher-value sectors alongside garments would reduce excessive dependence on any particular industry or market.
At the same time, strengthening domestic production of inputs that are now imported can improve economic resilience where such production is efficient and internationally competitive.
This is not autarky. It is strategic openness.
A Different Meaning of Independence
The meaning of national independence has evolved. In the colonial era, independence primarily meant freedom from foreign political rule. Today, political sovereignty remains essential, but economic capability is equally important.
A country may possess a flag, parliament and sovereign government while remaining vulnerable if it lacks the capacity to finance development, produce essential goods, compete internationally and withstand external economic shocks.
That is why Russell’s argument remains worth considering. It should not be interpreted as a prediction that America, India or any other power will control Bangladesh. Nor should it be used to justify hostility towards foreign trade and investment.
Its enduring lesson is simpler: economic relationships are also relationships of power.
Bangladesh should therefore welcome international partnership without surrendering economic judgement.
It should trade with India while strengthening its domestic productive capacity. It should expand economic ties with the United States, China, Japan, Europe and the Gulf while avoiding the replacement of one dependency with another.
The ultimate objective should not be alignment with one great power or hostility towards another. It should be Bangladesh’s capacity to make its own economic choices.
Nearly a century after Russell examined the relationship between financial power and political independence, his question still deserves attention.
For Bangladesh, political sovereignty must be reinforced by economic capability. Only then can international cooperation become a partnership among equals.
(The writer is a columnist and the Advisory Editor of The New Nation)
