At the St Petersburg International Economic Forum on Friday last week, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto declared: “Russia and China have never had double standards.” His remark, made while G7 leaders gathered in Canada and as the Israel-Iran war escalated, was meant as a jab at Western hypocrisy, but in seeking to challenge one set of double standards, Prabowo embraced another — and in doing so, undermined the very principle he sought to defend.
Yes, the West often deserves criticism. Its selective outrage over global conflicts, persistent support for Israel despite civilian suffering in Gaza, and history of interventionist missteps have not gone unnoticed, especially in the global south. Prabowo’s frustration is understandable. However, to suggest that Russia and especially China are somehow free from this same duplicity is dangerously naive.
China excels at the politics of double standards. Consider its actions in the South China Sea. Beijing speaks of multilateralism and peaceful coexistence under the UN Charter. Yet its militarization of artificial islands, harassment of Philippine vessels and sweeping territorial claims — dismissed by a 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling — all constitute clear violations of international law. China rejected the tribunal’s decision, continues to ignore UN Convention on the Law of the Sea provisions and uses maritime militias to assert its dominance in disputed waters. This is not a principled defense of sovereignty; it is coercion, cloaked in nationalist rhetoric.
Even more troubling is the contradiction between China’s professed support for oppressed peoples and its conduct in Xinjiang. Beijing detains more than 1 million Uighurs and other Muslim minorities in what independent observers have called crimes against humanity. It has systematically erased religious and cultural expression in the name of “counterterrorism.”
While China routinely positions itself as a voice for the global south, it allows no critique of its domestic repression.
On Taiwan — a democracy with vibrant institutions and open debate — China’s stance is perhaps the most blatant double standard. It demands noninterference while issuing military threats against Taipei. Beijing’s claim that it opposes hegemonic behavior rings hollow when it seeks to coerce nations and corporations into submission.
Even on the Israel-Iran war, China’s rhetoric is notably restrained. Although it expresses support for a “two-state solution,” Beijing has little appetite for meaningful diplomacy that might upset ties with Israel — or expose its own vulnerabilities on Xinjiang or Hong Kong.
Prabowo champions Indonesia’s long-standing “independent and active” foreign policy, but independence must not devolve into selective blindness. Replacing Western hypocrisy with Chinese or Russian duplicity is not balanced diplomacy. It is capitulation to another form of power politics.
Indonesia, like Taiwan and many nations in Asia, faces increasing pressure to choose sides in a world becoming more polarized. However, true leadership — especially from a rising democracy — lies not in amplifying one superpower’s narrative over another’s. It lies in calling out injustice wherever it appears.
The global south does not need more apologists for authoritarian powers. It needs consistent advocates for sovereignty, democracy and human rights. Taiwan, living daily with the consequences of China’s double standards, knows this truth well.
It is not only the West that must be held to account — so too must those who invoke justice while practicing domination.
Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat is director of the China-Indonesia Desk at the Center of Economic and Law Studies in Jakarta. Yeta Purnama is a researcher at China-Indonesia Desk, Center of Economic and Law Studies.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
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
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
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