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 event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
RSS