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

The West is threatened by economic growth in developing countries

Question: Does the West still value human rights in light of its dismissal of Khashoggi's death?
Position‹4 of 5›: Not exactly, Western governments' positions on honouring human rights are selective
Argument‹2 of 3›: The West is threatened by economic growth in developing countries

If economic power shifts from Western to Eastern countries, the West's financial instability could increase. If the West becomes instable economically, they lose their influence in the global economic power struggle.

The argument

The West is prided as being one of the most influential places to live. There's financial abundance, job variety, and human rights that don't exist in every part of the globe. Slavery was abolished a long time ago. Even today, people are fighting for the rights of illegal immigrants, so the self-image is of a place where rights are taken seriously and continually extended. However, the West seems to ignore the violations of human rights in other countries. In the past, they abstained from getting involved in major civil wars and domestic terrorism. These acts of violence usually occur in developing countries that don't have stability — which is precisely where the professed commitment would be most costly to act on. The gap between what is upheld at home and what is tolerated abroad is what this argument sets out to explain. The explanation offered is one of interest rather than principle. On this account, Western countries ignore violent problems in developing countries because they're afraid of not being in the lead of economic wealth. When developing countries rise, they'll gain a lot of influential power in the world. Currently, the West holds the most influence, and because of this, the western countries are respected more. Intervening in ways that stabilised and strengthened those countries would therefore work against the position the West wants to keep, which gives it a reason to look away that has nothing to do with the rights themselves. If more countries, especially developing countries, start to grow more, they'll overthrow the western countries' influence — and that, proponents argue, is why the Western commitment to human rights is applied selectively.

Context

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has estimated that developing countries will increase their GDP to rival the West by 2060.

Premises

[P1]The West presents itself as a bastion of rights and abundance, yet it tends to ignore human-rights violations and abstain from civil wars and terrorism in unstable developing countries. [P2] Proponents argue this selectivity stems from fear of losing economic and influential primacy, which the West currently holds. [P3] If developing countries grow, they would gain influence and could overtake the West's standing — giving the West a motive to overlook their problems. [C] Therefore, the West is threatened by economic growth in developing countries, which is why its human-rights stance is selective.

Counter-arguments

The West isn’t the only place on the globe that holds a lot of economic power. Places like China and the United Arab Emirates are economically stable. They’re even considered rich. The West is just seen as the most influential when it comes to world powers. Western countries try focusing on higher competitors. More influence equals a bigger say in global wealth and economics. A developing country holds no weight during bigger economic powers. The same goes for other areas in life. The louder and qualified voices are heard more. On top of that, being involved in another country’s civil war can negatively affect one’s own. World War 2 was one of the most expensive wars in history. It also risks saving face. The goal is to be neutral unless the country itself is in danger. Causing war on one’s own country for stepping in is dangerous and expensive.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Western countries don’t want to risk going to war with countries because they interfered with their problems. [Rejecting P2] Western countries focus on countries with good economies because they affect the world more than struggling countries.