We know that a garment item manufactured by a factory near Dhaka costs many times higher when sold at a Western retail store. Without this cheaper supply chain connected to Asia, the fast fashion consumers of, say, the United States would have to purchase a shirt for $60-100, instead of paying $15-20 for the same quality product made in Bangladesh.
Former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra once said in Dhaka that the Asians are subsidizing Western consumption who benefit from the pains of the Asian labour forces who, out of helplessness, must offer the so-called “competitive prices.”
Donald Trump is one of those beneficiaries, and yet his trade representatives are raising concerns of "forced labour" in Bangladesh (and 59 other economies) and the possibility of an additional 10% duty on Bangladeshi goods.
It’s amusing how, for enjoying goods of cheaper prices, Westerners have taken advantage of the same capitalist mode of production. Yet now, the same Westerners are calling it exploitative.
In an honest scenario, American buyers should have paid much higher prices of RMG products along with a condition that the workers must be given the share of the surplus (value addition) from the export proceeds.
The relevant section (301) of Trade Act as the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) refers to, while putting forward the allegation of "forced labor" grants the authority “to investigate and take retaliatory action against foreign trade practices that are unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and burden US commerce.”
A moralist would question that if the USTR-proposed 10% duty comes into effect, and trade is done accordingly, will the punitive tariff justify the "forced labour" phenomenon in Asian factories?
Should the duty be imposed, Bangladeshi exports to the US will suffer and so will the RMG sector that employs millions.
The Trump administration had in 2025 slapped a 37% “reciprocal duty,” which Bangladesh's interim government managed to bring down to 20% through certain negotiated deals such as the national flag carrier Biman Bangladesh Airlines signing a $3.7 billion agreement with US giant Boeing to purchase new aircraft despite Bangladesh's own balance of payments deficit.
Dhaka also signed an Agreement on Reciprocal Tariffs (ART) with Washington DC in February this year. Under this agreement, the US reduced the reciprocal tariff on Bangladeshi goods to 19% with conditions while Bangladesh committed to provide preferential market access for a range of American agricultural products including poultry that are considered sensitive and not competitive.
Apparently to maintain contract sanctity, Bangladesh has proposed tariff reduction in the 2026-27 budget to be passed in late June. America, the single largest destination of Bangladesh's RMG exports, proposed the punitive 10% duty, a move on which the public hearing is scheduled to be held on 7 July.
Should we assume this to be a sample of Trumpian reciprocity, or an action guided by America's geopolitical thinking of forcing smaller powers to make concessions on matters of their national interests?
The decline of other powers for pursuing imperialist policies in the past might not have been comprehended by the corporate mind of Trump. He, however, took a realistic lesson from the resistance of Iran and made an economic decision by trying to end the war in the Persian Gulf.
The ART is, though, a first major bilateral agreement of its kind. Bangladesh will not be allowed to take countervailing tariffs against the US products in case they harm Bangladeshi industries concerned. Dhaka can theoretically come out of ART and any such agreement for that matter, but the political hegemony, for which the recent "reciprocal" agreements with different countries were signed, will still be there in the minds of the businessmen, officials, and leaders of countries like Bangladesh.
On Bangladesh's part, the problems include a narrow export basket with RMG accounting for over 80% of the exports, over-dependence on the American market, and a series of domestic constraints that lead to poor bargaining by exporters and the government alike.
However, Dhaka can negotiate and re-negotiate with Washington or any other counterpart as well to pursue goals of enhancing trade and attracting foreign investment in fair and equitable terms.
Domestically, too, the government of Bangladesh should undertake concrete initiatives to diversify exports by incentivizing entrepreneurs in potential sectors, addressing infrastructure and regulatory deficiencies, and ensuring compliance with legal, humanitarian and environmental standards followed elsewhere.
Bangladesh should make improvements in the areas where it lags behind, based on its homegrown initiatives, not enforced ones, to assert its positions internationally.
It is high time Bangladesh strengthened its economic backbone by attaining genuine and just competitiveness of its products to trade with other nations.
Khawaza Main Uddin is a journalist.