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

The West can't interfere in others' domestic affairs

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
Argument1 of 3›: The West can't interfere in others' domestic affairs

There is the fine line between human rights cooperation and infringe on autonomy.

The argument

In most cases, Non-western countries perceive international human rights treaties imposed by the West as cultural colonization and a stepping on their domestic affairs, repelled by such theory and practice of human rights exhibited as an act of superiority, which alike any other colonization the western countries undertook throughout the history. Non-western countries would strike back against the West based on the point that, the West itself is acquainted with social injustices, far from being in the state of human rights violations-free. For such reason, the West must act with cautions dealing with the boundary between promoting human rights internationally and intervene on internal political issues of others.

Premises

[P1]Many non-Western countries view Western-imposed human rights treaties as cultural colonization and interference in their domestic affairs, an act of superiority resembling past colonialism. [P2] They can point out that the West itself is far from free of social injustice, so its human-rights advocacy invites charges of hypocrisy. [P3] The West must therefore tread carefully along the boundary between promoting human rights internationally and intervening in others' internal politics. [C] Because interfering in others' domestic affairs is fraught, it is hard to say whether the West still values human rights — promoting them globally is complicated.

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that these premises describe how human-rights advocacy is received, not whether the West values it. That governments accused of abuses characterise scrutiny as cultural colonialism is expected — the objection is raised by the actor with the strongest interest in deflecting it — and cannot by itself settle the question. They also dispute the "Western imposition" framing on the record: the drafting committee for the Universal Declaration included delegates from China, Lebanon, Chile, India and the Philippines, and the African and Arab regional human-rights charters were authored by non-Western states. The hypocrisy point, meanwhile, bears on the West's consistency rather than on the validity of the claims: a state can fail its own standards and still be right about the standard, and pointing to a critic's failings does not answer the criticism. The most direct objection is that the argument supports its sibling positions rather than this one. If the difficulty is that Western governments invoke rights where it is convenient and retreat where it is not, that is the "selective" or "hypocrites" reading of the debate, not genuine uncertainty. Critics add that the killing at issue took place on foreign soil and involved a resident journalist, a case the non-interference framing does not obviously cover.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] That some governments describe rights advocacy as cultural colonisation shows how criticism is received, not that the norms were imposed: the objection comes from actors with a direct interest in deflecting scrutiny, and non-Western states helped draft the Universal Declaration and authored the African and Arab regional charters. [Rejecting P2] Western hypocrisy bears on the West's consistency rather than on the validity of the rights claimed; a state can fall short of a standard and still be correct about it. [Rejecting P3] Even granting the difficulty, the conclusion does not follow — if rights are invoked where convenient and dropped where they are not, that is the "selective" or "hypocrisy" reading held by the sibling positions rather than real uncertainty about whether the West values them.