It is a historical fact that it was the "West" that invented the idea of basic human rights. Or did we not invent them, but discovered them, because they are quasi supernatural, universal, they apply to all people and at all times?
But if it is true that human rights are universal, it follows logically that morality cannot be subjective.
In this case, there are fundamental (objective!) moral norms (human rights are basically nothing but fundamental moral norms) which we discover just in the same way we discover natural laws: by using our reason.
For Western liberals, this is a real dilemma: on the one hand, they assume that human rights are universal. On the other hand, most believe that moral norms are associated with certain cultures, that is, each culture has a right to its own values and norms. Anything else would be Western cultural imperialism (a real bad thing to western Liberals).
What about those cultures that reject the idea of universal human rights because they view them as a specific Western set of values and norms? There are intellectuals in China or India or Singapore who say that the idea of universal human rights only makes sense in an individualistic culture, where it is the individual who is the bearer of basic rights, and that the needs of the group or collective (family, caste, state...) is secondary, and therefore they reject the concept of human rights as a Western import that is alien to their own culture.
So what is the status of human rights: Are they necessarily associated to the individualistic Western culture? Or are they independent of the cultural background? If you opt for the latter: Why was it the West that invented or discovered it?