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.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS