This is a bizarre kind of double-think.

If someone the other side of the world tells you that you have the right to freedom of religion, but the authority you live under disagrees, and the people on the other side of the world don't do anything about it, then in what sense do you have the right?

You don't - it's meaningless.

If I say I have decided that you have the universal inalienable right to beer, but where you live doesn't agree, and I don't do anything about it either, then have I really given you that right? Of course not.

I think what you're saying is that you think people should have these rights. Great. But they don't in practice, and so they aren't universal.