Chomsky's 'elementary moral principle'?

Anyone who has read Chomsky's political writings over the past 40 years will be familiar with this principle/mantra of his, reiterated in a recent interview on US/China policy:

"It's our responsibility, and is an elementary moral principle. We honor and respect people who criticize and condemn the crimes of their own state, not people who join in criticizing somebody else where it doesn't make any difference. It's an elementary principle that we focus our attention on what can make a difference. "

Frankly I'm skeptical of this for a handful of reasons:

1. I'm fairly well-read in moral philosophy and I have never heard anyone but Chomsky defend this supposedly elementary moral principle. 2. In stating the principle, Chomsky invariably draws attention to the fact that we celebrate foreign dissidents who criticize their own governments. In some formulations, he highlights that it takes courage/bravery to criticize your own government, and no courage at all to criticize the enemy. It is unclear to me why the *bravery* required of an action is any indication of its moral wisdom. 3. Further to that last point, I think it is simply factually untrue to say that espousing Chomskyan politics, critical of Western power, requires any courage at all in most regions where Chomsky's followers live. Arguably it takes more bravery to (say) [defend colonialism](https://www.chronicle.com/article/last-fall-this-scholar-defended-colonialism-now-hes-defending-himself/) in a left-wing setting like Portland State. I'm not saying we should admire people who defend colonialism; on the contrary, I'm saying that the bravest ideas can often be the worst ideas. 4. It is also seems untrue to claim, categorically, that criticism of China by US voices has no prospect of making a difference. As avid consumers of Chinese-made goods, we are critical supporters of the Chinese government. Internal dissent is difficult within China, given the countries' awful record on press freedom and freedom of expression generally. Arguably we are in a better position of influence than internal dissidents. 5. Just as a matter of a priori moral intuition, Chomsky's 'elementary principle' strikes me as implausible. Consider an analogy: I have a young son, whose upbringing I am responsible for, and whose bad behaviour I am uniquely positioned to correct. Does it follow that, when he gets into a schoolyard scrap, my primary focus should be on criticizing *my son's* behaviour, downplaying the wrongdoing of his opponent? This seems like a very strange attitude, and frankly unfair to my son. I should instead have universal standards of good behaviour, and do my best to hold all parties equally accountable. I think *this* truly qualifies as an elementary moral principle, and it's a problem that Chomsky's principle is at odds with it.

I realize I've raised a lot of points here, and will be accused of overthinking this. But honestly, I've read Chomsky extensively and always with great respect, and he has leaned *heavily* on this 'elementary moral principle' for decades. If the principle is not defensible-- and it isn't, as far as I can tell-- then I think that's a pretty serious problem for his framing of many foreign policy debates.