Many analysts believe that the outcome of the U.S. election, whether it’s Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, could significantly impact Bangladesh. This discussion has intensified, particularly after a tweet from Republican candidate Donald Trump. In the past, U.S. politicians, especially Democrats, have shown strong ties with Dr. Muhammad Yunus, the Chief Advisor of the Bangladesh government. A Democratic administration typically emphasizes democratic processes and human rights worldwide. If Kamala Harris or the Democrats come to power, experts anticipate smoother business and cooperation opportunities for Bangladesh. According to Michael Kugelman, a South Asia expert and author at the Wilson Center, if Kamala Harris wins, the current U.S.-Bangladesh relationship may continue as it is. However, he cautions that a Trump presidency could change this dynamic. Kugelman notes that Bangladesh is one of the South Asian countries where the U.S. election outcome could have a significant impact on bilateral relations. Former Bangladeshi Ambassador to the U.S., M. Humayun Kabir, expressed concern that a Trump victory could reduce U.S. humanitarian aid globally, which could have consequences for Bangladesh, particularly on issues like the Rohingya crisis, as a large portion of U.N. aid for the Rohingyas in Bangladesh comes from the U.S. Historically, Donald Trump has not been seen as a conventional U.S. president. His approach to foreign policy often creates uncertainty. Usually, a change in U.S. presidency doesn’t bring drastic shifts in foreign policy, thanks to strong institutional structures, notes Dr. Mehnaz Momen, a professor at Texas A&M University. However, Trump has sometimes suggested altering institutional structures, which could lead to a significant shift, though Momen remains skeptical about how much this would impact foreign policy. Recently, a Trump tweet regarding minority oppression has sparked discussion in Bangladesh, but analysts view it more as a strategy to appeal to Hindu voters in the U.S. than a signal of future policy. Chief Advisor’s Press Secretary Shafiqul Alam mentioned that certain lobby groups might have influenced this statement, hinting that this might refer to Awami League or India. In previous Bangladeshi elections, U.S. support initially leaned toward a firm stance on election credibility, but later, India’s backing of the Bangladeshi government became a critical factor. Former ambassador Kabir notes that India might play a role in Bangladesh’s bilateral relations if Trump wins, particularly given Trump’s strong ties with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This could create concerns for Bangladesh if its relationship with India remains strained, as U.S. foreign policy often views Bangladesh through an Indian lens. If Kamala Harris wins, due to her favorable ties with Dr. Yunus, there could be greater friction between U.S. and Indian perspectives on Bangladesh, Kugelman suggests. Bangladesh’s potential role as a rising market has also attracted U.S. interest in areas like major power equipment, Boeing aircraft, and gas or LNG supply. Many Bangladeshis live, study, and work in the U.S., highlighting a valuable people-to-people relationship. Analysts believe that Bangladesh’s future relations with the U.S. will be influenced by various factors, including the U.S.’s evolving geopolitical interests in South Asia and its connection with Dr. Yunus. Ultimately, a range of factors will shape the future of U.S.-Bangladesh relations. (Source: BBC)

A young calligrapher named Firdousa Bashir is making waves in South Kashmir with her stunning Islamic calligraphy. Known for her vibrant colors and intricate Arabic script, her art not only reflects the spiritual teachings of Islam but also serves as a source of inspiration for the local community. Firdousa’s journey began from the village Kehribal Anantnag after completing her 12th-grade education. Instead of opting for a conventional career path, she chose to enroll in an Islamic seminary to study Islamic literature. It was during this time that she discovered her passion for the art of Arabic script. A YouTube video featuring a young calligrapher captivated her, igniting a deep fascination with the beauty and skill of the craft. “Seeing her work felt like an instant connection. Even without any formal training, I decided to pursue calligraphy on my own,” she recalls. Like many artists, Firdousa faced her share of challenges. News agency KINS reported that initially, her family was uncertain about her decision to pursue calligraphy professionally. “My father encouraged me to concentrate on my studies, believing that calligraphy had no future in Kashmir. However, I was determined to follow my passion,” she explains. Over time, her persistence paid off, leading her family to support her artistic aspirations. Reflecting on her growth, Firdousa shares, “In the beginning, my work was not perfect. But as I practiced, I discovered immense joy and satisfaction. Today, I feel fulfilled, and my family is proud of my accomplishments. I hope to gain wider recognition as a calligrapher and honor my family with my work.” Firdousa is not only focused on her own development but is also dedicated to preserving the tradition of Islamic calligraphy in Kashmir. She actively conducts workshops and participates in exhibitions to inspire young people and foster appreciation for this ancient art form. Her success has made her a beacon of hope for aspiring artists in the region, showcasing that passion and persistence can turn unconventional dreams into reality. Believing in the untapped potential of Kashmir, Firdousa emphasizes that many young talents are waiting for the right opportunities. Through her journey, she aims to motivate others to embrace their unique skills and pursue their artistic passions, nurturing a new generation of artists in the region. (Source: Kashmir Indepth)

Recently, Pakistan secured the first tranche of the IMF-led bailout package, highlighting the diplomatic success of the incumbent government and Foreign Office. This development has eased some economic burdens and fostered optimism among investors. ADB Country Director for Pakistan, Yong Ye, noted that “Pakistan’s economy is showing signs of a gradual recovery supported by higher crop output and improvement in manufacturing.” Also Pakistan’s successful hosting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit underscores its strategic importance and commitment to regional cooperation in addressing pressing economic challenges.  This, coupled with the recent International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout, highlights the urgent need for collaborative efforts to navigate Pakistan’s escalating debt crisis and support sustainable long-term economic recovery. However, significant challenges remain, with the IMF describing the country’s external debt repayment capacity as “fragile.” The IMF’s assessment reveals external financing needs of $62.6 billion over the next three years under the Extended Fund Facility (EFF) program, projected to reach $110.5 billion from 2024-25 to 2028-29. These figures underscore the urgent need for timely reforms to ensure Pakistan’s economic stability and growth. The IMF projects Pakistan’s external financing needs at $18.813 billion for the current fiscal year, escalating to $20.088 billion in 2025-26 and $23.714 billion in 2026-27. What’s particularly troubling is that even after the completion of the 3-year programme, there appears to be no respite in sight. The financing needs are expected to remain astronomically high, standing at $24.625 billion in fiscal year 2027-28 and $23.235 billion in 2028-29. These figures are not just numbers, they represent looming crises that threaten to engulf Pakistan’s economy.  Instead of addressing the root causes of its economic woes, Pakistan has relied heavily on external borrowing, creating a vicious cycle of debt that seems increasingly difficult to break. The IMF’s assessment highlights Pakistan’s economic challenges, pointing to missed opportunities for structural reforms and reliance on short-term measures. Misallocation of resources has worsened vulnerabilities, while essential sectors like education, healthcare and infrastructure remain underfunded. This imbalance hampers economic growth and deepens social inequalities, underscoring the need for a shift in policy priorities. Pakistan’s energy sector remains a major economic burden, struggling with inefficiencies, circular debt and unsustainable subsidies. Despite IMF programs, focusing on energy tariff hikes without addressing structural issues may raise production costs and weaken the country’s export competitiveness further. The tax system in Pakistan is another area of grave concern. With tax revenues at a mere 12% of GDP, while expenditure hovers around 20%, the country’s fiscal deficit continues to widen. The new IMF program pushes for additional tax measures equivalent to 3% points of GDP, but these measures are likely to face significant political resistance.  More importantly, they fail to address the fundamental issues of tax evasion, a narrow tax base and the presence of powerful lobbies that continue to enjoy tax exemptions. Pakistan’s recurring balance of payment crisis reflects deeper structural issues in its economy, including a narrow, undiversified export base vulnerable to external shocks. Foreign direct investment has declined due to security concerns, policy inconsistencies and a difficult business environment. While remittances remain significant, they are not a sustainable long-term solution. The latest $7 billion IMF bailout, Pakistan’s 25th, offers short-term relief but fails to address underlying problems. Without tackling these long-term structural challenges, Pakistan remains stuck in a cycle of economic crisis and external dependence. One of the most pressing concerns is Pakistan’s mounting debt burden. With interest payments consuming a staggering 68% of tax revenue in FY 2023, the country is caught in a debt trap that severely limits its ability to invest in productive sectors. The IMF’s projection of gross external financing needs of up to $146 billion for FY 2024 to FY 2029 underscores the magnitude of the challenge ahead. Merely lurching from one IMF program to another without addressing the underlying issues will only prolong the country’s economic agony.  What Pakistan needs is a comprehensive, home-grown economic reform agenda that goes beyond the prescriptions of international financial institutions. Such an agenda should focus on diversifying the export base, improving the ease of doing business, rationalizing government expenditure and broadening the tax base. It must also include bold measures to reform state-owned enterprises, tackle corruption and improve governance. Most importantly, it should prioritize investment in human capital and infrastructure to lay the foundation for sustainable, long-term growth. The political leadership must also muster the courage to make tough decisions, even if they are unpopular in the short term. This includes phasing out unsustainable subsidies, particularly in the energy sector and implementing a more progressive taxation system that ensures the wealthy pay their fair share. Furthermore, Pakistan needs to seriously consider the option of debt restructuring. While this comes with its own set of challenges, it may be necessary to create fiscal space for much-needed developmental expenditure.  Pakistan stands at a critical juncture. The IMF’s latest assessment serves as a stark warning of the economic catastrophe that awaits if decisive action is not taken. The country’s leadership must focus on implementing deep-rooted, structural reforms. Failure to do so risks not just economic stagnation, but potentially a full-blown economic collapse that could have severe social and political repercussions. The time for half-measures and stopgap solutions is over. Pakistan must act now or risk being trapped in a cycle of debt and dependency for generations to come. (Source: Pakistan Observer)

In recent years, Pakistan has faced growing challenges in its higher education sector, with public universities struggling to cope with financial constraints, limited resources, and inadequate governance. To address these issues, the Pakistani government is reportedly working on a ‘transformation plan’ aimed at converting public universities into self-sustainable corporate entities. The move seeks to modernize the higher education landscape by adopting corporate models of governance, finance, and management, thereby ensuring that universities become more autonomous, efficient, and capable of sustaining themselves in an increasingly competitive world. While this transformation plan has generated considerable debate, it is a critical step towards addressing the persistent challenges plaguing Pakistan’s education system. As the country grapples with fiscal challenges and competing demands on government expenditure, public universities must adapt to a changing environment. The transformation plan may offer a solution, but it also raises significant concerns and challenges, especially regarding equity, academic freedom, and quality assurance. According to a recent report by Pakistan’s leading English daily Dawn, a ‘transformation plan’ is being developed to turn public universities into "self-sustainable corporate entities," following recommendations from an international lending agency. While the idea of reforming public universities is not inherently flawed, as many of these institutions have been grappling with prolonged financial difficulties, there are significant concerns about the direction of these changes. Many universities have been able to function only because of funding injections from the Higher Education Commission (HEC), and without this support, they would likely face severe operational challenges. As per a Dawn editorial, what raises alarm is the potential shift in these institutions’ focus—from providing accessible education for students from lower-income households to becoming profit-driven entities. For many students, public universities are the only affordable option, as the fees for private institutions are out of reach. If these universities become financially independent by raising fees or prioritizing revenue generation, access to higher education for underprivileged students could be severely threatened. The proposed transformation does include some positive changes, such as enhancing the quality of education and streamlining administrative processes. In some universities, office staff outnumber the students, indicating a clear need for administrative restructuring. However, the most concerning aspect of the plan is the suggestion to eliminate federal and provincial funding entirely, placing the financial burden on students by raising fees. This would effectively shut the doors of higher education for many students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, according to the editorial. The rationale behind the transformation plan The need for reform in Pakistan’s public universities stems from multiple factors. For decades, these institutions have been heavily reliant on government funding, which has often been inadequate, irregular, and tied to political priorities. As a result, many public universities face budget deficits, resource shortages, and an inability to meet rising student enrollment demands. Meanwhile, the cost of delivering high-quality education continues to rise, exacerbating the financial burden on these institutions. In addition to financial constraints, public universities in Pakistan often struggle with issues of governance, inefficiency, and bureaucratic interference. The administrative structure of many universities is complex, with multiple layers of decision-making that can hinder effective management and innovation. Moreover, public universities are often subject to government oversight and regulation, limiting their autonomy in academic, financial, and administrative matters. This dependence on government intervention makes it difficult for universities to implement long-term strategic plans, adapt to changing market needs, or invest in innovative research and development initiatives. The transformation plan seeks to address these challenges by shifting the public university model from a state-dependent entity to a more corporate-like structure, where institutions can operate independently, generate their revenue, and manage their affairs with greater autonomy. By adopting a self-sustainable corporate model, universities would be empowered to make financial and administrative decisions, form partnerships with private industries, and attract investments for research and development. This would reduce their reliance on government funding, enabling them to become more flexible, innovative, and responsive to the needs of students and the labor market. Challenges and concerns While Pakistan’s proposed transformation plan to convert public universities into self-sustainable corporate entities offers the potential for greater autonomy, financial sustainability, and innovation, it also presents significant concerns and challenges. Equity and access: A shift towards a self-sustaining model may lead to higher tuition fees, potentially limiting access to higher education for students from low-income backgrounds. Ensuring that education remains affordable and accessible to all sections of society will be a critical challenge for policymakers. Academic freedom: The adoption of a corporate governance model may risk undermining academic freedom, as universities could become more focused on profitability and market-driven goals. Striking a balance between financial sustainability and preserving the core values of academia, such as critical thinking and intellectual inquiry, will be essential. Quality assurance: As universities seek to become more competitive and financially independent, there is a risk that quality standards may be compromised. Ensuring that universities maintain rigorous academic standards while pursuing financial goals will require robust quality assurance mechanisms. The proposed plan seems to imply that only those with financial means should have access to higher education. This notion is fundamentally incompatible with the goal of building an egalitarian and educated society. While there is certainly merit in improving the financial health of public universities, it is essential to recognize the broader implications of such a transformation. Over the past two decades, Pakistan has witnessed a rapid increase in the number of universities, but this growth has not been matched by a corresponding rise in academic standards. Additionally, public universities should not become bloated employment hubs filled with excess staff. Instead, they should focus on leaner administrative operations and consider alternative revenue sources. However, the idea of cutting off all government funding entirely is unacceptable and must be opposed by the state, according to the Dawn editorial. In a time when many Pakistani families are already struggling to make ends meet, any significant increase in tuition fees would likely force countless bright students to abandon their dreams of higher education, as per the editorial. While financial reform in the higher education sector is certainly necessary, public universities should not be turned into for-profit entities at the cost of access and opportunity for students from lower-income backgrounds, the editorial read. (Source: Nepal Pana)

The basis of U.S. foreign policy is the realism theory, which determines the country's ultimate position in influencing the world stage and protecting its interests. The main goal of U.S. foreign policy is to protect U.S. interests and influence in the international arena. This policy, based on the pragmatism theory, considers war a necessary and effective solution.  However, contrary to this idea, former President Donald Trump's anti-war stance has been impressive, taking the form of a critical promise in recent campaigns. If elected, the United States will no longer engage in war.  Trump, who first came to power in 2016, introduced a new model of international relations.  In addition to conventional diplomatic techniques, he spoke directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korea's Kim Jong Un. Although many have criticized his actions, Trump has not directly involved the United States in any new wars during his term in office. With a limited military presence in Syria, including the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, I wanted to show that the use of U.S. forces is not the solution to all problems. However, the question remains whether these measures were limited to a political move or whether they were trying to establish peace in the world.  The realism theory in American foreign policy cannot be ignored in analyzing Trump's promises. Pursuing a foreign policy based on this theory has had a similar impact on all American presidents as war. Does Trump's aversion to war agree with the theory of realism? Or is it just a strategy to strengthen his political position? Trump may be trying to increase his popularity by emphasizing diplomatic relations rather than solving problems through war. He says that he will solve the Ukraine and Gaza crises if elected.  Even so, based on the realism theory, how possible is it to fulfill such a promise? To what extent would the United States of America lose its influence if it altogether avoided war in world politics? These questions remain. Trump recently said in his campaign that he wants to resolve the Ukraine and Gaza crises first.  All the same, will Trump adopt a new strategy to resolve such a crisis, or will he just get drunk on wordplay? U.S. President Joe Biden has taken a strong stance in favor of Ukraine and supported the country militarily and economically. In contrast, Trump's position is quite different. He said that wars have become an unnecessary economic burden on the American people. Trump may be trying to present himself as the leader of the masses with this promise, but it remains to be seen how genuine his statement is.  Trump has promised not to wage another war in the Middle East if the United States comes to power. Given the current situation in the Middle East, a heated situation prevails, with Iran and Israel on the verge of war. At the same time, U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and Israel also maintain their interests. Is Trump's promise just a political ploy to bring peace to the Middle East, or can he restore peace in the region? Is Trump's aversion to war a sign of declining American power? The United States has long demonstrated its power in world politics, and this demonstration of power has increased its influence. If Trump withdraws from the war, the U.S.'s influence in world politics will decline. Many political analysts believe that Trump's promise is just a ploy to attract voters. If such a promise is fulfilled, it will only be a sign of declining American power, which is inconsistent with his long-term strategy.   The American people today are tired of war and are no longer interested in sending their sons to fight abroad. But does Trump want to win the hearts of voters, or is he willing to build a peaceful world? The issue has become essential to Trump's election campaign, which could also affect his political record. Trump's "no war" pledge created a new landscape in American politics. It could change the status quo of U.S. foreign policy, but only if implemented correctly. The current global situation, especially the heated situation in the Middle East and Ukraine, has raised many questions about this promise of Trump. Finally, such promises may only serve as a strategy to gain voters' trust. If Trump truly wants to build a peaceful world, he must deliver on his promises and bring about a concerted change in U.S. foreign policy. It can be a great challenge for him to go beyond war, establish diplomatic relations, and mediate disputes. Therefore, only time will tell if this promise materializes. The writer is the former Chairman, Department of International Relations, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh and Non-resident Fellow, Hong Kong Research Center for Asian Studies (RCAS)

Israel launched a counterattack a few weeks after Iran's October 1 strike. In retaliation for Israel's brutal assaults on Gaza and Lebanon, as well as the assassinations of leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran has launched approximately 200 missiles against Israel.  The most recent confrontation between Iran and Israel is, first and foremost, a war between two nations; second, it may have ramifications for the whole Middle East. In what it saw as a self-defense operation, Israel recently attacked Iran, killing four of its troops. Iran, on the other hand, has said it will continue to resist Israeli attacks on Gaza, Lebanon, and its people.  This situation indicates a long-term regional conflict in the Middle East that could cause deep concern to the international community. It is the first time Israel has accepted responsibility for the attack on Iran, and Defense Minister Benjamin Netanyahu approved the plan at a cabinet meeting. Israeli media reported that Iran had been warned before the attack.  However, despite the warning, Iran did not react. Instead, the attack created more tension. Israel claims its attack was only on military installations. However, this is not just a retaliatory move; Israel's primary goal is to signal to Iran that Israel is ready to counter any Iranian military action. Such an aggressive move would not only escalate the Iran-Israel conflict but could lead to a broader war. Iran has directly denied the Israeli attack and has made it clear that it is committed to resisting Israeli attacks on territories it supports, including Gaza and Lebanon. Iran's commitment shows that its response encompasses not only Israel but the entire region. The White House spokesman said the United States was not directly involved in the attack. However, US foreign policy has been made abundantly clear in Israel's recent strategy.  The visit of US Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Israel and Saudi Arabia was a pivotal moment preceding the conflict. The situation in the Middle East has become more heated after the disclosure of secret US-Israeli joint strategy documents on the strategy to attack Iran. The assault on Iran occurred promptly following Blinken's visit, leading to the inference that the incident is linked to his trip to Israel.  Despite this declaration, many people think that without the direct or indirect support of the United States, Israel could not have played such a bold role in carrying out the attack.   This ongoing tension between Israel and Iran will not be limited to their bilateral conflict but could spill over into the broader Middle East. The crisis was exacerbated by Israeli military operations against Iran amid anti-Hamas and Hezbollah operations. It may not be limited to the conflict between Iran and Israel but may have broader regional implications.   Especially if significant powers such as China and Russia get involved in the conflict, the possibility of a terrible humanitarian catastrophe is high. In this situation, if countries such as Egypt, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia fail to take any action to bring peace to the region, the entire Middle East may become involved in an inevitable war. Meanwhile, the ceasefire brokered by Egypt once again proves that Arab countries are still optimistic about peace in the Middle East.   The assault by Israel on Iran not only intensifies the existing tensions between the two nations but also engenders the potential for a protracted crisis throughout the entire region. Israel's attack on Iran not only exacerbates the Israel between the two countries but also creates the possibility of a long-term crisis in the entire region. Although this attack is limited to military installations, the consequences could be more profound.  The Middle East will be rugged if the conflict spreads and other countries become involved. The situation will become more complicated if powers such as the United States and Russia play a more active role in resolving the conflict. The invasion of Iran, supported by the United States and executed by Israel, has not merely impeded the progress of peace negotiations in the Middle East; it is also steering the region towards an impending and extended conflict.  The writer is the former Chairman, Department of International Relations, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh and Non-resident Fellow, Hong Kong Research Center for Asian Studies (RCAS)

From October 22–24, 2024, the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, has launched a new chapter in world politics. Over time, additional nations have joined the BRICS alliance, giving it worldwide influence. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the UAE joined the alliance, pushing it to six from five: South Africa, Brazil, Russia, India, and China. BRICS has grown beyond an economic partnership, indicating political, economic, and geopolitical power.  The rise of BRICS has polarised world politics. The West has traditionally dominated the world's economy and politics. Western rules govern the World Bank, IMF, and WTO, which the US and Europe lead.  In contrast to this hegemonic framework, the BRICS and other Global South members want to strengthen and gain autonomy. The BRICS group wants a more varied global economy and less Western financial domination. Russia and China have vocally opposed the US-led system, while Brazil and India have taken a more moderate approach. Despite these conflicts, the alliance has developed a new development strategy that may challenge Western supremacy. Many more individuals joined the BRICS due to its expansion. The BRICS Plus population is over 46% of the world total, more significant than the Group of 7. This worldwide alliance is growing economically and threatening the Group of Seven in politics and strategy. Despite challenges, progress has occurred. Member states' differing strategic and political viewpoints threaten the treaty's coherence. Russia and China have vocally opposed Western supremacy, while India and Brazil have maintained more moderate and diplomatic relations. Coalition disagreements and lack of consensus may ensue. The BRICS development model threatens Western economic supremacy.  The Western model prioritizes profit and the market, whereas the BRICS model emphasizes cooperation, sustainability, and local capacity. BRICS countries are strengthening their social and economic systems as part of their development efforts. This strategy aims to become self-sufficient by utilizing local resources, creating a long-term economic basis via international partnerships, and helping poor countries. Economic autonomy is becoming increasingly vital to BRICS countries. The ongoing attempt to establish SWIFT-competitive payment systems is one example. It would allow Moscow to trade with allies and avoid Western sanctions. BRICS members are also launching new measures to boost trade and economic integration. Russia and China have increased strategic cooperation despite Western sanctions. Significant development. Thus, economic and geopolitical divisions against Western unilateralism have emerged. The Western alliance worries about the BRICS' expansion and Russia-China rapprochement. Western analysts worry about Xi Jinping's close relations with Vladimir Putin and the BRICS' growth under his leadership. Putin and Xi proclaimed a "borderless partnership" in 2022 before invading Ukraine to strengthen their strategic position against Western sanctions. Putin and Jinping's rapprochement at the summit showed they're ready to challenge American supremacy. Political, military, and economic cooperation is essential. Russia and China seek to use the BRICS alliance to take over Global South states and enhance their collaboration against Western powers. BRICS development arose in resistance to Western domination. However, all member states will need hard work, thoughtful planning, and cooperation to fulfill their aims. After decades of Western dominance in global politics and economics, BRICS and other alternative models may usher in a new age. Once subject to Western political control, BRICS may protect the advancement of the Global South. However, this partnership has challenges. Divergent perspectives, tactics, and internal issues will make BRICS unity difficult. Time will tell how the bloc's competitive rivalry and partnership with the West develops. To counter Western domination, the BRICS development model was created. It allows southern countries strategic and economic sovereignty. The alliance's internal issues and global political context need member governments to cooperate and demonstrate political will to succeed. The BRICS alliance might move global power away from the West towards a more cooperative, multilateral, and sustainable global economy, allowing South countries more excellent voices over their future. The writer is the former Chairman, Department of International Relations, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh and Non-resident Fellow, Hong Kong Research Center for Asian Studies (RCAS)