Editor's note: Tom Fowdy, graduated from Oxford University's China Studies Program and majored in politics at Durham University, writes about international relations focusing on China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Uygur Human Rights Policy Act of 2019 on December 3. It is one of the plethoras of anti-China legislation that have been pursued by Congress in recent months. The bill accuses China of violating human rights in Xinjiang and accordingly calls for sanctions on Chinese leaders responsible.

Much has been made in the West about Xinjiang in the past months. But sensible minds must prevail. First of all, Western perception of events in the region is plagued by misleading and "low hanging fruit" comparisons to the historical memory of World War Two Germany, which sparks strong emotions. There is persistent misinformation circulating that China is aspiring to completely destroy the Uygur minority. This is not true. Events in this region, even if one disagrees with it, should not neglect China's perspective which argues the goal is to create stability, security, and adherence to the law. In this light, the act from Washington is just opportunism engineered by Hawkish congressmen.

The biggest analytical problem with assessing events in Xinjiang is the inflammatory Western-centric discourse that dominates the discussion: The application of public historical memory in associating the state's actions with certain regimes in European history, which often targeted minority groups. The legacy of these events would transform the way the West perceived itself in international affairs and led it to appoint itself as the guardian and overseer with the belief that it has the "duty" to protect others.

However, this would not stop such a view from being inherently political at times. The West focuses on some things it describes as "humanitarian or rights crises" in the non-Western world while happily ignoring others, using moralistic historical memories as its political capital. On the things it does focus on, the debate is heavily charged with emotions and can sometimes have a scope of deception.