Exactly. The problem is, the West gets a moral high ground and even if they get criticism for their actions, the highest repercussions they encounter is "a slap to the wrist".
West gets moral high ground not because it's blameless - it isn't - but because it's faults are smaller. It could be counterproductive to judge something on a boolean scale - "perfect" vs. "not perfect so perfectly bad".
West is much more transparent than non-West, so we have better chance to differentiate good parts from bad parts. If we don't have such opportunity, and we consistently get burned with bad parts, we're forced to assume the whole non-Westness is bad. Here "West" and "non-West" is somewhat similar to "USA" and "China".
If China would be more transparent, if West would see differences, and interactions between those differences, and could judge the parts by those interactions, the scope of blame can be refined. Similarly with more transparent West we can see evolution of society or its parts towards more or less cruelty towards each other and judge and act accordingly.
You can only say this because you've been brainwashed into thinking all the atrocities committed before, say, 1950 don't count anymore. That was a different time! Racism is solved too.
*edit, that should probably be 1975 because we pretend the Vietnam war never happened
Perhaps you should think about why, when faced with evidence of an atrocity, your reaction is not "this is horrible and should be stopped" but "look at all these hypocrites denouncing the horrible thing". It seems to me a serious moral miscalibration.
You can resort to name calling if you want but the fact remains that none of the countries we've sanctioned for human rights abuses have stopped them. Which becomes continued justification for maintaining sanctions. At what point do we admit that sanctions are pointless?
