No one across the elite circles of the past could have imagined Washington sinking this low — peeling away every pretense of dignity with a level of cynicism that shocks even its friends.
This year’s World Economic Forum in Davos — themed “The Spirit of Dialogue” — was supposed to be a marketplace of ideas. Instead, the United States hijacked it to promote its own hard-edged agenda, spouting talk of annexing Greenland and turning what was meant as dialogue into outright diatribe. President Trump rolled out yet another “TACO” deal (Trump Always Chickens Out), announcing a so-called “framework of a future deal” with NATO on the Greenland issue. Denmark will hand over sovereignty of a small tract for a US military base, sparing eight European countries new American tariffs. The catch? Trump relented not for diplomacy, but to dodge a market crash.
America Goes Off Script
Lutnick, the US Commerce Secretary, was no less blunt — and much louder.
At a private dinner on January 20 hosted by BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, who also served as interim co-chair of the forum, Lutnick broke every rule of discretion. He urged the world to double down on coal, not renewables, and openly derided Europe’s weakness, sneering that Europe’s competitiveness is far inferior to America’s.
The reaction was instant. Jeers filled the ballroom. Fink tried to calm the crowd, but as Lutnick’s tirade escalated, quite a number of guests stood up and left — including ECB chief Christine Lagarde and former US Vice President Al Gore, a long time climate crusader. One CEO described the dinner as tense, noisy, and explosive. So much for polite dialogue.
Davos as a Stage for Denial
That wasn’t his only outburst. Earlier that same day, Lutnick penned a fiery op-ed in the Financial Times, calling that “globalization has failed the West and the United States of America”. The US, he said, came to Davos “not to uphold the status quo, but to confront it head-on.” He praised Trump as having “chosen the right path,” and bragged, “With President Trump, capitalism has a new sheriff in town.”
Lutnick doubled down later in a panel with Canada’s François-Philippe Champagne and Britain’s Rachel Reeves, proclaiming that “globalisation has failed America and the West” — “The fact is it has left America behind. It has left the American workers behind.”
He went on to mock Europe’s green ambitions as “deciding to be subservient to China” and scoffed: “Why would Europe agree to be net zero in 2030 when they don’t make a battery? They don’t make a battery.”
America’s Mask Comes Off
If anything, US officials are finally saying out loud what they’ve always believed — America acts only when it benefits America.
For decades, Washington dressed its self-interest as values: climate leadership, democracy promotion, moral duty. But now, the mask has slipped. Even climate policy — once moralised as a “value” of green living — reveals its true colors. When the math no longer works for America, the values vanish too.
The truth is, America’s green talk was never about saving the planet — it was about selling an image. Now it mocks Europe for cutting emissions without owning battery plants, proving the point: emission cuts are noble only when they fit US interests. Those still clinging to America’s moral narrative aren’t loyal — they’re naïve.
The Losing Faith of Elites
The postwar world order — engineered by Washington in 1945 — functioned on two pillars: power and moral superiority. America rebuilt Europe through the Marshall Plan and led NATO against the Soviet Union. It was the self-proclaimed big brother of capitalism. But that brotherhood is gone.
Today, America behaves not as a leader but as a mob boss. It storms Venezuela, kidnaps its president, and threatens Europe with tariffs — all while demanding loyalty. As Columbia University’s Jeffrey Sachs put it, Trump’s policies mark America’s slide from hegemony to pure gangsterism.
Make no mistake: Washington now rules not by example but by force. It’s a world where might makes right — no more sugar coating. The US has ripped off the wrapping, leaving the rest of the world to confront an unbeautiful new reality. That reckoning might finally wake the dreamers.
Time for a Global Rethink
The key point is this: the ideologies Washington once peddled — from free markets to democracy — were never universal cures. They were tools of hegemony. Now, as the mask slips, nations are beginning to ask the same question: should we, like China, carve our own path instead of following America’s fading dream?
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
If those with power and influence can escape imprisonment for crimes while ordinary citizens must serve time, this can hardly be called the rule of law.
On January 19, the legal year opened with a sharp reminder of what justice actually requires. Chief Justice Andrew Cheung of the Court of Final Appeal addressed foreign threats to sanction judges and the Jimmy Lai case head-on. He made it plain: threats to impose sanctions on judges, no matter how they're dressed up, are nothing more than attempts to interfere with judicial independence. "Intimidation and threats are no different from bribery and corruption, they being, in truth, two sides of the same coin. Both are means of subverting justice, and have absolutely no place in a civilised society governed by the rule of law."
Regarding the Jimmy Lai case, Cheung was equally direct. Yes, given today's geopolitical tensions, international commentary has included plenty of criticism of the prosecution, verdict, and even Hong Kong's rule of law. But any serious criticism or opposing view must be grounded in actually reading the judgment and understanding the court's reasoning. Cheung put it bluntly: "Many of us may be forgiven for growing weary of simplistic assertions that the rule of law is dead whenever a court reaches a result one finds unpalatable… It cannot be that the rule of law is alive one day, dead the next, and resurrected on the third, depending on whether the Government or another party happens to prevail in court on a particular day. Such a claim needs only to be stated to highlight how untenable it is."
Justice vs Real Injustice
Then Cheung drove straight to the heart of what real injustice looks like. Any early release of a defendant based on political reasons or the defendant's background strikes directly at the core of the rule of law. "You can imagine how unjust this situation is, because if you compare such a defendant with an ordinary nobody – someone without anyone to speak up for them, without powerful people to advocate on their behalf, to propose deals, to propose exchanges, to threaten judges on their behalf – that person must continue their trial. If you're a distinguished person, there's one law for you. If you're an ordinary person, there's another law for ordinary people. Such a society, I believe, is a deeply unjust society, one we cannot take pride in."
Cheung cut straight to the question that matters: if ordinary people who break the law must face legal sanctions, while those with power and influence who break the law can secure their release through threats to sanction judges, can such a society truly claim to uphold the rule of law?
American Politicians Rush to Support
As Jimmy Lai awaits sentencing after being convicted, American political figures have rushed to his defense. Former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast recently met separately with Lai's daughter, Claire Lai, publicly backing Jimmy Lai. Republican Representative Mast shared photos with Claire Lai on social media, claiming that Jimmy Lai was unfairly convicted for promoting democracy in Hong Kong. He mocked Hong Kong's courts as a "kangaroo court," saying this absurd verdict once again proves to the world the incompetence of the Chinese Communist Party.
But here's what we need to ask: What relationship do these American politicians actually have with Jimmy Lai? The public knows nothing about it. Have Jimmy Lai and his family provided financial support to these politicians in exchange for their voice of support?
During the trial and in the judgment of Jimmy Lai's case, extensive evidence revealed exactly how Lai bought off foreign politicians and former officials to establish connections with the U.S. White House and Taiwan's leadership.
Take his pursuit of Tsai Ing-wen. To get close to her, Lai paid off one of Tsai's close associates, Taiwanese writer Chiang Chun-nan, having Apple Daily Taiwan pay Chiang NT$209,000 monthly. These inexplicable payments even raised suspicions from Apple Daily Taiwan's publisher, Lawrence Chen, who questioned Lai about them. Between November 2017 and March 2020, Apple Daily Taiwan paid Chiang over NT$5.8 million (approximately US$185,000).
But Lai didn't stop there. He heavily courted several former senior U.S. officials, including former U.S. Army Vice Chief of Staff Jack Keane and former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, hiring them as advisors to Tsai Ing-wen.
Lai later admitted that the fee for hiring the two as advisors for two years was US$3 million (HK$23 million). Even the court questioned why these two former U.S. officials were being paid by Lai for advising Taiwan, rather than being paid by Taiwan itself.
Beyond Media Work
The entire affair demonstrates something crucial: to advance his anti-China agenda, Lai lobbied both the U.S. and Taiwan governments to redeploy some U.S. forces stationed in Japan to Taiwan to confront the Chinese Communist Party. These actions against the nation were clearly not the work of an ordinary media figure.
To achieve his goals, Lai scattered money far and wide, paying politicians and former officials across different regions. So ask yourself: How much objectivity can these people claim when they speak out for Jimmy Lai?
The key to the rule of law, as Cheung made crystal clear, is that whether someone is an ordinary citizen or a privileged figure like Jimmy Lai, if they break the law, they must face the same legal consequence. The same standard applies to everyone – that's what the rule of law means.
The term "kangaroo court" is actually American invention. It originated in 19th-century America, when some judges held circuit courts in remote areas. These courts, which tried cases without regard for justice, became known as kangaroo courts. America's arbitrary trampling of international law – invading Venezuela and hauling President Maduro to a federal court in New York for trial – represents a true violation of the rule of law. American courts are the real "kangaroo courts."
Lo Wing-hung
