I don’t see how this article can be read as “looking the other way” in any sense.
Not saying it's happening in this case, but suppose you're the Economist and want to win favour with the Chinese. You might consider an article criticising this activity as infringing on the sovereignty of the west and others in the pursuit of justice, rather than in the pursuit of destroying political opposition.
Yes, it reads to me like an implicit justification, an argument that the issues are merely legal, about sovereignty, and not moral and political, an attack on innocent people and on freedom.
Technically yes, but this argument is on its own very dangerous - it's one small step from turning into "by not denouncing this thing strongly and visibly enough, you're actually supporting the enemy, and therefore on their side". This has been a common argument used by all kinds of groups throughout history to stir up conflicts, justify violence and abuse.