There's a difference between could and should. The West COULD intervene by boycotting the Olympics, cancelling trade agreements, trying to pass UN resolutions, invasion by air, land or sea, "nuking 'em".
There are many arguments about the wisdom of boycotting sports events, and I'm not going into them here. Cancelling trade agreements would run the risk of losing access to a huge market for our goods, and losing the opportunity to buy cheap manufactured goods, increasing the costs for our firms, leading to price rises and business closures happening in the West. UN resolutions? Does China have a veto? How many resolutions have been passed about the illegal occupation of Palestinian land? Did they help? Invasion is a non-starter. China is huge with an experienced military force. Not as big as the USA of course, but from our experience with Iraq, a country like China would be impossible to quash. Nuking 'em would do nothing for human rights in the country, and of course would merit reprisal.
SHOULD the West intervene? The answer to that is a big fat no. It is heresy I know, but the western way of life is not the only way to live. The West has its own human rights issues, and there are unacceptable levels of poverty in the most developed Western country.
You don't want us to mention Iraq but you do mention basic human rights. By that I assume you mean freedom of speech, rights to vote, rights to demonstrate. Personally I would prefer the right to go out shopping safely, the right to go to school and the right to go out in the street without fear of being blown up or shot. These are basic rights that have gone out the window for Iraqis since the West invaded to improve their lives, introduce democracy, and of course eradicate non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
Diplomacy is slow and unsexy but gentle pressure, and leading by example would be a better and more successful way to influence change.