International Law is Universal, Not Selective: Global Alliance for Tibet & Persecuted Minorities Responds to CCP People’s Daily “Zhong Sheng” Commentary (7 January 2026)

GATPM, London | 8th January 2026

The Global Alliance for Tibet & Persecuted Minorities has taken note of the CCP-funded People’s Daily commentary published on 7th January 2026 under the byline Zhong Sheng, which asserts that “No single country can act as the international policeman” and calls on all states to uphold international law, oppose the “law of the jungle,” and respect the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.

On this fundamental point, we agree: international law must be applied universally, consistently, and without double standards. However, it is precisely on this ground that the Government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) stands in profound contradiction to its own words.

International Law is Not Selective

The United Nations was established in October 1945, with the UN Charter forming the bedrock of the post–Second World War international legal order. The People’s Republic of China was established in October 1949 in the aftermath of a violent civil war, following the takeover of the ruling Kuomintang by the Mao Tsetung–led Communist Party of China, at a time when the UN Charter was already in force and the core principles of sovereign equality, the prohibition on the use of force, the right of peoples to self-determination, and respect for human rights had crystallised as binding norms of international law.

Yet it was after the UN Charter was in place that Beijing’s Communist regime:

  • Invaded and occupied Tibet (1950–51) by armed force;
  • Consolidated control over East Turkestan (renamed “Xinjiang”) through mass repression, demographic engineering, and the destruction of indigenous identity;
  • Eliminated the promised autonomy of Southern Mongolia through cultural erasure and political coercion;
  • Systematically dismantled Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedoms in clear breach of binding international commitments; and
  • Continues to issue military threats against Taiwan, including the threat or use of force prohibited by the UN Charter.

These are not historical abstractions. They are ongoing realities. To invoke the UN Charter while violating it at home is not a defence of international law – it is its instrumentalisation.

The “Law of the Jungle” Begins at Home

The People’s Daily commentary rightly condemns hegemonism, unilateralism, and the use of force to impose political outcomes. It states that:

“All countries that do not wish to live under the ‘law of the jungle’ should resolutely uphold international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and unequivocally oppose all unilateral acts of bullying.”

By this standard, the PRC must answer uncomfortable questions:

  • How does the militarised occupation of Tibet, accompanied by mass surveillance, arbitrary detention, and the denial of religious freedom, uphold the UN Charter?
  • How do mass internment camps, forced labour, cultural destruction, and family separation in East Turkestan comply with international human rights law and the Genocide Convention?
  • How does the imposition of the National Security Law in Hong Kong, in violation of the Sino–British Joint Declaration registered with the UN, reflect respect for international obligations?
  • How do repeated threats of force against Taiwan align with the Charter’s prohibition on the threat or use of force?

If “no country can act as the international police,” then no country can act as an internal empire either – governing distinct peoples through coercion, fear, and military domination while demanding non-interference from the rest of the world.

Sovereignty Does Not Trump Human Rights

The PRC repeatedly invokes “sovereignty” to shield itself from scrutiny. But sovereignty under international law is not a license to commit crimes, erase cultures, or silence entire peoples. The UN Charter, international human rights treaties, and peremptory norms of international law exist precisely to ensure that state power is constrained by law and morality.

Respect for sovereignty cannot mean:

  • The criminalisation of indigenous languages, religions, and identities;
  • The disappearance of writers, monks, scholars, and activists;
  • The forced assimilation of children; or
  • The transformation of entire regions into open-air prisons.

To claim the mantle of international justice while denying justice to Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongolians, Hongkongers, and others is the very double standard that Beijing claims to oppose.

Exporting Instability Through “Development”

The People’s Daily warns against exporting chaos and humanitarian disaster through hegemonic behaviour. Yet Beijing’s own record abroad – particularly under the banner of Belt and Road “development” projects – raises serious concerns: opaque debt arrangements, environmental destruction, support for authoritarian regimes, and the export of surveillance technologies used to repress populations.

True development cannot be built on repression at home and coercion abroad. A state that has not made peace with its own peoples and neighbours cannot credibly claim to be building a peaceful international order.

A Call for Responsibility, Not Rhetoric

The Global Alliance for Tibet & Persecuted Minorities calls on the Government of the People’s Republic of China to:

  1. Align its actions with its rhetoric by genuinely upholding the UN Charter at home as well as abroad;
  2. End policies of occupation, forced assimilation, and mass repression in Tibet, East Turkestan, Southern Mongolia, and Hong Kong;
  3. Cease threats of force against Taiwan and commit to peaceful, lawful engagement in respect of the Taiwanese people;
  4. Allow independent international investigations and UN access to affected regions; and
  5. Engage in dialogue with the legitimate representatives of the persecuted peoples under its control.

As the People’s Daily correctly notes, a world governed by the “law of the jungle” is a dangerous one. But that danger does not arise only from distant powers – it also arises when a state invokes international law abroad while systematically dismantling it within its own borders.

International law cannot be a weapon of convenience. It must be a standard of conduct.

The peoples of Tibet, East Turkestan, Southern Mongolia, Hong Kong, and Taiwan do not seek privilege. They seek what the UN Charter promises to all: dignity, freedom, equality, and justice. Until Beijing honours these principles in practice, its appeals to international law will remain unconvincing – and its calls for fairness will ring hollow.

Global Alliance for Tibet & Persecuted Minorities

Date: 8th January 2026

Author: Tsering Passang

Founder and Chair, Global Alliance for Tibet & Persecuted Minorities (GATPM)

One thought on “International Law is Universal, Not Selective: Global Alliance for Tibet & Persecuted Minorities Responds to CCP People’s Daily “Zhong Sheng” Commentary (7 January 2026)”

  1. U.N. System Weakened by U.S. Retreats

    −

     On 7 January 2026, the U.S. government announced that it was withdrawing from membership (and thus financial contribution) to 31 United Nations' bodies and programs.  According to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubino, these institutions and programs are "redundant in their scope, mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful, poorly run and captured by the interests of actors advancing their own agendas contrary to our own."  He added "Many of these bodies promote radical climate policies, global governance and ideological programs that conflict with U.S. sovereignty and economic strength." 

 The U.S. withdrawal comes at a time when the U.N. as a whole (the 193 member States) is in the process of evaluating U.N. structures and programs (UN 80).  The results of this evaluation should be presented later this year. 

 A good number of the programs from which the U.S.A. is withdrawing are based or have activities in Geneva, Switzerland. As an NGO  representative to the U.N. in Geneva, I have  interacted with many of these programs and the Secretariat members. At this time when there are real challenges in the world society, the withdrawal of the U.S.A. weakens the U.N. system as a whole.  The representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in consultative status will increase their activities so that the intellectual dynamics will not be weakened, but NGOs can not fill the financial gap. 

 One of the bodies marked for withdrawal is the International Law Commission.  A colleague from Egypt who taught international law at the University of Geneva was a leading member of the Commission and had a deep understanding of Middle East culture. Stronger respect for international law in the Middle East remains a real need. 

Another institution is the Geneva-based International Trade Center where I had a good friend in the Secretariat.  The Trade Center helped developing countries negotiate contracts with transnational corporations. These corporations usually have sophisticated lawyers to write contracts, not the case for many developing countries.  Thus the work of the Trade Center filled a real need.

    The U. N. Institute for Training and Research has its headquarters in New York, but many of its activities were Geneva-based and so the Secretariat cooperated with Geneva-based NGOs. The same holds true for the UN University with headquarters in Japan but with many Geneva-based activities.

    The U.S. is withdrawing from support for the Office of the Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict, from the U.N. Entity for Gender Equality, and from the Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict - all issues on which the Association of World Citizens has been active.  The U.S. is leaving the U.N. Alliance of Civilizations at a time when cross-cultural understanding is a vital need. 

 Many of the U.N. activities which the U.S. is leaving have dedicated U.S. citizens in the Secretariat.  I am not sure what their status will be once the withdrawal is complete. 

The U.S. is also withdrawing from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the key instrument on climate change issues.  The consequences of climate change are being increasingly felt, and U.S. action would be needed. 

As I noted, the representatives of non-governmental organizations will have to increase sharply their activities in the United Nations bodies and programs. The challenges facing us are heavy, and constructive action is urgently needed.

    René Wadlow, Association of World Citizens

    On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 2:39 PM Global Alliance for Tibet & Persecuted

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment