America can rub shoulders and even hug, but it can’t give the money Global South nations need

While only a few weeks left for the November 5 elections in the United States, according to Donald Trump, this could be America’s last election, if Democrats succeed in stealing the result, they will turn the US into a cruel dictatorship – a one-party rule. For years, Democrats have been gradually advancing their agenda of pushing America under one-party rule, where freedom of press, freedom of expression, human rights and rule of law shall be sent to the burner. The upcoming election is extremely crucial for the very existence of the US, as Kamala Harris – the prodigy of Barack Obama and George Soros lacks minimal qualities of being the president – while her own personal life is stinky and nasty-from toe to head. In fact, if Democrats can steal the November 5 election result, Obama will get his fourth term as country’s covert president, who will implement his notorious agenda of destroying the entire world by inciting chaos, riots and wars.

It may be mentioned here that, in the geopolitical landscape, nations form alliances based on mutual interests, but the foundation of these alliances is rarely built on unconditional aid or charity. The United States, as a global superpower, has mastered the art of diplomacy, economic partnerships, and military alliances. However, there is a persistent misunderstanding about how much direct financial aid the US offers to its allies, especially when compared to nations like China. While the US can offer support, business deals, and military partnerships, it is reluctant to open its coffers and provide the substantial funds that developing Asian nations desperately need. Meanwhile, China has positioned itself as a financial lifeline for many of these countries, strategically offering loans, investments, and infrastructure deals that secure long-term influence.

The narrative that the US provides loans to other nations generously is misleading. Historically, the US has focused on business deals, arms sales, and fostering military and economic partnerships rather than simply offering financial aid. Unlike China, which has employed its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to provide direct funding and infrastructure projects across Asia and Africa, the US takes a more transactional approach. American foreign policy is deeply rooted in capitalism and profit-making, which means that the aid it provides is usually tied to conditions and contracts that benefit its own industries, particularly the military-industrial complex.

China, on the other hand, has gained significant influence through financial assistance. By offering loans and investments, particularly in infrastructure, China has positioned itself as the financial powerhouse of the East. While these loans are often criticized for creating debt dependency, they have filled a gap that Western nations, particularly the US, have been unwilling to address. Nations such as Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh have all turned to China for the financial support they cannot secure from the West.

A glaring example of how the US operates on the global stage is the ongoing war in Ukraine. There is a common misconception that the US is simply providing financial aid to Ukraine to help it fend off Russian aggression. In reality, much of what the US provides is in the form of military equipment, weapons, and logistical support-all of which come with a price tag. The US isn’t giving away this equipment for free; instead, it is selling it to Ukraine, and the costs are staggering. The military-industrial complex in the US has made significant profits from this arrangement, with billions of dollars flowing into the arms industry.

The war in Ukraine is not just about supporting an ally; it’s also about maintaining the profitability of the US defense sector. The US government has approved multi-billion-dollar military aid packages, but much of this aid is tied to future repayments, loans, or contracts for additional equipment. It’s estimated that over $15 billion is required to destroy those obsolete US military equipment that has been sent to Ukraine. But if Ukraine is unable to repay this debt in the future, the US may seek compensation in other forms. Some analysts predict that if Ukraine cannot repay the loans or make good on its obligations, the US could demand leasing agreements on Ukrainian territory or other assets, much like how Alaska was acquired from the Soviet Union.

At this moment, Bangladesh requires significant financial resources to restore its journey as the fastest growing economies, modernize its infrastructure, enhance its industries, and alleviate poverty. Bangladesh’s strategic location and growing economy make it an attractive partner for both China and the US. However, while Bangladesh needs money, particularly for development projects and economic stabilization, the US is unlikely to provide it.

Instead, the US will focus on business deals, trade agreements, and perhaps military cooperation, but not on providing the kind of financial support that China is known for. Bangladesh, like many other Asian nations, may find itself turning to China for loans and investments in critical sectors such as energy, transportation, and telecommunications. China, with its vast financial reserves, is better positioned to provide the funding that Bangladesh needs, even if it comes with the risk of increased debt dependency.

If Donald Trump returns to office, his foreign policy approach towards Bangladesh could take a sharp turn. Trump has shown a willingness to prioritize American interests above all else, and his transactional approach to foreign policy may lead to a shift in how the US engages with Bangladesh. One likely target of this shift could be Muhammad Yunus, the Chief Adviser of the interim government, who has been closely aligned with Democratic leaders in the US. Trump, who has no qualms about reversing previous US positions, could distance himself from Yunus. This would mirror the US’s earlier pivot away from Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar. The Democrats have abandoned Suu Kyi for her close affiliation with the Republican Party.

If Kamala Harris, the current US Vice President, were to win the presidency, she would face significant domestic challenges, particularly regarding border and immigration issues. These are highly contentious topics in the US, and any perceived failure to address those effectively could lead to political scandals similar to the Watergate scandal. Immigration reform and border security have become polarizing issues in American politics, and Harris would face immense pressure to navigate these challenges while maintaining her political standing. The Pentagon and other institutions in the USA would not favor Kamala Harris winning, as she would be bogged down with domestic politics, bringing America down on the global stage.

The United States is a powerful global player, capable of forging alliances, and shaping international policies. However, when it comes to providing the kind of financial support that many Asian nations need, the US is notably absent. While it can rub shoulders and even embrace a person like Dr Yunus, it can’t-or won’t-open its wallet in the same way that China does. Asian nations that require money for development and infrastructure will continue to look eastward, toward China, for the financial aid that the US is unwilling to provide. As geopolitical tensions rise, this dynamic will likely become more pronounced, with China emerging as the dominant financial power in Asia.

Most importantly, during his recent visit to the US, Dr Yunus did not hesitate in exposing his solo bias towards Democrats – including Clintons and infamous George Soros. This open display of alliance shall definitely distance him from the Republican Party leadership, including the members of the Senate and Congress which will commence in January 2025. In my opinion, Yunus’ latest visit and media exposures were serious blunders – which will start getting clearer once the election is over. Most importantly, Trump’s victory will make India’s position in America far-stronger, as Trump considers Modi as a “dearest friend”. Under current scenarios where Yunus’ men are openly advancing anti-India sentiment; it will also be extremely difficult for Dhaka to repair its already torn relations with New Delhi. Meaning, we are possibly going to face triple difficulties – from Trump, Modi and may be China.