Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a distant technological frontier. It is already shaping how governments make decisions, information circulates, borders are managed, and how citizens interact with the state. For Bangladesh, this transformation is increasingly visible in everyday realities—from visa applications to labour markets, from digital services to global narratives about who we are. Despite that, the national conversation on AI remains largely confined to innovation, startups, and automation.
What is less discussed, but far more consequential, is that AI is becoming a new domain of diplomacy and sovereignty. If Bangladesh does not recognise and respond to this shift, it risks entering a future where decisions affecting its citizens are increasingly made or mediated by systems it neither designs, governs, nor adequately controls.
For decades, diplomacy has operated within a familiar framework. States negotiated with states, sovereignty was territorial, and rules were defined through treaties such as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Today, that landscape is changing in a transformative way. A small number of global technology actors—companies controlling cloud infrastructure, data systems, and AI platforms—now influence how information flows, how risks are assessed, and how decisions are made. These systems underpin everything from financial transactions to migration screening. In practical terms, power is increasingly exercised not only through institutions but through algorithms and digital infrastructures.
For countries like Bangladesh, this creates a new challenge. Engagement is no longer limited to governments. There is also a growing, often indirect, interaction with systems designed elsewhere, trained on foreign data, and aligned with external institutional assumptions. This asymmetry is not merely technical; it is structural, with implications for how sovereignty is exercised in a digital age.
A clear example of this transformation can be seen in visa processing. Across many developed countries, AI-powered tools are now used to assess visa applications. These systems analyse risk patterns, flag anomalies, and support decision-making processes. While presented as efficient and objective, they often operate through opaque models trained on historical data. For Bangladeshi applicants, this can translate into a difficult reality: decisions that are increasingly automated, less transparent, and harder to challenge. When a rejection is issued, it is often unclear whether it reflects a human judgement or an algorithmic risk profile shaped by past data biases.
Beyond formal documentation, there is also a growing perception that applicants’ digital footprints, including social media activity such as Facebook profiles, may be informally scrutinised to assess attitudes, affiliations, or perceived behavioural risks. Whether systematic or discretionary, such practices introduce an additional layer of opacity, where personal expression in digital spaces may indirectly influence mobility outcomes.
Compounding this challenge are emerging concerns regarding identity credibility. Perceptions, particularly in some destination countries, that individuals from forcibly displaced Rohingya populations may have obtained Bangladeshi passports through systemic leakages, have begun to cast a shadow over the integrity of Bangladesh’s otherwise advanced e-passport system. Even if limited in scale, such narratives can disproportionately affect trust in documentation, reinforcing risk perceptions within algorithmic systems that rely heavily on identity assurance.
This evolving reality is not merely a consular issue. It reflects a broader shift in how borders are governed—through what may be described as algorithmic border regimes. If states do not understand how such systems operate, they cannot effectively engage, negotiate, or contest outcomes. In this sense, visa challenges are an early indicator of a deeper transformation in global governance.
At the same time, another structural shift is underway. AI is no longer confined to industrial automation; it is increasingly capable of performing white-collar tasks such as drafting documents, analysing data, translating content, and supporting legal or financial decisions. This raises important questions for Bangladesh’s economic model, particularly in relation to overseas employment and remittance flows. If global demand for certain categories of labour shifts due to AI-driven efficiencies, the implications will extend beyond economics into diplomacy, affecting labour agreements, migration pathways, and the protection of workers abroad.
An often overlooked dimension of this transformation is language. Large AI systems do not simply process languages; they reason through them. When a language is underrepresented, the system struggles to interpret its legal concepts, institutional frameworks, and social nuances. Bangla, despite being spoken by nearly 300 million people, remains underrepresented in many global AI architectures. This creates a subtle but significant distortion: national realities are filtered through external linguistic and conceptual frameworks. In this context, language becomes not just a cultural asset but an infrastructure of sovereignty.
These developments point to a necessary conclusion: diplomacy must evolve. AI can no longer be treated as a purely technical domain managed by ICT agencies. It must be recognised as a strategic field requiring diplomatic engagement, policy coordination, and institutional capacity. This includes understanding how AI systems influence migration and visa decisions, engaging in global AI governance discussions, ensuring representation of Bangla in AI ecosystems, and preparing for labour market transformations driven by technological change.
One practical step forward would be to strengthen institutional capacity within the foreign policy apparatus. This could involve creating a dedicated focus on AI and digital sovereignty within existing structures, enabling more systematic monitoring of global developments, more effective international engagement, and more informed policy responses. This approach aligns with emerging efforts to modernise diplomatic frameworks for the digital era, including proposals to extend traditional diplomatic protections into cyberspace and AI-mediated environments.
The urgency of this shift cannot be overstated. Global investments in AI infrastructure are accelerating, governance frameworks are being shaped in international forums, and standards are being set, often without meaningful participation from developing countries. If Bangladesh remains passive, it will have to adapt to systems designed by others. If it acts strategically, it can help shape those systems, ensuring that they reflect its realities, its language, and its national interests.
Evidently, the future of sovereignty will not be determined solely by borders, treaties, or military capabilities. It will increasingly depend on who understands, shapes, and governs the digital systems through which power is exercised. Artificial intelligence is not replacing diplomacy; it is redefining it. For Bangladesh, recognising this shift is the first step. Acting on it is the real test.
Mohammad Khorshed A. Khastagir is a diplomat currently pursuing a PhD at Taylor’s University, Malaysia. He is also a visiting researcher at the Centre for Industrial Sustainability, Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
