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.
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS