Last week, a Chinese delegation of human rights experts arrived in Indonesia for a six-day mission to promote what Beijing calls its “contemporary human rights perspective.” Organized by the China Society for Human Rights Studies, the delegation presented China’s narrative on respecting and protecting human rights, the priorities set out at the 20th Chinese Communist Party Congress, and its national human rights action plans.
Indonesian experts reportedly praised China’s achievements and expressed eagerness for deeper cooperation. The delegation emphasized the need for the global south to unite in addressing global human rights challenges.
On the surface, the mission appeared harmonious — a smooth exchange of ideas and mutual appreciation.
However, the vision projected during this “successful mission” is difficult to reconcile with the complex human rights realities in both countries. When governments with unresolved and serious rights concerns endorse each other’s narratives without question, the result is not genuine dialogue. It becomes a carefully staged performance that avoids confronting the issues that matter most.
For China, the story presented in Jakarta last week stands in stark contrast to what continues to unfold in Xinjiang. Allegations of mass detention, coercive political indoctrination, pervasive surveillance, and restrictions on cultural and religious life persist, while independent access to the region remains tightly controlled. China insists its policies maintain stability and development, yet meaningful transparency — the foundation of credibility — remains absent.
Indonesia, although far more open politically, also struggles with significant human rights challenges that cannot simply be set aside in a diplomatic exchange. Freedom of expression remains fragile. Journalists and human rights defenders face intimidation and harassment, and the deadly arson attack on a journalist’s family home in North Sumatra earlier this year exposed the profound risks faced by the media.
Security forces have also been accused of using excessive force in handling protests, particularly those connected with land disputes or opposition to controversial legislation. Protesters have been injured, detained without clear justification, or subjected to heavy-handed crowd control. Impunity for abuses by police and officials remains a longstanding problem, eroding trust in institutions tasked with protecting rights.
These realities — different in nature, but similar in their lack of accountability — make last week’s warm, uncritical praise all the more troubling. A human rights dialogue that avoids scrutiny of these issues is not a dialogue. It is mutual endorsement.
The global south does have a meaningful role in shaping a more inclusive and equitable human rights discourse. However, realizing that vision requires honesty and accountability, not merely expressions of solidarity or repeated assurances of shared values.
Beijing’s delegation promoted China’s approach as a model anchored in stability, development and national priorities. Indonesian participants responded with commendations. Yet unaddressed in these exchanges was the fact that both countries face ongoing and serious questions about transparency, accountability and the protection of basic freedoms. China cannot credibly present itself as a human rights leader while preventing independent scrutiny in Xinjiang. Indonesia cannot meaningfully engage in such exchanges while attacks on journalists continue and security force abuses remain unresolved.
A pathway toward genuine mutual learning would require each side to acknowledge uncomfortable truths. China would need to grant independent access to contested regions. Indonesia would need to ensure that attacks on journalists are thoroughly investigated and that security personnel are held accountable when they violate the law. Both would need to strengthen the space for civil society and independent voices — not just state-sanctioned experts.
Without this honesty, last week’s mission would be remembered not as a step forward, but as another example of governments congratulating each other while sidestepping the issues that most urgently need attention. The language of human rights loses its substance when stripped of accountability. If China and Indonesia want their engagement to matter, they must begin by facing the realities that their own citizens know all too well.
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 the China-Indonesia Desk at the Center of Economic and Law Studies.
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