Editor's note: Wang Jiang is the deputy director and a professor of the Institute of China's Borderland Studies at Zhejiang Normal University. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

More than seven decades after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the foundational document adopted by the United Nations listing the fundamental human rights to be universally protected, its core promise remains simple: Every person should be protected from abuse, fear and humiliation. That promise is too important to be turned into a diplomatic slogan. Yet the debates over China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region and Xizang Autonomous Region show how easily human rights language can be detached from evidence and used as a tool of geopolitical pressure.

The question is not whether any country should be free from scrutiny. No state is perfect, and human rights protection is always a work in progress. The real question is whether scrutiny follows facts, law and equal standards. When allegations such as "forced labor," "cultural genocide" or "religious oppression" are propagated before they are tested, public judgment can be shaped more by political intent than by objective inquiry.

Reports by "advocacy" groups are often cited as if they were legal verdicts. They should instead be examined like any other claim. Who are the sources? Were the allegations independently verified? Were field conditions studied? Were contrary facts considered? If serious claims about Xinjiang or Xizang rely heavily on anonymous accounts, second-hand material or selective interpretation, they should not become the basis for sanctions, condemnation or moral certainty.

Xinjiang and Xizang deserve to be seen in their full social reality, not reduced to political labels. In Xinjiang, employment, education, poverty reduction, public safety and social stability are not abstract policy terms; they affect the daily lives of ordinary families. In Xizang, language, culture, religious practice, infrastructure and livelihoods are all part of the human rights picture. A fair assessment should ask concrete questions: Are people safer? Do children have better access to schools? Are medical services improving? Are minority languages and cultures protected? Can normal religious activities be carried out under law? Are local communities sharing in development?

These questions matter because human rights are not political slogans. They are about the real conditions that allow people to live with dignity. For many countries of the Global South, the rights to subsistence and development are not secondary concerns. They are foundational. Food, housing, healthcare, education, mobility and security are human rights issues, too. They do not replace civil and political rights, but they cannot be pushed to the margins.

This is where some Western human rights discourses lose credibility. They often apply a narrow yardstick to other countries while showing far less urgency about problems at home or among allies. The United States still faces the long legacy of Indigenous dispossession and persistent racial inequality. European countries face hard questions over the treatment of refugees, migrants and minority communities. These problems do not mean Western countries cannot discuss human rights. They mean no country has a monopoly on moral judgment.

Selectivity weakens the international human rights system. When some issues are amplified and others ignored, human rights mechanisms risk becoming arenas of political competition rather than platforms for problem-solving. When country-specific resolutions are linked to strategic rivalry, human rights become a spear, not a shield. That harms not only the targeted country, it harms the credibility of global governance itself.

A better approach must begin with rule-of-law discipline. Accusations should be supported by verifiable evidence, transparent methods and fair procedures. International review should distinguish facts from interpretation and advocacy from proof. The Universal Periodic Review, the state-driven peer review mechanism of the UN Human Rights Council that assesses the human rights records of all UN member states periodically, remains valuable precisely because it applies to all countries. It should be strengthened, not replaced by selective pressure campaigns.

Human rights governance also needs more cooperation and less punishment. Technical assistance, judicial training, cultural protection, education, healthcare and livelihood projects often do more for real human rights improvement than resolutions written for political theater. Respect for national ownership does not mean silence. It means helping societies solve problems in ways that fit their history, conditions and development needs.

The debates over Xinjiang and Xizang therefore raise a larger question: What are human rights for? If they are for protecting people, then evidence, context and development must matter. If they are for pressuring rivals, then the language of rights becomes another instrument of power.

The world does not need a new human rights Cold War. It needs a more honest conversation based on sovereign equality, non-selectivity and cooperation, as promised in the UN Charter. Human rights should remain a shield for human beings, not a weapon in interstate contestation. That is the only way to restore trust and make global human rights governance serve all.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)