Some call BRICS boycott justified, others say Dhaka missed an opportunity

A debate has begun over the diplomatic gains and losses for Bangladesh after it decided not to participate in the BRICS summit. Some experts believe the government’s decision was justified on the grounds of national dignity, while others say Bangladesh has missed an opportunity to be present at an important multilateral platform.

The 18th summit of BRICS, the international and economic grouping of emerging economies, concludes today in New Delhi, India. There had been discussions over Prime Minister Tarique Rahman’s non-participation in the summit. However, one day before the summit began, Foreign Affairs State Minister Humayun Kabir announced that “the Prime Minister is not going to the summit. Bangladesh is not sending any delegation either.” He also explained why the PM would not attend.

The government has said Bangladesh was not invited in an appropriate manner. However, questions have been raised about the diplomatic implications of the decision. According to experts, BRICS is no longer merely an economic grouping; it has become an important political and diplomatic platform. Bangladesh’s presence there could therefore have created an opportunity to raise various issues related to the country’s interests. Bangladesh has particularly important relations with influential countries such as China and Russia. As the presidents of China and Russia were attending the summit, Bangladesh could also have had opportunities for important diplomatic engagements.

Dr Nurul Huda Sakib, a professor in the Department of Government and Politics at Jahangirnagar University and a senior research fellow at the Bangladesh Center for Indo-Pacific Affairs (BCIPA), believes the decision not to attend was reasonable from the perspective of the state.

Speaking to Agamir Somoy, he said, “Prime Minister Tarique Rahman’s visit to India should not be viewed simply as participation in an international conference. It is also connected to domestic politics.”

According to him, if the prime minister had attended the summit, the opposition and various other quarters would have questioned what he had achieved from the India visit. Questions could also have been raised about why he attended despite not being invited with due respect.

Dr Nurul Huda Sakib further said, “This could have raised an issue of national dignity. From that perspective, the government’s decision is not unreasonable.” However, he acknowledged that BRICS is a major platform for countries of the Global South. Although participation might not have brought direct financial benefits, it could have provided significant diplomatic advantages.

Former diplomat Sakib Ali, on the other hand, believes Bangladesh should have attended the summit. He said Bangladesh’s importance in international politics needs to be established through participation in multilateral conferences. Attendance at such events is also a sign of diplomatic maturity.

In his view, “Bangladesh itself has applied to become a member of BRICS. Yet even after receiving an invitation, not participating in the summit was not a prudent decision.”

Regarding the complaint that Bangladesh did not receive a proper invitation, Sakib Ali said, “This is not a bilateral visit between Bangladesh and India. Therefore, Bangladesh’s own interests are more important here than the formalities of the invitation.”

He believes Bangladesh’s participation, in the presence of influential heads of state at the BRICS summit, would have made the country’s diplomatic position more visible. It would also have given the international community an opportunity to assess Bangladesh from a different perspective.

According to diplomatic analysts, Bangladesh is unlikely to suffer any immediate major loss as a result of not attending the BRICS summit. However, the country has missed an opportunity to strengthen international contacts, build relationships at the policymaking level and expand its engagement with BRICS in the future.