There’s a perception among some in the Alt-Media Community (AMC) that the US-backed regime change in Bangladesh was aimed at containing China, but that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. For starters, it was explained here how Bangladesh cultivated closer trade and military ties with China than with India under former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, which are so tight that Dhaka would inflict tremendous damage upon its own interests if it tried to “decouple” from Beijing. The US can’t easily replace China’s role.
While some “recalibration” might occur, it’ll likely be done gradually and might not end up being a long-term policy, but rather some superficial moves made under US pressure. The second point is that even the US’ possible obtainment of a base in St. Martin Island wouldn’t adversely affect China all that much. It’s not in close enough proximity to the Strait of Malacca to make a difference, plus the US already has access to Singapore’s bases till 2035, which are much more relevant for such containment scenarios.
As for the third point, some in the AMC believe that American influence in Bangladesh could enable Washington to simultaneously undermine the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) Corridor and the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC), but things once again aren’t as simple as they seem. The BCIM never took off since India refused to join China’s Belt & Road Initiative, while parts of CMEC are now under the control of anti-government forces in Myanmar that Naypyidaw considers to be terrorists.
Interestingly enough, China has political relations with some of these same groups and even mediated a now-defunct ceasefire between them and the central government at the beginning of the year, but they’re still considered to be more pro-Western than pro-Chinese. CMEC’s future is therefore dependent on the outcome of the latest phase of Myanmar’s decades-long civil war, which is the longest-running one in the world. US influence in Bangladesh can shape part of the conflict, but not its main dynamics.
The reality is that India is most adversely affected by the US-backed regime change in Bangladesh, not China. The replacement of friendly political forces with traditionally adversarial ones could lead to Bangladesh once again hosting Delhi-designated terrorists-separatists for destabilizing India’s diverse Northeast States that have been the scene of multiple insurgencies since independence. A politically unfriendly Bangladesh could also rescind Hasina’s agreement for Indian transit rights to the Northeast.
An American base in St. Martin Island could play a crucial role in clandestinely organizing a Bangladesh-based surge of terrorist-separatism there too as revenge for India’s refusal to distance itself from Russia. No equivalent Hybrid War scenario against China is possible from Bangladesh, but something similar could occur from Myanmar if its anti-government forces fully fell under US influence, ergo why China retains political ties with some of them and has unsuccessfully tried to mediate in the conflict.
Considering this, the AMC should correct its claim that the US-backed regime change in Bangladesh was aimed at containing China and focus its efforts on explaining why this move was actually aimed at containing India instead. Chinese interests won’t be too adversely affected by the coup, but India’s might soon be seriously threatened. Judging by how they just ridiculously lied that India was responsible for the latest floods, bilateral ties will likely continue deteriorating while those with China still remain strong.
