What struck me most about the rule of law stuff was the international mention ("in foreign countries as a whole"). Bill mentioned it might signal more lawfare, and that's my first reaction as well--basically a euphemism for "rule by law" internationally where the law always reaches the conclusion that the CCP wants (i.e. is not applied equally/different standards for different people, sort of like in Putin's Russia "for my friends, everything, for my enemies, the law!", if the letter of the law would go against the CCP in a given case, that is not allowed, which of course means it's not really law at all).

As with the racism issue (it's ok to push back against the CCP even though they are Chinese, it's not ok to go after people just because they are Chinese, obviously), it should push us to be more precise in our language--the fact that the word "law" is used and there may be courts and judges and the whole apparatus doesn't mean it's actually law in the full spirit of the word, and we shouldn't be shy about forcefully insisting on the principle of the rule of law upfront, and when the CCP deflects, we will have the moral high ground and should be prepared to reinforce a global system of actual international law without compromise on the fundamental principle of the law.