Keir Starmer should not meet Muhammad Yunus
In the realm of international diplomacy, optics matter. When a political leader chooses to engage with a foreign counterpart, it sends a message - not only about bilateral relations but also about the values and principles that underpin governance. This is why reports circulating in the UK and Bangladeshi press that Sir Keir Starmer and King Charles may meet the country’s interim leader, Muhammad Yunus, raise concerns.
This comes in the wake of mounting criticism from global human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Fortify Rights, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), and others, all of whom are raising alarm over the interim government's behaviour. In March this year, they sent a joint letter protesting the continued repression and attacks on free speech by Yunus’s administration. This month, Human Rights Watch published its own report, stating: “Interim Government’s Arbitrary Targeting of Former Ruling Party Supporters Fails Accountability.” Mass arbitrary arrests are a hallmark of the interim government. A practice they promised to stop.
After the fall of Sheikh Hasina, a wave of violence was unleashed against minorities in Bangladesh. The BBC World Service sent Sahar Zand to investigate the campaign and the interim governments efforts to deny these atrocities. Yunus’s spin doctors tried to deny the attacks had taken place, rather than moving heaven and earth to protect vulnerable communities. The interim government then targeted human rights defenders with a campaign to deny the credibility of their work.
Muhammad Yunus is no ordinary figure. Celebrated worldwide as the “Banker to the Poor,” he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for pioneering microfinance through Grameen Bank. But today, he stands not as a civil society icon, but as the unelected head of an increasingly problematic interim government in Bangladesh - installed in August 2024 after the forced ouster of former prime minister Sheikh Hasina during a wave of anti-government protests. What began as a promise of transitional stability has since devolved into a period marked by authoritarian excess, allegations of state violence, and the erosion of religious and political freedoms is continuing. It must be noted that members of the interim government in Bangladesh tried to target the Hari Krishna movement with baseless claims they were a terrorist organisation. Anti-Indian rhetoric is having a direct, negative impact on Bangladesh’s Hindu community.
There are several good reasons why Starmer’s government must be careful when addressing the issue of Muhammad Yunus and his interim government.
Firstly, the irony is staggering. Doughty Street Chambers - where Starmer once practised as a human rights barrister - is now directly involved in compiling evidence for Yunus’s prosecution at the International Criminal Court (ICC). Their legal filing under Article 15 accuses Yunus’s government of orchestrating “a widespread and systematic attack against civilians,” including arbitrary arrests, torture, and persecution of minorities and civil society figures. The symbolism of the PM meeting the very man his former colleagues are trying to prosecute is more than ironic - it is damning. Sir Keir entered politics with a foundation in human rights. This proposed meeting risks sending a message that political convenience trumps principle. The March letter by global human rights organisations shows this is not a partisan effort to defame Yunus but a genuine call for alarm.
Perhaps the most chilling development under Yunus’s watch is not just the silencing of dissent - it is the quiet embrace of extremism. Islamist hardliners, once pushed to the margins of Bangladeshi politics, are now re-emerging with force. As The New York Times reported, these groups are imposing rigid religious codes, threatening artists, activists, and women, and eroding the secular foundations the country was built on. Instead of pushing back, Yunus’s administration appears to be making room for them - whether out of convenience or calculation. Either way, the cost to Bangladesh’s pluralism is already being felt. His alliances with radical Islamist factions such as Jamaat-e-Islami - long excluded from mainstream governance - raise pressing questions about the direction of the interim government and its commitment to pluralism and religious tolerance.
Remember that Yunus was appointed, not elected, to his current position. While interim governments can play a role in transitional periods, the absence of a democratic mandate and the postponement of elections raise concerns about the consolidation of power without public accountability. Bangladesh’s constitutionally mandated timeline for fresh elections has already been suspended without a clear roadmap for restoration. Interim governments are meant to be bridges to democracy - not barricades.
By entertaining a meeting with Yunus, the UK risks appearing complicit in the consolidation of power by an administration that has yet to show any real commitment to democratic restoration. The UK High Commission has called for inclusive government in Bangladesh. But Yunus has chosen to enable a path of revenge and retribution. He should not be rewarded for it.
Prime Minister Starmer’s previous comments on immigration - specifically singling out Bangladesh as a country from which illegal migrants are not being removed - sparked backlash from the British-Bangladeshi community. Several Labour councillors resigned in protest, and Starmer faced criticism for potentially alienating a community that has historically supported the Labour Party.
A meeting with Yunus - who many diaspora Bangladeshis view as complicit in persecution and religious regression - could further alienate a key constituency. At a time when Labour is trying to rebuild trust in ethnic communities, this would be an unforced and avoidable error.
If this story feels familiar, it should. In 2016, the West embraced another Nobel Peace Prize winner turned leader: Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar. She was lauded in capitals across Europe and North America. But in the years that followed, her government oversaw ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya. The same world leaders who supported her were soon forced to backtrack, apologise, and question how they had been so easily seduced by a Nobel Peace Prize. Muhammad Yunus’s administration is already drawing comparisons - not because of his past accolades, but because of his present actions. The West cannot afford to mistake a Nobel Peace Prize once again for a guarantee of democratic virtue.
Engagement with Yunus at this moment risks more than a temporary controversy. It risks legitimising an administration facing credible accusations of authoritarianism, religious regression, and allegations of state-sponsored violence. This is not about opposing diplomacy - but about recognising when diplomacy confers something it should not: moral legitimacy without moral scrutiny.
The British prime minister would be wise to take a long, hard look at what this meeting really signifies - not just to the world, but to communities here at home. If he wants Britain to be seen as a country that stands firmly for democracy and human rights, then that commitment must be reflected in who we choose to engage with. Sometimes, doing the right thing means walking away - even when the person across the table has a Nobel Prize.
Chris Blackburn is Communications Director at the European Bangladesh Forum
