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.
After more than a year of review, the National Security Bureau on Monday said it has completed a sweeping declassification of political archives from the Martial Law period, transferring the full collection to the National Archives Administration under the National Development Council. The move marks another significant step in Taiwan’s long journey toward transitional justice. The newly opened files span the architecture of authoritarian control: internal security and loyalty investigations, intelligence and counterintelligence operations, exit and entry controls, overseas surveillance of Taiwan independence activists, and case materials related to sedition and rebellion charges. For academics of Taiwan’s White Terror era —
On Feb. 7, the New York Times ran a column by Nicholas Kristof (“What if the valedictorians were America’s cool kids?”) that blindly and lavishly praised education in Taiwan and in Asia more broadly. We are used to this kind of Orientalist admiration for what is, at the end of the day, paradoxically very Anglo-centered. They could have praised Europeans for valuing education, too, but one rarely sees an American praising Europe, right? It immediately made me think of something I have observed. If Taiwanese education looks so wonderful through the eyes of the archetypal expat, gazing from an ivory tower, how
China has apparently emerged as one of the clearest and most predictable beneficiaries of US President Donald Trump’s “America First” and “Make America Great Again” approach. Many countries are scrambling to defend their interests and reputation regarding an increasingly unpredictable and self-seeking US. There is a growing consensus among foreign policy pundits that the world has already entered the beginning of the end of Pax Americana, the US-led international order. Consequently, a number of countries are reversing their foreign policy preferences. The result has been an accelerating turn toward China as an alternative economic partner, with Beijing hosting Western leaders, albeit
After 37 US lawmakers wrote to express concern over legislators’ stalling of critical budgets, Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) pledged to make the Executive Yuan’s proposed NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.7 billion) special defense budget a top priority for legislative review. On Tuesday, it was finally listed on the legislator’s plenary agenda for Friday next week. The special defense budget was proposed by President William Lai’s (賴清德) administration in November last year to enhance the nation’s defense capabilities against external threats from China. However, the legislature, dominated by the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), repeatedly blocked its review. The
RSS