Dr Anastassiya Mahon, an Associate Lecturer in Security Studies at Aberystwyth University, and the Founder of Unlimitedpolitics.com, considered the security aspect of the China-Central Asia relationship, specifically delving into the perception of Chinese influence in Central Asia and emphasising the potential necessity for China to reconsider its approach in light of Russia’s shifted attention and increased interest from the US and UK in the region. She saw an increased Chinese presence in Central Asia as a window of opportunity for Beijing to expand its sphere of influence there, as Russia’s resources and political will are mostly directed at the war in Ukraine, which gives other major international players a chance to reconsider their role in the region. However, Russia’s distraction in Ukraine does not automatically mean that China will succeed in filling the vacuum, as there are obstacles. For example, said Mahon, there is a disparity in how Central Asia’s elites view China’s presence there, and how the general public perceives it. Given a basic public mistrust of Chinese influence in the region, China needs to present itself in such a way as to not cause extra domestic problems for Central Asian countries, as this would slow cooperation. Also, China would need to balance its interests in the region against those of other major actors such as the US and UK. And it is important to see that an increased Chinese presence is not seen as fully positive, Mahon argued – for example, the presence of China brings greater security concerns.

Another concern vi-a-vis an increased Chinese presence in Central Asia is the Chinese crackdown on Islam within its own borders. With Islam a central part of many Central Asian countries’ identities, China might not be viewed favourably. In conclusion, Mahon said it is not prewritten that China will fill the vacuum caused by the war in Ukraine, and that China would prefer bilateral relationships with Central Asian countries, as this would make it easier to avoid too much transparency and accountability.

Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security at the University of Birmingham, underscored the impact of Western re-engagement in the region and how this might affect Chinese considerations. He pointed to two parallel sets of developments – an increased interest in the region across the world, and at the same time a bottom-up dynamic, with far more intra-regional, trans-Caspian assertiveness, as there is more space for regional countries to do things on their own. He also addressed the prospect of a real hegemonic transition from Russia to China – not something Central Asia will look forward to. Great powers still matter, said Wolff, hence the relationships between them also matter, and so it would be a mistake to ignore these wider interests. Wolff considered whether the greater trans-regional assertiveness and renewed interest in Central Asia is driven by the dynamics of a new Great Game, adding that the region has huge mineral, wealth, which makes it very interesting to other nations. Yet, since the Kremlin’s influence in the region has waned, Central Asia has a chance to hedge against one single great power having huge influence.

Wolff also looked at various issues relating to regional nations, such as the problems of violent extremism and drug trafficking, and highlighted the need to manage risks associated with climate change, such as water scarcity and climate-induced migration, which could create instability. Therefore, a shared priority across most Central Asian states, and outside players, must be to prevent instability and disruption of trade routes and supply chains.

In his closing remarks, TDF Chair Barry Gardiner MP pointed to the apparent reasons behind the creation of the C5 + 1in 2015: regional security, economic development and political stability in Central Asia. But the raw truth, argued Gardiner, was that it was seen as a way for the US containment policy to reduce Russian influence in the region and to counteract the growing presence of China. Russia and China have a common interest in keeping the US out of their Central Asian back yard, but the C5 provides a perfect trade route through Central Asia, to undermine Western sanctions against Moscow and re-export Chinese goods to Russia. Gardiner concluded that China is carefully watching America’s response to the Russia-Ukraine crisis to guide future efforts diplomatically, informatically and economically. and China will take advantage of weaknesses in the Western alliance to sow division.

In a tactical change,Jamaat’s leadership is now considering changing its position from the time of the Bangladesh Liberation War, although for some,its fundamental position has not changed even though the rhetoric has become softer.Asked by an audience member whether it were fair to describe Jamaat as a proxy of Pakistan and puppet of the ISI, he said that it was.

Exploring the theme of Jamaat and democracy,Dr Md Nazrul Islam, Professor of Political Studies at Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet, Bangladesh,highlighted opportunities for reconciliation between Jamaat and democracy within secular and semi-secular parties. He emphasised the need to understand the formation of Jamaat-e-Islami in the context of the anti-colonial movement in India in 1941. He explained that Maududi was an extremist at the time because he didn’t believe Pakistan should be ruled by non-Islamic leaders and was initially against Western democracy and human rights, but softened, advocating for an Islamic democracy that differed from Western secular democracy.

Speaking about the position of Jamaat on democracy, he said that neither Islam nor democracy is monolithic; therefore political Islam isn’t monolithic either. He suggested that Jamaat and democracy are not necessarily incompatible, adding that the party has supported constitutionalism and electoral politics. He added that there is a growing interest in reform and a need to acknowledge the mistake made in 1971 in siding with the Pakistan army, even though some are not ready to do this. He warned of the danger of repressing Jamaat – it could lead to radicalization and said that some elements of Western democracy are inherent in Islam.

Several of the panellists pointed out that Jamaat-e-Islami was an outcome of the rise of political Islam, which has had far-reaching implications for the geopolitics of the region. The failure of secular political parties to strengthen democracy also provided fertile ground for the growth of extremist politics, while the negation of democracy by successive military regimes in Bangladesh and Pakistan also gave it a boost.

In his closing comments, TDF Chair Barry Gardiner spoke of the need to leave religion in the private rather than the political sphere and of ‘the paradox of tolerance’ – that is, should intolerance be tolerated? He argued that Islam has not gone through the same trauma as Christianity or that of Western nations. While Jamaat-e-Islami is providing for some of the necessities of life – e.g. education, social aid, etc. – if, through democratic means, an Islamist party gains power, what if it then become undemocratic and refuse to allow others to replace it? That is the danger.

Bangladesh’s undoubted development success has always depended on responsiveness: the Bangladeshi state needs to be oriented to listening to its people, and meeting their basic needs, and it has done this very well up to now. It may not be as democratic as Western models, but has been very good at listening to its citizens. However, it will find it difficult to continue to do this, the more authoritarian it becomes, warned Hossain.

Journalist and Badrul Syed Ahsan considered the role of democracy in Bangladesh’s global growth over the years. Democracy is a state of mind, he said, and for Bangladesh, it is a work in progress. The county had started off on right track in 1972, drawing up a Constitution within a year of independence – not many countries do this, Ahsan said. But in 1975 tragedy struck with the assassination of founder Sheikh Mujibur Rehman and most of his family., and years of military rule followed as the nation fell victim to various coups and abortive coups, undergoing 21 years of what Ahsan called ‘an age of darkness’.

Bangladesh’s democratic journey has been a tortuous path, and what matters is the future. Excellent economic growth means Bangladesh is on the right track, though over-population and climate problems are serious issues. Democracy depends on rule of law, freedom of speech etc, but also on diversification of exports, argued Ahsan This all depends on what happens in the January 2024 elections, and how credible they will be. The government’s performance on the economy over past 14 years has been very impressive, with infrastructure development and food security. Bangladesh is still moving towards a better democracy, and there is reason to believe the democratic system will be sustained. Yet, whatever happens in the election, Ahsan believed that the next government needs to bridge the widening gap between rich and poor, and between political parties, as well as bring about decentralistion and jobs, and a deep politicisation of political institutions so that they are state institutions rather than being subservient to particular political parties.

In his closing comments, TDF Chair Barry Gardiner said that the major climate catastrophe facing Bangladesh in the coming years needs a huge response on a war footing, if Bangladesh is to have a sustainable future.