Does the West still value human rights in light of its dismissal of Khashoggi's death?

Countries set different goals for human rights

Question: Does the West still value human rights in light of its dismissal of Khashoggi's death?
Position‹2 of 5›: Yes, despite that Western countries and non-Western countries perceive human rights differently
Argument‹2 of 2: Countries set different goals for human rights

For non-developed nations, human rights would slow down the pace of rapid economic development.

The argument

Proponents of this view begin from a claim about preconditions. The machinery that makes human rights enforceable — independent courts, a free press, legislatures that can be held to account, and the public revenue required to fund all three — is itself the product of accumulated wealth. On this reading, human rights can only survive sufficiently in developed countries with abundant wealth, evenly distributed resources and a highly functional political system. Non-Western nations, comparatively less developed and modernised, are therefore in a less powerful or even vulnerable position to promote them: not because they reject the underlying values, but because they lack the apparatus that would make those values operative. From that starting point the argument moves to priorities. Where material security is not yet assured, the first demand made of a government is economic development rather than political liberty, and populations may not treat democratic procedure as the urgent question at all. "According to a study by the Centre for Children's Movement for Civic Awareness in India, most Indian youths demonstrated 'authoritarian leanings' and were skeptical about the advantages of democracy." Thus they do not put as much focus on addressing human rights as on economic gains. The second step treats rights protections as a brake on the speed of development. Consider an ongoing government-funded infrastructure project in a democratic country: affected residents and interest groups protest for their rights, a free media criticises the negative impacts, and the project is dragged out over several years before it is completed. The same protections that make a state legitimate in Western eyes also make it slow, and a government that measures itself by growth will register that delay as a cost rather than as the price of legitimacy. Taken together, the two claims explain the pattern the argument is designed to account for. Because countries set different goals for human rights, the West encounters failures and attacks when it tries to promote and rectify human rights systems in the developing world.

Premises

[P1]Human rights flourish most in wealthy, developed states, leaving less-developed non-Western nations in weaker positions to promote them. [P2] Many developing countries prioritise economic development over political liberties and can view rights protections as barriers that slow growth. [C] Countries set different goals for human rights, which is why the West meets resistance when it tries to promote them.

Counter-arguments

Some coercive practices, such as inhumane torture and genocide towards critics and dissidents of the government and leading party, should be condemned whatsoever regardless of one's cultural and social practises because no rights would ever exist under such condition.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise inverts the historical record it needs, since rights protections have been won in poor countries as well as rich ones and by the people living under repressive governments rather than granted after prosperity arrived — so treating wealth as a precondition confuses one common correlate with a requirement. [Rejecting P2] Attributing a preference to a whole country from a survey of attitudes takes governments' stated priorities as their populations' own, which is exactly what is in question where dissent is punished; and the development-versus-rights trade-off is contested rather than established, with famine and mass displacement being the standard counter-examples of what unaccountable rapid development produces.