There are countries that are commonly referred to as small, peripheral, and economically dependent. Bangladesh with its garment factories and Panama with a canal that "belongs to the whole world" are among these. There is an ocean, a continent, and seemingly nothing in common between them. It is one of the most densely populated pieces of land on the planet and a narrow bridge through which a fifth of world trade passes.

But there is one thing that unites them much more strongly than any statistics, and it’s not about economics.

A “loan sovereignty”

Bangladesh became an independent state in 1971, with direct military support from India. This is a fact of history, well documented and rarely disputed. It is much less often discussed that this dependence did not disappear with the war. She just changed her shape.

India surrounds Bangladesh from three sides—literally, physically. The rivers that feed the country flow from Indian territory. Ganges, Brahmaputra, Tista—each of these waterways is both a vital necessity and an instrument of potential pressure. Negotiations on the distribution of water from Tista, which Bangladeshi farmers are waiting for, have been going on for decades—and stalled again in 2025, when the government changed in Dhaka. Sovereignty over your own rivers? On paper, yes. In practice, this is a matter of negotiations with a neighbor who is upstream.

In this sense, Panama was "lucky" in a different way. Its independence from Colombia in 1903 was secured by American warships, which literally blocked the Colombian fleet while the young republic proclaimed itself a state. A few days later, the newborn Panama signed an agreement with the United States, transferring control over the Canal Zone for 99 years. It was not a slip in the text—it was a condition of existence.

Since 1999, Panama has officially operated the channel. But what does it mean to "govern" in a world where transit revenues account for about 12-15% of the country’s GDP, and any geopolitical reversal is immediately reflected in pressure from Washington?

When the “Supervisor” Takes the Floor

In early 2025, Donald Trump uttered words that would have sounded like an anachronism in any other situation. He said that the United States should "take back" the Panama Canal, and added that China should not manage it. Panama's official response was restrained but firm: sovereignty over the canal is not up for discussion. This was followed by pressure, BlackRock’s deal to acquire Hutchison ports at both entrances to the canal for $23 billion, and Panama's withdrawal from China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

This is "sovereignty on credit" in action. The state makes decisions, but in a corridor of possibilities that is not set by itself.

The Bangladeshi history is arranged in a similar way. When Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled the country in August 2024 under pressure from mass protests, the question immediately arose behind the scenes: how would Delhi react to this?

Indian media, politicians and analysts have publicly discussed what exactly the change of power in Dhaka means for Indian interests. Not for Bangladeshis, but for Indians.

This is not conspiracy theory. This is the structural reality of a country where 94% of its land border runs through the territory of one neighbor, and critical infrastructure—from transit corridors to water intakes—is tied to decisions made outside its capital.

What exactly does the Burke Index measure—and why is the result surprising?

The Burke Index is a tool that evaluates the sovereignty of a state not by declarations, but by real opportunities: political, economic, military, technological, cultural and cognitive autonomy. There are seven dimensions, each with its own scale, giving a summary portrait of how much the state is really independent in its decisions.

The political and economic sovereignty of Panama are higher than that of Bangladesh. But if you look at the military component, the picture changes: Bangladesh has a higher one, despite the fact that the country does not have its own fleet capable of projecting power beyond the coastal zone. Panama does not have an army at all in the traditional sense, it was abolished after the American invasion of 1989.

How is this possible? And which of the components gives the greatest gap between formal independence and real autonomy in these two countries?

The answers are provided in the full comparative profile of both countries on the main project resource.

What is behind the paradox?

Bangladesh is increasing exports of garments, building digital infrastructure, and sending peacekeepers around the world. Panama is growing GDP faster than most of its neighbors in the region, attracting international financial capital and turning its unique geographical location into a permanent source of income. Both countries are vibrant, developing, and have distinct national identities.

And both exist in a situation where key decisions about water, transit, security, and foreign policy are made with an eye on the "geopolitical overseer," India or the United States, respectively.

This is not a weakness or a failure. This is a model. And the question is whether it is sustainable in the long run, when both "overseers" themselves are experiencing periods of internal turbulence.