I think you need to be more mindful of the fact that even with human rights on paper, the peoples and governments who preach such an ideology the loudest are also the greatest sinners. The western power bloc in the last decade alone killed, displaced and impoverished how many millions of people in the Middle East and Africa? How many of us enjoy the benefits of slave labor in Asia? How many of us enjoy cheap oil because our governments quietly support brutal dictatorships in foreign countries which keep the black gold flowing?
Human rights is largely an illusion because the treatment of non-citizens is often quite inhumane and ghoulish. Even self-proclaimed liberal peace keepers like Canadians are direct beneficiaries of violence and oppression, though they like to say otherwise.
I know how horrible and hypocritical the supposedly "democratic" world is..you don't need to repeat it every time we talk, that is not the part I disagree with, for the record I come from a sort of left anarchist/libertarian socialist point of view, so there is likely little you can tell me about the awful stuff my country does that will come as a big surprise to me, my views are well outside the mainstream here and i've come to a decision about the farce that is modern representative democracy a long, long time ago. This is the bit we probably actually agree on.
Why you think the above nullifies the concept of human rights though is beyond me, concepts like civil rights, women's rights, the rights of oppressed minorities, etc do not rise in concert with the state/military/capital apparatus, they often rise in opposition to them and thereby the state apparatus is eventually forced to acknowledge them "on paper". Wouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who supports these things that governments say one thing, and do another regarding them. However it still has little to do with the validity of the ideas, since it was not the state/military/capital apparatus generating them or fighting for their recognition in the first place.
The "human rights" of the US government is not actually human rights...I think on an intuitive level this is understood by many.
I still think you are presenting here a judgement on the value of human rights which is ultimately based on a really confusing idea of what exactly generates political agency and power, and without that being more clearly defined none of the anti-modernity arguments in terms of things like human rights make much sense. If you believe all people (rather than those with access to the power structure to affect things) are culpable for what their governments do, and that all people share some kind of equal blame for the ravages inflicted by their states, or even by capitalism as a whole.
Claims made with assumption that all nations are simply an amorphous blob of people with with the same interests, proximity to power, and having the same interests as their government are nonsensical, and I am not convinced one can draw any real conclusions on the workability of ideas based on them.
This assumes (for instance) that a migrant farm worker who makes 3000 bucks a year, and Barack Obama have the same relationship to power, wealth, human rights, whatever..they don't, and arguments that seem to rest on the idea that they do simply don't add up IMO.
"Just as a lotus does not grow out of a well-levelled soil but from the mire, in the same way the awakening mind
is not born in the hearts of disciples in whom the moisture of attachment has dried up. It grows instead in the hearts of ordinary sentient beings who possess in full the fetters of bondage." -Se Chilbu Choki Gyaltsen