Amid the growing geopolitical rivalry between China and the US, the Department of Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region organized the National Security Legal Forum on May 28.

Martin Rogers, the Asia chairperson of a US-based law firm, agreed to participate in the forum. He emphasized that he accepted the invitation in his individual capacity to share with other independent experts his views on specific matters, including procedural challenges that could arise related to the National Security Law for Hong Kong and laws in other jurisdictions.

Partly because Rogers expressed support for the National Security Law (NSL) at a previous forum organized by the HKSAR government in July 2021, and partly because of the criticism that the May 28 forum was a propaganda event, Rogers should have thought of feasible ways to ensure that his participation in the forum would create no room for “fellow-traveling” labeling and exert no adverse effect on the image and reputation of his law firm. Probably because Rogers failed to close the Pandora’s box and reached a cul-de-sac, he eventually decided to withdraw from the forum.

At a glance, the controversy over Rogers’ withdrawal looks like a charade of much ado about nothing. On closer examination, his dramatic decision to keep a safe distance from the forum leaves open the question of whether it is now an unwritten taboo for American citizens in Hong Kong to honestly make a fair assessment of the NSL. Another issue of great concern is whether some behind-the-scene forces were putting pressure on Rogers to withdraw.

At the moment, it is difficult to change or reverse the steep downward course of Sino-US political relations. Recently, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken described China as the most serious long-term challenge to the international order. In fact, the so-called “international order” is essentially “an American-dominated international order”. In response to the promulgation of the NSL, Washington has stopped at nothing to sling mud at the NSL under the pretext of Western values of human rights, freedoms and democracy, alleging that the NSL has violated the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.

Because of the perceived Chinese threat to its dominated international order, the US has strong motivation to play the “NSL card” to discredit Hong Kong and weaken China. But we will be too close to the trees to see the forest if we just look at the anti-NSL propaganda through the lens of power politics. Philosophically speaking, the American faith in its version of the rule of law, which emphasizes certain substantive standards of justice and human rights embedded in Western culture, is the secular adaptation of Christianity’s monotheistic belief system. It’s this monotheism-inspired rule of law with which the NSL has run into conflict.

The NSL has not only restored order in Hong Kong, it has also helped Hong Kong navigate turbulent political tides created by anti-China disruptors. Most importantly, it ensures that the “one country, two systems” principle would set sail for a long voyage on a sea of stability. As the HKSAR’s first chief justice, Andrew Li Kwok-nang, has correctly pointed out, all jurisdictions have laws to protect national security. He said, “Having such a law is generally consistent with the rule of law.” Last July, Rogers hailed the NSL as a “very important, positive” framework for maintaining Hong Kong’s status, and “very standard” when compared with such laws abroad.

Though we should not make wild speculations about the real reasons for Rogers’ withdrawal, we expect, with a high likelihood, that there were some hostile forces operating under the radar to persuade Rogers to withdraw from the forum in the hope of discrediting Hong Kong. We can find some examples to prove the existence of these hostile forces. First, US law firm Mayer Brown backed down from representing the University of Hong Kong in the school’s effort to remove a memorial statue from its campus. The firm withdrew from the case following a week of international pressure. Second, two top judges of Britain’s Supreme Court withdrew from Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal under pressure. Third, David Perry QC stepped down from leading the prosecution of nine “pro-democracy” advocates related to the black-clad riots, also under pressure.

It’s interesting to note that an American lawyer, Sidney Shapiro, who became a Chinese citizen in 1963, was granted a visa to visit his mother and other family members in the US in November 1971, in spite of his “fellow-traveling” label. He told his American listeners that China had no aggressive intentions but would fight if attacked (Sidney Shapiro, My China: The Metamorphosis of a Country and a Man (Beijing: New World Press, 1997), 190). At that time, the US remained on the wrong side of history by maintaining diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

When then-US national security adviser Henry Kissinger visited China secretly in July 1971, he and his entourage stayed in a hotel in Beijing that was decorated with pamphlets condemning American imperialism. Under the shadow of the Cold War, Shapiro could still express his pro-China political views freely in the US. But Rogers exercised self-censorship to stop saying something good about the NSL in Hong Kong. We should not overlook the danger that a moderate version of McCarthyism may stage a comeback in the US.

If the US remains hysterically and wrongfully obsessed with the perceived “China threat” to the international order it dominates, the perception could eventually become a reality. According to the theory of self-fulfilling prophecy, the more the US takes to counter the perceived “China threat”, the more Beijing’s response will appear to validate American fear. A famous economist, Jeffrey Sachs, urges the No 1 and No 2 economies of the world to cooperate. His advice seems to offer a simple way out of the dangerous impasse. Cooperation, mutual respect for cultural and institutional differences and an abandonment of the Cold War mentality by the US may help lay a firm foundation for the normalization of political relations between these two great powers.

Junius Ho Kwan-yiu is a Legislative Council member and a solicitor. Kacee Ting Wong is a barrister, part-time researcher of Shenzhen University Hong Kong and the Macao Basic Law Research Center, and co-founder of the Together We Can and Hong Kong Coalition.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.