Bangladesh is poised to squander a significant diplomatic opportunity—one that a more mature and strategically confident foreign policy establishment would almost certainly have seized.

The decision not to attend the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi on September 12–13 is difficult to reconcile with Bangladesh’s national interests. At a time when the global balance of power is undergoing a profound transformation, emerging economies are demanding a greater voice in global affairs, and traditional alliances are being tested by geopolitical turbulence, Dhaka has chosen to remain absent from a forum bringing together some of the world’s most consequential powers and fastest-growing economies.

The more troubling question, however, is not simply why Bangladesh is absent. It is why the country’s Foreign Ministry appears to have arrived at such a decision—and what that decision says about the strategic maturity and vision of its current leadership.

State Minister for Foreign Affairs Humayun Kobir has said that Prime Minister Tarique Rahman was not invited to the BRICS Summit in his capacity as Bangladesh’s prime minister; rather, the invitation was extended to him as chair of BIMSTEC. On that basis, the government has ruled out participation.

The distinction may have a technical basis. But diplomacy is not a seminar on protocol. It is the art of identifying opportunities, assessing national interests and converting diplomatic access into strategic advantage.

That is precisely where Bangladesh’s Foreign Ministry appears to have fallen short.

The BRICS summit brings together countries of enormous importance to Bangladesh. China and Russia are major development and strategic partners. India is Bangladesh’s immediate neighbour and one of its most important economic, political and security interlocutors. Brazil, Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and South Africa are important emerging economies, markets, sources of investment and energy partners, as well as increasingly influential actors in the Global South.

For Dhaka, this should have been regarded as a diplomatic opportunity of the first order.

Instead, the Foreign Ministry appears to have become preoccupied with the precise capacity in which the prime minister was invited.

That is not strategic diplomacy. It is bureaucratic literalism.

A forum Bangladesh cannot afford to ignore

BRICS is no longer the relatively small grouping that emerged from the BRIC acronym in the early 2000s. South Africa joined in 2010, followed by a major expansion that brought in Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia.

The enlarged grouping now represents a substantial part of the world’s population, economic output, energy resources and geopolitical weight. More importantly, it has become an increasingly significant platform through which emerging and developing countries seek a greater role in shaping global governance and the international economic system.

Its agenda extends well beyond political declarations. BRICS cooperation encompasses trade and investment, development finance, technology, climate change, global health, education, cultural exchanges and reform of international institutions. Increasing attention is also being given to cross-border payment mechanisms and reducing vulnerabilities associated with the existing international financial system.

India, for instance, is pushing discussions on integrating central-bank digital currencies among BRICS members to facilitate cross-border payments.

Whether all of these ambitions can ultimately be realised is another matter. BRICS has internal contradictions, competing national interests and serious geopolitical disagreements. It is not a conventional political or security alliance, and its members certainly do not agree on every major international issue.

But that is precisely why Bangladesh should be present.

Countries do not attend international forums only when they agree with everyone around the table. They attend because such forums provide access—to leaders, markets, capital, information, ideas and influence.

Bangladesh already has a stake

Perhaps the most striking aspect of Dhaka’s decision is that Bangladesh is hardly an outsider to the BRICS economic ecosystem.

Bangladesh became a member of the New Development Bank (NDB) in 2021. Established in 2015, the NDB is one of the most tangible institutional achievements of BRICS cooperation and was created to finance infrastructure and sustainable-development projects in emerging and developing economies. By June 2026, the bank had approved 141 projects worth approximately $44 billion.

Bangladesh needs precisely the kind of financing and economic partnerships that institutions such as the NDB can help mobilise.

The country requires massive investment in transport, energy, industrial infrastructure, climate adaptation, water management, urban development, digital infrastructure and logistics. It needs to diversify export markets, attract foreign investment and secure alternative sources of development finance.

Yet when the senior leaders of many of the countries that could contribute to these objectives gather in one place, Bangladesh has decided not to be there.

That is not prudence.

It is a failure to connect foreign policy with economic strategy.

The invitation controversy exposes a deeper problem

Against this backdrop, the statement by State Minister Humayun Kobir that the prime minister was not invited is particularly unfortunate.

The distinction between being invited as Bangladesh’s prime minister and being invited as chair of BIMSTEC may be procedurally relevant. But to present that distinction as though it constitutes a compelling reason for Bangladesh not to participate reveals a troubling lack of diplomatic maturity.

Indeed, Bangladesh’s BIMSTEC chairmanship should have made the invitation more valuable, not less.

Dhaka could have used the occasion to project itself as an important voice for the Bay of Bengal region. It could have placed BIMSTEC more prominently on the international agenda and used high-level meetings with India, China, Russia and other participating countries to advance regional connectivity, trade, energy cooperation, climate resilience and the Rohingya issue.

Instead, the BIMSTEC dimension appears to have been treated almost as a technicality.

This is the mentality of a foreign ministry measuring diplomatic importance by protocol rather than by outcomes.

There is another problem. Publicly emphasising whether an invitation was extended to the prime minister in one formal capacity or another risks making Bangladesh appear unnecessarily thin-skinned.

A seasoned foreign policy establishment would ask a different question:

What can Bangladesh gain by attending?

The answer is obvious.

Diplomacy is about being in the room

A BRICS summit attended by Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other major leaders provides opportunities that cannot easily be replicated through diplomatic notes or formal meetings arranged months later.

International diplomacy is often conducted in the margins. Leaders meet in corridors. Ministers establish personal contacts. Officials develop channels of communication. Business delegations identify opportunities. Informal conversations sometimes accomplish what formal negotiations cannot.

Bangladesh could have discussed trade, investment, energy security, infrastructure financing, technology, climate finance and supply-chain diversification.

It could have strengthened engagement with China and Russia, managed its relationship with India through direct high-level diplomacy and cultivated deeper economic relationships with Indonesia, Brazil, the Gulf states and African economies.

It could also have demonstrated something increasingly important: that Bangladesh’s foreign policy is independent, pragmatic and driven by national interest rather than by alignment with any particular power bloc.

Attending BRICS would not have required Bangladesh to become anti-Western, pro-Chinese or pro-Russian. Nor would it have required Dhaka to endorse every BRICS position.

A mature foreign policy understands that engagement does not equal alignment.

Indeed, the purpose of diplomacy is precisely to engage countries whose interests do not always coincide with one’s own.

The real failure is strategic vision

The deeper concern, therefore, is not one missed summit. It is what this episode reveals about the quality of strategic thinking within Bangladesh’s Foreign Ministry.

Foreign policy cannot be conducted as a series of reactions to perceived diplomatic slights, protocol disputes or narrowly interpreted invitations. It requires anticipation, imagination and the ability to see several moves ahead.

Bangladesh needs that kind of diplomacy more than ever.

The international system is becoming increasingly multipolar. The economic centre of gravity is shifting towards Asia and the wider Global South. Traditional Western-led institutions are facing challenges, while new institutions, partnerships and coalitions are emerging.

In such an environment, Bangladesh should be seeking more platforms, not fewer; cultivating more relationships, not retreating from them; and expanding its strategic options rather than voluntarily narrowing them.

The country’s foreign policy should be guided by one overriding question: Does this engagement advance Bangladesh’s national interests?

In the case of BRICS, the answer was plainly yes.

Dhaka had an opportunity to engage simultaneously with major powers, emerging economies, development financiers and important regional partners. It could have strengthened ties with China and Russia, maintained high-level engagement with India, expanded economic links with the wider Global South and projected BIMSTEC as a meaningful regional platform.