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

The importance of civil vs cultural rights is debated

Question: Does the West still value human rights in light of its dismissal of Khashoggi's death?
Position‹3 of 5›: Hard to say, because promoting human rights globally is complicated
Argument‹3 of 3: The importance of civil vs cultural rights is debated

International norms are contradicting local cultural or social values sometimes.

The argument

Cultural norms and social values vary from a country to another, which introduces difficulty balancing international civil rights and social cultural values, especially when mainly the West made the international rights. The United States may find it difficult to decide when to intervene in events in other countries like Khashoggi’s death. The West tries to balance intervention to protect civil rights with the cost or risk of infringing on a country’s autonomy or limiting freedom of speech. The norms in Western countries are different from those in the East. International norms may not align or may even contradict the norms in specific places in the world. Based on these varying values, it is difficult to say whether the West has dismissed human rights. Khasoggi’s connection to the United States may or may not make it more necessary for the U.S. to intervene. Khasoggi had three U.S. citizen children while he was on an O visa and was going to apply for a Green Card. People debate whether his citizenship status and connection to the United States should make the U.S. definitely intervene in his death or whether U.S. protection only extends to its citizens. It is uncertain whether the United States has dismissed its own values.

Premises

[P1]Balancing internationally-declared civil rights against differing cultural values is genuinely difficult, especially since the West largely authored those international norms, which may not align with norms elsewhere. [P2] Even Khashoggi's ties to the US—three citizen children, an O visa, a pending green card—leave it debatable whether intervention was required or whether US protection extends only to citizens. [C] It is hard to say whether the West still values human rights, because promoting them globally is genuinely complicated.

Counter-arguments

The United States should have intervened in Khashoggi's death because it is a clear violation of basic human rights which should be universal and independent of social norms or values. The United States should have proceeded in its promise to conduct a deep investigation on the case. The United States ignored a congressional resolution imposing sanctions. These investigations and sanctions are necessary as part of the U.S. role because Khashoggi's death is a clear violation of human rights. Inaction or slow action means the U.S. has dismissed some of its civil rights values.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Cultural variation is real, but the premise applies it where it does least work: the prohibition on extrajudicial killing is not one of the contested culturally-inflected norms, and treating the Western authorship of the human-rights instruments as a reason for hesitation would suspend judgement on conduct that the state responsible did not itself defend as lawful. [Rejecting P2] The visa and residency details bear on what obligations the United States owed a particular person, not on whether it still values human rights, and the argument slides between them — a government can be uncertain about whether to intervene in a specific case while its stated commitments remain perfectly clear.