I'm pretty sure that's just objectively untrue. Some nations are subject to public opinion and the ethical sensibility of their electorates, and some are not. That comes into stark relief when some nations chop up journalists inside their embassies.

It's not objective, only subjective through the lens of those who are writing the narrative, who are?...

Objectively, what China is doing is not worse than what the US have been doing, or than any Western powers have been doing because it's just how it goes.

So if certain western countries had done something back in the 19th or first half of the 20th century it's supposedly alright for China to behave the same way now?

Why? Your 'arguments' don't really make much sense. I mean whatever US was doing in the 19/20th centuries was no worse than what the other colonial powers did a hundred or two hundred years before that. Which was no worse than what the Mongols did during the middle ages. So according to this 'logic' everything everyone does is completely justifiable because someone did something worse at some point in the past? Absurd...