argument top image

< Back to question Does the West still value human rights in light of its dismissal of Khashoggi's death? Show more Show less

The West used to be the loudest voice advocating for human rights. But Western governments' evasive stances on the horrifying death of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi government dissident, suggest this is no longer the case. In the light of huge economic links and political turbulence, are human rights still valued in western civilization?

No. Western governments are hypocrites on so-called belief in human rights Show more Show less

Western governments are holding double or multiple standards on the human rights diplomacy.
< (5 of 5)

The west overlooks human rights for financial agreements

Western countries like America value international relationships. With trading and meetings, countries contribute financially to each other's economy. However, it could become a problem if finances become more important than the goal of global human rights.
< (1 of 1)

Vote

Not sure yet? Read more before voting ↓

Proponents


Context

Saudi Arabia has been under scrutiny because of their government’s use of power. After Khashoggi, a Saudi Arabian journalist for the New York Times, was murdered, the Saudi Arabian prince Mohammad bin Salman was accused of by the CIA to have ordered his assassination. The prince denied is involvement and instead claimed that 5 suspects were found. Instead, of investigating further, President Trump expressed satisfaction in suspects being held accountable, although the CIA disagreed. After the ordeal, people in the West have wondered if their countries overlook human rights for international relationships. Considering that Saudi Arabia and the U.S.’s relationship involves a lot of financial benefits; it could be considered suspicious that President Trump overlooked Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s possible involvement in Khashoggi’s murder.

The Argument

Countries have a history of agreements and treaties based off financial need. When countries come together, they can help each other stay afloat by exchanging resources. Usually, cultures mix and make both countries diverse and knowledgeable. However, there’s a downside to these agreements. Financial benefits often lead to turning a blind eye to immorality. Greed is a problem in the world. Greed is a selfish desire for money or things of value. When people get too much money or resources, they start to believe that they need more of it even though they may not. In international agreements, greed is commonplace and very dangerous for the civilians of the countries in the agreement. The government of these countries start to become more controlling and demand more money and even loyalty. Western countries like America unfortunately participate in greed with the international treaties they currently have. In the current argument, the U.S. has ignored uprooting Saudi Arabian human rights violations to keep money flowing between both countries. The same thing happened after World War 2. After German Nazi forces had been defeated, the allies demanded that Germany pay for the war although Germany could not afford it.[1] Western countries are blinded by greed and prosperity. They don’t fully want to sacrifice their prosperity for human rights. Instead, they focus on countries that aren’t wealthy to save money. Therefore, the western countries can stay prosperous.

Counter arguments

Western countries aren’t greedy in their international treaties. Western countries have a considerable amount of debt accrued through the trading systems they have. Their debt outweighs the money gained through trading. Therefore, western countries gain almost nothing. Because of this, western countries try focusing on peace through financial agreements. Because the countries they trade with have less debt than they do, the power of extreme influence is in the foreign countries’ hands. If western countries were to appear aggressive by trying to influence the opposing countries’ societies without their approval chances are there would be opposition. Maybe even war. The west looks at the bigger picture. Unfortunately, the bigger picture is a bleak reality of complete government control versus complete civilian control. Countries who are used to full government control, will not be persuaded so easily to give up that control. Therefore, the west must liberate people slowly and carefully.

Premises

[P1] Western countries are greedy with their international treaties. [P2] Western countries don’t want to sacrifice wealth for human rights in extremely wealthy and power-hungry countries.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Western countries gain little to nothing in international treaties because of national debt. [Rejecting P2] Western countries try to carefully introduce equal human rights where they can because some countries have a power-hungry government.

References

  1. https://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/18/who-still-owes-what-for-the-two-world-wars.html

This page was last edited on Friday, 24 Jul 2020 at 16:39 UTC