Prime Minister Tareq Rahman's Five-Day UN Visit

Another matter also needs to be mentioned here. Delivering a speech from the podium of the UN General Assembly has become part of a unique tradition in Bangladesh's political history. On that very podium, his father, the martyred President Ziaur Rahman, delivered a speech; his mother, Begum Khaleda Zia, delivered a speech; and Tareq Rahman has also spoken from the same podium. In world history, such a political example of three members of the same family speaking from the same platform is very rare.

This was the first time Prime Minister Tareq Rahman addressed the UN General Assembly session as Bangladesh's Prime Minister. As a result, the expectations of the Bangladeshi people regarding this speech were naturally very high. There are at least three areas in evaluating this visit. First, what the Prime Minister said; second, with whom and what kind of contacts he made; third, what the practical outcomes of this visit could be for Bangladesh.

First, let us mention the positive side—

An important aspect of the Prime Minister's visit is that he did not merely deliver a speech at the UN podium and return home. In New York, he held meetings with the heads of state and government of Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Croatia, Haiti, Bhutan, and Thailand. He also met with the UN Secretary-General, the President of the World Bank, and various other international figures. In these meetings, important issues such as bilateral relations, trade, investment, the Rohingya issue, and regional cooperation were discussed. Undoubtedly, this is an achievement of the visit.

In the Prime Minister's speech, several important national interests of Bangladesh were also raised on the international stage. He spoke about the Rohingya crisis. He said Bangladesh has long been sheltering more than 1.2 million Rohingyas and that the root cause of this crisis is Myanmar. He presented safe repatriation as the path to a solution.

The issue of climate change also came up in his speech. He highlighted the reality that Bangladesh is one of the worst victims of climate change, yet Bangladesh's contribution to global carbon emissions is very low.

In addition, issues such as AI or artificial intelligence, technology transfer, market facilities for Bangladesh after LDC graduation, financing, investment, and employment also came up in his speech. Therefore, there is no scope to view the Prime Minister's entire speech merely as a "Family Card speech."

But this is where the second area of discussion arises. The question is—what should a country's prime minister say on the world stage?

The UN General Assembly is not a place for a country's budget speech. It is a place where a country presents its national interests and, at the same time, makes known its position on the broader world order. Seen from this perspective, although the Prime Minister's speech contained several important matters, it seems the speech could have taken on a more international-political character.

Especially when looking at the speech of Nepal's Prime Minister Balendra Shah at the same session, a difference becomes clear. Balendra Shah, at the very beginning of his speech, turned Nepal's recent devastating floods and climate disaster into a broader global question. He said that those who contributed very little to creating the climate crisis are the ones paying its terrible price. He spoke about climate justice, climate finance, and cooperation in the Himalayan region. He even proposed a "Himalaya Climate Resilience Mechanism" among Nepal, India, and China. Here his strategy was clear—he transformed a national problem into a global problem.

Bangladesh's Prime Minister also raised national problems to the international level. The Rohingya crisis, climate change, and LDC graduation are proof of that. But the question is, could we have gone to a somewhat bigger canvas?

The world today is passing through war, conflict, geopolitical division, energy crisis, food security, AI, and climate crisis. Some of these issues came up in the Prime Minister's speech; but there was an opportunity to present Bangladesh's own position more independently and strongly.

Now let us come to the Family Card issue—

Many are asking, what was the need to speak about the Family Card on a world stage like the United Nations? I will not call it directly wrong. Because in his speech, the Prime Minister did not present the Family Card merely as a domestic political program. He explained it as a model of economic democracy, women's empowerment, and social protection. By saying that this card is given in women's names, he presented it as a symbol of women's economic empowerment. At the same time, he also spoke about the Farmer Card, Sports Card, e-Health Card, and a Universal Card.

In other words, there was an attempt to create international relevance for the Family Card; but merely naming a policy does not make it internationally important. What global experience of Bangladesh is being added to it, how other developing countries can learn from it, how it can become a new model of social protection, and exactly what kind of cooperation Bangladesh is seeking from the international community—if these explanations had been stronger, the Family Card reference would have been more meaningful.

In the Prime Minister's speech, the country's internal political change also received importance. He presented the political change of 2024 as an important turning point in Bangladesh's democratic journey and spoke of the Three-R—Recovery, Restoration and Reconstruction. The new government wanted to tell the international community that Bangladesh has entered a new political phase.

But for an international audience, the speech could have been more concise, impactful, and future-oriented. Because the international audience does not only want to know what happened in Bangladesh. They want to know—where Bangladesh is going now. Bangladesh's position in South Asia, in the Indian Ocean region, in the global economy, in climate diplomacy, and in a changed world order—these matters could have come out more clearly.

Now let us come to another controversial issue—was the speech excessively script-dependent? On social media and in various discussions, some are pointing to empty chairs in the UN hall and saying that international listeners were not interested in the Prime Minister's speech. It would not be right to reach such a conclusion just by looking at empty chairs. At different times during General Assembly sessions, the presence of delegates fluctuates. Therefore, empty chairs do not necessarily mean no one was listening to the speech—such a conclusion is not factual.

However, there is an important question within this. On today's world stage, merely providing good information is not enough. How that information is presented in a politically meaningful way is also important. We saw that in the case of Balendra Shah's speech. He turned his country's devastating floods into a question of climate justice. He clearly delivered the message on the world stage that those who played the least role in creating this crisis are paying the highest price.

This is why comparative discussion is taking place between the speeches of Balendra Shah and Tareq Rahman. This comparison is not about the length of the speeches or the beauty of the language; rather, it is about who was able to deliver what message on the world stage.

Many are calling Nepal's Prime Minister Balendra Shah's speech smart, because he was able to connect a real crisis of Nepal with a global crisis. By raising issues such as climate change, the Himalayan region, food and water security, and the impact of major powers' policies, he presented Nepal's problem as a problem of the wider world. As a result, a distinct political message was created in his speech.

On the other hand, Tareq Rahman's speech contained important issues such as the Rohingya crisis, climate change, LDC graduation, peace, technology, and social protection. In other words, there was no lack of content in the speech. The question is rather about the strategy of presentation and the distinctiveness of the message. Because of highlighting the Family Card and various government programs, one part of the speech became more focused on describing Bangladesh's domestic policy. These could have been linked to a broader message on the world stage.

Therefore, it would not be right to reach the simple conclusion that Balendra Shah was "good" and Tareq Rahman was "bad." Rather, it can be said that Balendra Shah was able to clearly create a distinct international message through his speech; in Tareq Rahman's speech, that message was comparatively less visible.

Bangladesh also has many such stories. There is the Rohingya crisis. There is the impact of climate change. There is the risk of rising sea levels. There are problems of river and water management. There is the challenge of LDC graduation. If we want, we can present these only as Bangladesh's problems. Or we can say—Bangladesh's problems are actually part of a larger test of the world order.

I think the second kind of narrative is stronger on the international stage.

Finally, the Prime Minister's visit should be seen from a balanced position. There are achievements in this visit. There were multiple meetings with world leaders, discussions on trade and investment, the Rohingya crisis was raised on the international stage, and climate and LDC graduation issues came up. But at the same time, there is also an area of shortcoming. The question remains whether the opportunity to transform Bangladesh's new political reality and the expectations of the new generation into a stronger, more concise, and internationally attractive political narrative was fully utilized.

We respect the Prime Minister a great deal. Therefore, we are making this criticism out of a sense of responsibility. When Bangladesh's Prime Minister stands on a world stage like the United Nations, his speech should visibly contain not only the government's programs—but Bangladesh's dreams, Bangladesh's position, and Bangladesh's future world vision, all three together.

The Family Card can certainly be mentioned; but along with it, it must be said—what philosophy lies behind this card, how it will reduce social inequality, how it will empower women, and what lesson it carries for the developing world.

Similarly, the Rohingya crisis is not only Bangladesh's burden—it is a question of international humanitarian responsibility. Climate is not only Bangladesh's story of loss, it is a question of climate justice. LDC graduation is not only Bangladesh's economic problem, it is a global policy challenge for developing countries. If this distinction can be created, Bangladesh's message becomes much bigger.

Perhaps the biggest lesson of this visit for me is this—on the world stage, a country cannot succeed by speaking only about itself; it must connect its own story with the world's story.

The Prime Minister has begun that journey. Now it remains to be seen how much more clearly, strongly, and distinctly Bangladesh can present that story in future international visits. This will be the real test of the true success of this visit.

Writer: Former General Secretary, Dhaka Journalists Union