The recent deportation of 40 Uighurs from Thailand to China has sparked international condemnation. Despite offers from third countries to resettle them, Bangkok proceeded with the deportation, fearing economic retaliation from Beijing. The decision raises serious human rights concerns, given the documented repression of Uighurs in China’s Xinjiang region.
The UN urged Thailand not to deport the Uighurs due to the risk of significant harm, including torture and persecution. However, Bangkok ignored these warnings. Notably, Indonesia — the world’s largest Muslim-majority country — has remained silent.
This silence is unsurprising. China is Indonesia’s largest trading partner and top investor, making Jakarta cautious about jeopardizing economic ties. Yet, by ignoring the deportation and broader persecution of Uighurs, Indonesia risks compromising its principles of human rights and solidarity with fellow Muslims.
Indonesia has long positioned itself as a defender of oppressed Muslim communities. The Indonesian Ulama Council has expressed concern over the Uighurs’ plight, emphasizing Islamic solidarity and fundamental human rights. Yet, the government remains reluctant to act.
Jakarta’s hesitation is tied to its deep economic reliance on China. Beijing has invested heavily in Indonesia’s infrastructure through the Belt and Road Initiative. Trade between the two nations surpasses US$100 billion, with Chinese investments shaping key sectors like energy, mining and digital industries. Any criticism of China risks economic repercussions.
This is not the first time Indonesia has stayed silent. In 2022, Indonesia joined 18 nations in voting against a UN motion to discuss China’s human rights abuses in Xinjiang. Jakarta dismissed the effort as political maneuvering, framing the Uighur issue as China’s internal matter.
Indonesia’s stance contrasts sharply with its vocal condemnation of Myanmar’s persecution of the Rohingya and Israeli policies toward Palestinians. This selective advocacy undermines its credibility as a principled defender of human rights.
While Indonesia might fear economic fallout, it cannot afford to remain passive in the face of grave human rights violations. There are strategic steps it could take to address the Uighur crisis while safeguarding national interests.
First, Indonesia must leverage its diplomatic ties with China to press for greater transparency and accountability. High-level dialogues should demand concrete commitments from Beijing to uphold religious freedom and cultural autonomy. Jakarta should stress that addressing these concerns would enhance China’s standing among Muslim-majority nations and strengthen bilateral trust.
Regionally, Indonesia should initiate ASEAN discussions on the deportation of Uighurs. Many ASEAN members, including Thailand, rely economically on China, but a unified stance could create diplomatic leverage. A regional dialogue on asylum seekers and refugee protection would reaffirm Indonesia’s commitment to stability and humanitarian principles.
Indonesia could also take a leadership role in providing humanitarian aid and asylum for Uighurs fleeing persecution. Given its history of sheltering Rohingya refugees, Jakarta could extend similar protections to Uighur asylum seekers under international refugee protocols, reinforcing its reputation as a compassionate regional leader.
As a key member of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Indonesia should push for stronger collective action on the Uighur issue. While the organization has voiced concerns, it has been largely ineffective due to political and economic considerations. Indonesia’s leadership could revitalize efforts to prioritize Uighur rights on the global Islamic agenda.
Finally, Indonesia should call on China to allow independent observers, including representatives from Muslim-majority nations, to assess the situation in Xinjiang. If China insists that claims of Uighur persecution are false, it should have no reason to prevent international scrutiny.
Indonesia’s silence on the Uighur issue is not just a diplomatic misstep — it is a failure of moral leadership. As the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, Indonesia has a responsibility to advocate for Uighurs while maintaining economic ties with China. By remaining silent, Jakarta signals that economic pragmatism outweighs fundamental human rights and religious solidarity.
The cost of inaction extends beyond foreign policy. It erodes Indonesia’s credibility as a defender of Muslim rights and weakens its moral standing on the global stage. If Indonesia continues to ignore the Uighurs’ plight, it risks being seen as selective in its advocacy.
Indonesia has the diplomatic weight and strategic influence to engage China on this issue in a way that is pragmatic and principled. The question is whether Jakarta has the courage to act. The world is watching, and history would remember which nations stood for justice — and which remained silent.
Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat is director of the China-Indonesia Desk at the Center of Economic and Law Studies in Jakarta.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS