Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's being described isn't an eye for an eye, but tit for tat. And tit for tat is the norm for international relations and has been since time immemorial. Usually it's relatively dull stuff, like if country A requires citizens of country B to have a visa to visit, country B will as a matter of course require citizens of country A to have visas to visit too.
Tit for tat makes sense in a situation where you expect to work out a deal, both sides agree to stop, and everyone is better off. E.g. allowing visa-free travel in both directions between A and B. But for the Chinese government, social control is an existential issue, not something that can be negotiated away in a trade deal. They're always going to "tit", because allowing people to freely express themselves on the i…
Also, a country not allowing citizens to pop off about committing terroristic acts against foreign entities would mitigate the potential for said country to be labelled an "enemy" by everyone else. Diplomacy is hard, but sometimes the rules are in place for a reason. I don't know though; I've never ran a country.
for the most part