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.
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS