The recent allegations made by former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina regarding the role of the United Nations and the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the events of July–August 2024 have reignited an important debate in Bangladesh. The issue has attracted significant attention in national, regional, and international media and has once again raised a fundamental question: where should the line be drawn between legitimate international engagement and interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state?
This debate is not unique to Bangladesh. Across the developing world, governments, political leaders, academics, and civil society organisations have accused UN agencies and international organisations of exceeding their mandates. Activities undertaken in the name of promoting human rights, democracy, governance reforms, or political inclusiveness have often been viewed by critics as crossing into areas that are the exclusive domain of national governments and domestic political actors.
To understand the current controversy, it is essential to place it within the broader historical context of Bangladesh’s relationship with the UN system. Since its independence in 1971, Bangladesh has enjoyed a close and productive partnership with the UN. Successive governments, regardless of political affiliation, have worked with UN agencies in fields ranging from public health, education, agriculture, poverty alleviation, and disaster management to climate adaptation, humanitarian assistance, and social development. Bangladesh today hosts almost every major UN agency, in addition to the offices of the World Bank Group, regional development banks, and numerous international organisations.
The contribution of these institutions to Bangladesh’s development journey is undeniable. Whether in reducing child mortality, combating communicable diseases, improving disaster preparedness, supporting women’s empowerment, or responding to humanitarian emergencies, the UN has played a significant and often constructive role. Bangladesh has likewise emerged as one of the world’s largest contributors to UN peacekeeping operations, making the relationship mutually beneficial and strategically important. Traditionally, the UN’s engagement in member states focused on technical cooperation, humanitarian assistance, and development support. However, beginning in the 1980s and accelerating after the end of the Cold War, the international community increasingly emphasised governance, human rights, democratic participation, and institutional accountability. The expansion of the UN Resident Coordinator system further strengthened the UN’s ability to engage across a broad range of political and social issues.
While these developments were intended to promote universal values, they also generated controversy. In many countries, including Bangladesh, some observers began to question whether certain UN entities were becoming involved in matters that were fundamentally political rather than technical or humanitarian.
One of the earliest and most widely discussed examples of alleged UN involvement in Bangladesh’s domestic affairs emerged during the political crisis preceding the 1/11 caretaker government in 2007. Reports circulated that Bangladesh’s participation in UN peacekeeping missions could be affected if the political situation deteriorated further. Regardless of the accuracy of these reports, they created a widespread perception that external actors were seeking to influence domestic political developments. Over the years, such perceptions have persisted and, in some cases, intensified. Bangladesh’s human rights record, particularly during the latter years of the Awami League government, became the subject of increasing scrutiny by international organisations. At the same time, the arrival of more than one million forcibly displaced Rohingyas from Myanmar in 2017 significantly expanded the footprint of international agencies operating in the country.
During the final years of the Awami League administration, many government supporters believed that certain UN offices, particularly those dealing with human rights issues, had become unusually vocal regarding domestic political developments. Statements by some officials were frequently interpreted as reflecting opposition narratives, while repeated communications regarding allegations of rights violations fuelled perceptions that some international actors were operating in close alignment with influential Western governments. These concerns became more pronounced after the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government in August 2024 and the installation of the interim administration led by Professor Muhammad Yunus.
The active visibility of some UN officials during discussions on reforms, governance restructuring, and institutional changes led critics to argue that the distinction between technical assistance and political engagement was becoming increasingly blurred. Questions also arose following comments by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk in an interview with the BBC, where he suggested that messages had been conveyed to Bangladesh’s armed forces concerning the handling of protests and violence. Bangladesh’s military authorities subsequently rejected any suggestion that such communications had influenced their actions. Nevertheless, the episode added further fuel to an already contentious debate. The report prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the events surrounding the 2024 political transition has become one of the most debated international documents concerning Bangladesh in recent memory. Supporters view the report as an important contribution to accountability and the promotion of human rights. Critics, however, contend that it reflected a particular political narrative and was prepared in close collaboration with the interim administration.
The controversy did not end with the report itself. Critics argue that the subsequent establishment of a UN Human Rights Office in Dhaka and Bangladesh’s accession to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance without reservations and without parliamentary ratification were closely linked developments. According to reports, some officials within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed reservations about both initiatives.
Particular attention has been directed at the role played by influential advisers within the interim government, especially the law adviser, three women advisers and one in charge of industries ministry who previously worked in human rights issues. Critics maintain that these advisers exercised considerable influence in advancing decisions with potentially long-term implications for Bangladesh’s sovereignty and governance framework. They argue that the current elected government should carefully review these commitments in light of broader national interests. It is noteworthy that Bangladesh’s accession to the Convention on Enforced Disappearances occurred without reservations and without parliamentary scrutiny, a process that differs from the approach adopted by many developed countries. Whether this was a prudent decision is a matter that deserves informed public and parliamentary debate. Another criticism frequently raised concerns what many perceive as a selective approach by international human rights mechanisms. Critics argue that while the UN system was highly active in documenting alleged violations before August 2024, it appeared considerably less vocal regarding allegations that emerged after the political transition. In their view, the emphasis remained disproportionately focused on the Volker Türk report rather than on subsequent developments.
My own concerns stem not from political considerations but from decades of professional engagement with the United Nations system. Having worked extensively on international development, public health, and human rights issues, I have long appreciated the important role that the UN plays worldwide. Following reports of violence against women and children during the interim administration, I personally met with the UN Resident Coordinator and representatives of UN Women to discuss ways in which the UN system could strengthen its efforts to protect vulnerable populations.
While officials from UN Women expressed concern regarding these developments, I found the response of the then UN Resident Coordinator less reassuring. The emphasis appeared to be focused primarily on engagement with the Consensus Commission led by Ali Riaz rather than on broader concerns regarding violence against women and children. In my view, this represented a missed opportunity for the United Nations to demonstrate leadership in one of the core areas of its mandate. Protecting vulnerable populations should never be subordinated to political considerations or institutional priorities.
Questions have also arisen regarding public remarks made by the then UN Resident Coordinator on political inclusiveness. Inclusivity lies at the heart of the Sustainable Development Goals and the broader UN agenda. Consequently, statements that appear to minimise the importance of participation by major political actors’ risk creating perceptions of inconsistency with the very principles the UN seeks to promote. Her statement was also viewed as an endorsement of Yunus’ administration to ban the activities of the Awami League.
Beyond politics, there have been other instances where the actions of international organizations have generated controversy. Following the terrorist attack at the Holey Artisan Bakery in July 2016, the decision by parts of the international community to classify Dhaka as a non-family duty station had adverse consequences for Bangladesh’s image abroad. Similarly, disagreements emerged regarding the relocation of Rohingya refugees to Bhasan Char. Some UN agencies initially opposed the relocation and instead advocated for the expansion of camps in Cox’s Bazar and Teknaf. Critics argued that insufficient attention was paid to environmental degradation, deforestation, and the long-term burden placed upon local communities. The issue of Rohingya repatriation remains another area of frustration. Many Bangladeshis believe that the international community, including parts of the UN system, has not exerted sufficient pressure to ensure the safe and sustainable return of displaced Rohingyas to Myanmar.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, much international assistance channelled through UN agencies was directed towards Rohingya-related humanitarian operations. While such assistance was unquestionably necessary, questions remain regarding the proportion of international aid that directly benefited the broader Bangladeshi population. Greater transparency on this issue would contribute to a more informed public discussion.
None of these concerns should obscure the fact that Bangladesh’s partnership with the United Nations has been overwhelmingly positive and beneficial. The UN has contributed immensely to the country’s development achievements and continues to play a critical role in supporting national priorities. At the same time, the credibility and effectiveness of the United Nations depend upon its ability to maintain impartiality and public trust. Humanitarian assistance, technical cooperation, and the promotion of human rights are essential components of the UN mandate. However, these objectives must be pursued in a manner that respects national ownership, political neutrality, and the sovereignty of member states.
Bangladesh and the UN share a partnership spanning more than five decades. The Bangladeshi people do not expect the UN to support any particular government, political party, or ideological group. Rather, they expect the organisation to serve the interests of the nation as a whole while upholding its universal principles.
Maintaining that delicate balance between engagement and neutrality will be essential if the United Nations is to preserve its credibility, effectiveness, and public trust in Bangladesh in the years ahead.
The writer is the Former Ambassador and Secretary to the Government of Bangladesh & Former Senior Public Health Policy Adviser and WHO Representative to UN ESCAP
