Bangladesh’s decision to purchase Boeing aircraft under its agreement with the United States raises a fundamental question: did Biman Bangladesh Airlines need these aircraft at this stage, given the airline’s operational weaknesses, financial condition and the country’s broader fiscal pressures?
This question was not debated sufficiently before the decision was taken.
Bangladesh is facing pressure in managing foreign exchange reserves and financing energy imports. In such a situation, every major foreign currency commitment requires careful assessment of necessity, affordability and expected economic returns.
The Boeing purchase was linked to the broader reciprocal trade agreement with the United States, which was signed shortly before the national election.
However, this was not a conventional trade agreement.
A normal trade agreement is expected to be consistent with the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO). But a commitment requiring Bangladesh to purchase specific products from a particular country does not align with the principles of a rules-based trade system.
The reality is that the global trade order itself is changing. The United States has increasingly moved away from the WTO framework, weakening the effectiveness of the multilateral system.
The reciprocal trade arrangement was largely an outcome of unequal negotiations between a major economic power and a developing country.
We are now living in a geopolitically charged global environment where equal, rules-based negotiations are becoming increasingly difficult, especially when dealing with a superpower such as the US.
The reciprocal tariffs imposed by the United States, which pushed many countries, including Bangladesh, towards such arrangements, have also faced legal challenges.
The US Supreme Court has declared the tariff mechanism unconstitutional.
These measures have also been questioned over their consistency with WTO rules.
The WTO was created to ensure that trade disputes could be resolved through an agreed process. Countries could challenge trade measures through dispute settlement panels and, if necessary, seek review from the Appellate Body.
However, since 2019, the Appellate Body has effectively become dysfunctional after the United States blocked the nomination of judges.
In a fully functioning rules-based system, competitors such as Airbus could raise concerns over an unsolicited Boeing purchase through appropriate trade dispute mechanisms.
However, in today’s reality, their options are limited. They may raise such issues through platforms such as US Trade Policy Review meetings, which take place every two years.
The reciprocal trade agreement itself included provisions allowing countries to exit the arrangement under certain conditions. The original justification behind the agreement has now weakened, yet countries such as Bangladesh continue to proceed with commitments made under it.
This highlights the broader challenge facing developing economies. In an increasingly fragmented global trade environment, countries need stronger internal assessments, better negotiation capacity and clearer strategies to protect national economic interests.
International agreements should ultimately be judged by one question: do they create sustainable benefits for the economy and its people?
Author is the Chairman, Research and Policy Integration for Development
