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.
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
RSS