Although some observers may regard the US-led defamation campaign against the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) as a sideshow to its anti-China propaganda offensive, it is much more than a sideshow. It is an integral part of a program of cognitive warfare to destabilize and weaken China.

Cognitive warfare is a strategy that focuses on altering how a target population thinks, and through that how it acts. It is the weaponization of public opinion by an external entity for the purpose of influencing public and government policy and thereby destabilizing public institutions.

The US-led propaganda war against the NSL cannot be viewed in isolation, divorced from the desire of Washington and its key allies to open another unconventional battlefront in its anti-China crusade. From the very beginning, Washington tried to alter people’s perception of the judicial system of Hong Kong in accordance with its strategic objectives by smearing the NSL.

Shortly after the promulgation of the NSL, the US enacted the Hong Kong Autonomy Act to punish Hong Kong, and imposed sanctions on officials of the central and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region governments. The US’ allies such as the United Kingdom also danced to Washington’s tune in attacking the NSL, while the Western mainstream media have also become anti-NSL cognitive warriors. 

Contrary to Washington and its allies’ groundless allegations, Professor Lim Chin-leng confirms that the liberal way of life in Hong Kong under “one country, two systems” remains a daily reality (Treaty for a Lost City: The Sino-British Joint Declaration, by CL Lim (Cambridge: CUP, 2022)). And we can take comfort in the fact that Article 4 of the NSL states clearly that human rights shall be respected and protected in safeguarding national security. In contrast, as senior counsel Grenville Cross has pointed out, the UK National Security Act 2023 makes no mention whatsoever of human rights provisions.

Portraying the “black-clad” riots of 2019 as “pro-democracy” demonstrations, Western critics of the NSL pretend to know nothing about the dangerous and chaotic situation in Hong Kong at that critical juncture right before the promulgation of the NSL. There are serious doubts, to say the least, about whether these critics understand the extremely fragile sociopolitical situation triggered by the monthslong insurrection. Fortunately, the NSL has provided a timely curb on the chaos and enabled the livelihood and economic activities of Hong Kong to return to normal. In a nutshell, the promulgation of the NSL was necessary and reasonable.

To further punish Hong Kong, the US’ Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) urged President Joe Biden to impose additional sanctions on Hong Kong officials who were accused of conducting “political prosecution”. They were absolutely wrong because there is no political prosecution in the city. The CECC also views the forthcoming trial of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying as a “political trial”. It urged the Hong Kong authorities to release Lai, a violation of the spirit of the rule of law. 

Because judicial independence remains a deeply entrenched legal principle in Hong Kong, the executive cannot order a discharge. To rectify their cognitive errors, critics should pay more attention to the World Justice Report Rule of Law Index 2022. In Hong Kong, only the judge of the District Court or the Court of First Instance has the power to order conditional discharge of an offender after conviction (s.107 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance).

Some Western scholars are also biased against the NSL. For example, Jerome Cohen, a legal scholar in the US, claimed that the NSL has effectively suppressed popular protests and democratic practices in the city. And of equal concern is the accusation made by local scholar Johannes Chan Man-mun, who alleged that a sizable proportion of the public is losing confidence in judicial independence.

We cannot deny that some Hong Kong residents who embrace Western liberal democratic values have reservations about the NSL. But their reservations are deliberately exaggerated by Western media, politicians and scholars. The silent majority, who love the motherland and treasure sociopolitical stability in Hong Kong, recognize the need to safeguard national security by promulgating the NSL.

They understand that national security laws in major Western countries also contain necessary and reasonable provisions to curtail some freedoms. Their less-told story has inevitably been put on the back burner. One of the effective ways to guard against cognitive warfare is to strengthen Hong Kong people’s mental immune system to filter ideas. The first step is to make the voices of Hong Kong’s silent majority heard. Another step is to rebut the distorted arguments of the cognitive warriors in open forums. Promoting media literacy education is also important.

Hong Kong people need to be alerted to the danger of an enhanced attack on Hong Kong’s legal system by these cognitive warriors in the next few months. We should pay close attention to two events, namely the trial of Lai in December and the local legislation of Article 23 of the Basic Law. These two events will provide hostile forces with a useful lever to renew their cognitive warfare against the legal system of Hong Kong.  

Lei Wun-kong is a lawyer based in Macao and litigation and practice senior consultant of Chinese Dream Think Tank. 

Kacee Ting Wong is a barrister, part-time researcher of Shenzhen University Hong Kong and Macao Basic Law Research Center, and chairman of Chinese Dream Think Tank.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.