“In Syria Al Qaeda is on our side!” – Barack Obama’s Assistant National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan in and email to then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton
<EDITORS>
One of the most controversial first acts of the Trump administration has been the merger of USAID (United States Agency for International Development) with the US State Department. An ostensibly independent agency, previously funded in large part by the State Department and other entities that as arms of American foreign policy and the US global intelligence apparatus, the move exposes what many have believed for long – that USAID is hardly an independent agency but rather a wing of the American clandestine services led by the CIA.
Most recently, behind the scenes, in Bangladesh, USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and other US State Department-funded NGOs, operating under the guise of promoting democratic reforms, have played pivotal roles in steering the political landscape of Bangladesh away from the democratic choices of its people, pushing it toward a trajectory aligned with broader US geopolitical interests. Inextricably linked to the apparatus of American foreign policy—often subtly orchestrated by US intelligence agencies—these organizations transcend their purported roles as neutral promoters of human rights, instead acting as tools of imperial ambition, entangled with powerful foreign actors such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, all conspiring to reshape the balance of power in the region.
Sheikh Hasina’s ominous account of a ‘white man’ tempting her with an offer in a speech to Awami League workers following the colour revolution that ousted her in 2024 is a prime example of just how the United States exerts its imperialist agenda throughout the world. Hasina told workers that she “could have remained in power if I had left St. Martin and the Bay of Bengal to America,” having been approached by an agent of the United States to permit the US to build a military base on the strategically located island in The Bay of Bengal. The island would have given the US a prime vantage point in monitoring and influencing the maritime activities of China, including potentially choking off supplies to that country in a time of conflict.
The mainly coral island of ecological importance has a population of roughly twenty-six thousand people whose livelihoods rely upon fishing in the Bay of Bengal. Research by the Bangladesh Department of Environment (DoE), with the assistance of the UNDP, demonstrates that the island has a number of ecosystems, including coral-rich areas, mangroves, lagoons and stony areas. The island is a safe haven to various species of fauna. The presence of 153 species of sea weeds, 66 species of coral, 187 species of oysters, 240 species of fish, 120 species of birds, 29 species of reptiles and 29 species of mammals were recorded at the St Martin’s Island in 2010. It is Bangladesh’s only coral island with reefs from 10-15 km to the west and northwest of the island. It is also a breeding ground for sea turtles. The area in vicinity has been declared as a Marine Protected Area in 2022.
Not only would the natural habitat of the island be destroyed by construction of a military base but the inhabitants of the island are either of Bengali or Rakhine origin (which is a south-east Asian community, which also inhabits Myanmar). Although considered Burmese by most, the Rakhine community has long been influenced by India being settlers from communities who continue to in the Indian states of West Bengal, Tripura, and Mizoram. The community practices Buddhism and constitute a recognized minority community in Bangladesh. These people would have to be displaced by a US military base in a similar fashion as what happened to the people in the people of the Chagos Archipelago near the Island of Mauritius when, from 1965-73, the British and Americans forced an entire Indigenous people, the Chagossians, from their homes.
Hasina did not want the same thing to happen to St. Martin’s Island, and she was wary of what the reaction might be from China with whom her military chief was cultivating a closer relationship.
Shortly after her refusal, the so-called indigenous uprising of students against the Awami league began.
Indeed, India Today, reported in February that Former US State Department official Mike Benz has made “explosive claims” that USAID and affiliated organizations orchestrated efforts to undermine the Bangladeshi government in a bid to secure American strategic interests.
In the article, Benz laid out a scenario that perfectly mirrors what happened in Bangladesh: “Let’s say it is vital to US national interest to build a military base in Bangladesh to counter China but the Bangladeshi Prime Minister refuses. Our foreign policy planners then decide that regime-change in necessary,” Benze told publication.
In this scenario, Benz said that “all options to destabilize the country” are mobilized ranging from backing the opposition to instigating a colour revolution – a reference to US-backed uprisings where leaders have been forced to leave sometimes hastily in helicopters, a scene eerily analogous to Hasina’s retreat from Bangladesh.
Indeed, according the The Grayzone, leaked documents reviewed by the publication confirm the State Department was informed of efforts by the International Republican Institute (IRI) to action mobilize a plan to “destabilize Bangladesh’s politics.” It added that the leaked documents were marked ‘confidential and/or privileged’ and notes that IRI is a subsidiary of the NED, which has “fueled an array of regime change operations across the globe since it was conceived in the office of CIA Director William Casey over forty years ago.”
The IRI’s had been active in Bangladesh since the early 2000s, creating a shadowy infrastructure of groups that could influence and interfere with the governance of Bangladesh. However, it wasn’t until Hasina’s electoral victory in 2019 that their activities kicked into high gear. Writes the Grayzone: “IRI staff… identified over 170 democratic activists who would cooperate with IRI to destabilize Bangladesh’s politics,” quoting an IRI report which was submitted to the State Department.
The Grayzone continues: “This July, Bangladeshi media celebrated a barrister and Bangla rap artist named Toufique Ahmed as an influential face and voice of the protest movement to topple Hasina, touting his offer of free legal support to protesters arrested during the demonstrations.
IRI documents reveal that Ahmed’s music has been directly subsidized by the US government. According to the Institute’s files, Ahmed “released the first of two music videos under IRI’s small grants program, “Tui Parish” (You Can Do It),” in 2020.”
“IRI was particularly proud of the fact that its Bangladesh “art program… contributed to American cultural diplomacy in Bangladesh.” By funding local hip-hop artists, “IRI promoted a uniquely American art form,” the group noted. The US has a long history of weaponizing music for soft power purposes, stretching from the CIA’s co-optation of jazz in the 1950s to USAID’s deployment of anti-communist rappers as agents against Cuba’s present-day government.”
The US organization also co-opted the LGBTQ community sponsoring queer and transgender activities. The latter included a dance performance in Dhaka funder by IRI and watched by members of the United States Embassy.
Indeed, according to its report to the state department, the IRI “issued 11 advocacy grants to artists, musicians, performers or organizations that created 225 art products addressing political and social issues,” which it claimed were “viewed nearly 400,000 times.” Additionally, the Institute bragged that it “supported three civil society organizations (CSOs) from LGBTI, Bihari and ethnic communities to train 77 activists and engage 326 citizens to develop 43 specific policy demands,” which were apparently “proposed before 65 government officials.”
The goal was to mobilize these previously disenfranchised groups to achieve a “power-shift” in Bangladesh away from the ruling Awami League.
Why mobilize the youth in this matter instead of supporting the BNP, which is the main opposition to the Awami League? The IRI’s 2020 final report explains: “The BNP has also failed to successfully mobilize opposition. Since the 2018 election, the BNP political strategy has shifted between boycotting and joining elections while trying to foment street movements against the government. None of these tactics have worked. The BNP remains marginal, and the AL’s [Awami League’s] power is undiminished. However, the BNP is still the most possible party to drive [a] power shift in the future.”
So, it should then come as no surprise that the preferred replacement for Sheikh Hasina was not the official opposition – but an unelected actor long close to US interests. Muhammad Yunus, who had fled the country amidst hundreds of corruption cases lodged against him was dropped in to replace Hasina, being a long-time Clinton Global Initiative fellow who is personally close to the Clintons and Obamas, and granted a Nobel Prize for pioneering micro-lending, which has since been characterized as a form of loan-sharking. Some of the complaints against him, which include embezzlement lending money to rich relatives come from within Grameen Bank, the micro-lending institution that he had established in order to give small loans to poor people.
Yunnus has since established a subsidiary of the bank in the United States called Grameen America, which received a $1.5 million from the influential Trust Foundation, which is the result of a merger of two banks that took place in the 1800s. This exemplifies how entrenched Yunnus is with the levers of finance and power in American society.
Grameen bank has been accused of trapping poor people in a debt trap out of which it is virtually impossible to escape with interest rates as high as 30% in some instances, making the bank simply an institutional loan-shark. In November 2010, a Danish documentary filmmaker named Tom Heinemann released The Micro Debt, which aired on Norwegian television. The documentary alleged that Grameen took advantage of its borrowers, engaged in aggressive collection practices, and misallocated aid funding from the Norwegian government. Investigations such as this led to cases being lodged against Yunnus and his enmity with Sheikh Hasina, his blaming her for the wave of criticism under which he was doused.
USAID and NED: Advocates of the Poor and Guardians of Democracy or Fronts for the CIA?
USAID and NED, while often portrayed as organizations committed to advancing democracy and civil society, have consistently been exposed as integral parts of US foreign policy machinery, executing Washington’s geopolitical aims under the guise of “promoting democracy.” These organizations, which are directly funded by the US government, have built a far-reaching network of influence around the world. Their publicly stated mission of supporting grassroots democratic movements and empowering civil society conceals their true purpose: serving as instruments of regime change, used to manipulate the politics of countries that challenge or oppose US interests.
Chile: A Case of Covert Intervention
One of the most glaring examples of USAID and NED’s role in regime change is their involvement in Chile during the 1973 coup that overthrew President Salvador Allende. The coup, which brought the brutal dictator General Augusto Pinochet to power, accused during his tenure of crimes against humanity, was facilitated by a series of covert operations coordinated by the CIA, with USAID providing support to opposition groups. As a 1975 US Senate report revealed, the CIA spent over $8 million backing groups that opposed Allende’s government, which threatened US economic and political interests in the region. USAID’s role in this effort was equally significant, as it provided both financial and logistical support to groups aiming to destabilize Allende’s administration, thereby creating the conditions for a violent military takeover. The result was a ruthless dictatorship known for trampling on human rights and the suppressing any form of democracy.
Syria: Escalating Conflict for Strategic Gain
If one fast forwards to the 21st century, one may observe that USAID and NED were once again involved fomenting regime-change in another sovereign country, this time in Syria. The Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011, was influenced by a range of external actors, with the US heavily invested in supporting opposition forces. It didn’t matter that those opposition forces were often composed of actors that had previously been radically inimical to the United States such as Al Qaeda. In a famous email to Hillory Clinton during when she was Secretary of State for President Obama, his assistant national security advisor, Jake Sullivan wrote, “[Al Qaeda] is on our side in Syria.” This was in the context of toppling Assad.
A 2012 report from the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) outlined how USAID and NED provided critical support to anti-Assad groups, including funding media outlets and opposition networks. The intervention, framed as a humanitarian mission to promote democracy, ended up exacerbating the conflict, leading to a prolonged civil war. While the US framed its involvement as part of a moral drive to support democratic ideals, the reality was that it was largely about weakening a government that was an ally of Russia and Iran, which was seen as a threat to US geopolitical interests.
Ukraine: A Proxy for Geopolitical Interests
Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan Revolution offers another example of how USAID and NED, working alongside the US State Department, played a key role in shaping regime change under the banner of democracy promotion. NED funneled substantial financial resources into Ukrainian opposition groups that aligned with US strategic goals. The US government’s involvement went far beyond mere diplomatic support; the Department of State openly admitted to investing over $5 billion in Ukraine to help it transition to democracy. This was part of a broader strategy to draw Ukraine closer to NATO and the European Union, reflecting a long-term US aim to reshape the political landscape of Eastern Europe in line with its interests.
Haiti: Destabilization in the Caribbean
The United States has long been involved in the Caribbean island nation of Haiti. Indeed, two of Haiti’s largest benefactors, former President William J. Clinton and Hillary Clinton have spoken nostalgically about the island, having first visited it in 1975 as newlyweds. President Clinton had just run and lost for seat in Congress but, invigorated by the trip, he chose to run for Arkansas Attorney General – a decision that charted a course for him to become Governor, and then, ultimately, President. Since then, the Clintons have said that Haiti holds a special place in their hearts, and they have been involved in the country for decades.
Indeed, five years ago, the Jacob Kushner of The Guardian wrote, “As US president in the 1990s, Bill lobbied for sweeping changes to Haiti’s agricultural sector that significantly increased the country’s dependence on American food crops…..Over their many decades of involvement there, the Clintons became two of the leading proponents of a particular approach to improving Haiti’s fortunes, one that relies on making the country an attractive place for multinational companies to do business. They have done this by combining foreign aid with diplomacy, attracting foreign financing to build factories, roads and other infrastructure that, in many cases, Haitian taxpayers must repay. Hillary has called this “economic statecraft”; others have called it a “neoliberal” approach to aid.”
However, Haiti’s 2004 political turmoil is another example of USAID and NED’s involvement in undermining a government that did not align with US priorities. Some twenty years back when elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide whom Bill Clinton had restored to power in the nineties after his regime was toppled by a dictator was put on a plane sent from Guantanamo bay by the Bush Administration under highly suspicious circumstances, flown to the Central African Republic on a false flight plan, marks the beginning of a darker period of US involvement in Haiti. Aristide had claimed that the US kidnapped him and fomented a coup d’état; he eventually settled in South Africa as democracy died in his own country. His ouster ostensibly by rebels was actually the result of support from US-backed civil society organizations funded by entities like USAID. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), USAID played a role in funding opposition groups that helped fuel the unrest leading to Aristide’s ouster. This intervention was motivated by Aristide’s resistance to US-led neoliberal reforms (of the kind that the Clintons had championed) and the privatization of Haiti’s resources, which clashed with US economic and political objectives.
Cuba and Venezuela: Failures in Regime Change
Despite these successes, there are notable failures of the United States in attempting to destabilize governments, such as in Cuba and Venezuela, where USAID and NED interventions have largely been unsuccessful. In Cuba, US efforts to undermine the communist regime, especially under Fidel Castro, date back to the 1960s. A leaked 2011 USAID document revealed plans to fund independent civil society groups in Cuba to promote democratic change. However, despite decades of effort and millions of dollars spent, the Cuban government has remained resilient in its resistance to US-backed interference.
Similarly, in Venezuela, USAID has spent over $120 million supporting opposition groups, yet the Maduro government has managed to maintain control, demonstrating the limitations of external efforts to effect regime change in countries with strong internal governance. In 2006, USAID through its Office of Transition Initiatives made $80 million available for groups seeking democratic reform in Venezuela when socialist Hugo Chavez was in power. Supporters of Chavez saw this a means of financing covert regime-change.
Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Neoconservative Agenda
To understand the strategic framework behind these interventions, it is essential to examine the role of figures like Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose influence shaped US foreign policy throughout the 20th century. As National Security Advisor under President Jimmy Carter, Brzezinski was instrumental in laying the ideological foundations of the neoconservative movement, which promoted aggressive foreign policies aimed at ensuring US dominance.
In his influential 1997 book The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski argued that the US should dominate Eurasia, viewing the region as critical to global power. His policies, often aligned with CIA covert operations, utilized tools like USAID and NED to influence foreign political environments in favor of US interests.
Brzezinski’s vision extended beyond military power to include economic and ideological influence, which was realized through organizations like USAID and NED. By supporting civil society movements and opposition groups that aligned with US strategic goals, these organizations became instruments of “soft power,” advancing US geopolitical objectives.
Bangladesh: A New Front in US Geopolitical Strategy
Bangladesh represents the latest example of USAID and NED’s involvement in reshaping a country’s political landscape. In a 2020 Department of State report, Bangladesh was described as a crucial player in regional security and counterbalancing India’s growing influence. USAID and NED have been providing support to opposition forces in Bangladesh, ostensibly to promote democratic reforms. However, the real motive appears to be a recalibration of the regional balance of power, with the US seeking to pull Bangladesh closer to check India’s rise a global power.
Hence, for all the controversy the Trump Administration’s cleaning house is causing, it is just that – a cleaning of house: for organizations like USAID present themselves as neutral agents dedicated to human rights and democratic reforms when their actual function as the CIA’s beach head in the State Department to topple sovereign governments and push countries in directions that align with US geopolitical goals. From Chile to Syria, Ukraine, Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela, and, more recently, Bangladesh, these organizations have repeatedly been involved in operations that undermine democratic processes, destabilize nations, and serve the strategic interests of the United States. The consequences of their actions reveal the true nature of their involvement—one that often leaves countries fractured and more vulnerable to external manipulation.
References:
- US Senate, “Covert Action in Chile, 1973,” Senate Report 94-755, 1975.
- United States Institute of Peace, “US Assistance to the Syrian Opposition: A Review,” 2012.
- Congressional Research Service, “Haiti: Political and Economic Conditions and US Policy,” 2004.
- US Government Accountability Office, “USAID and Other US Government Assistance to Venezuela,” 2019.
- US Department of State, “Ukraine: US Assistance Programs,” 2014.
- USAID, “Assistance Strategy for Cuba,” 2011.
- Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997.
The Global Calcuttan Magazine 
