The US State Department on Tuesday expressed "serious concerns" to China over the new anti-terrorism law. It claimed that the law would restrict people's freedom of expression and association. The New York-based Human Rights Watch also criticized the law, saying the law's definition of terrorism was problematic.

Some analysts believe that the US is concerned that the law will require US tech firms operating in China to hand out core data which will affect their interests.

Formulating anti-terrorism law is a typical internal affair of China. Terrorism has become a real threat to the Chinese society, and it is the need of the hour to have such a law. The legal interests of US companies should be guaranteed, as they help advance China's opening-up policy. But it's also natural to expect US firms in China to cooperate with China's anti-terror efforts.

If US companies are worried that the Chinese government is trying to boost the competitiveness of domestic firms through regulatory means, they can safeguard their own interests via legal means. But they cannot refuse to cooperate with the governance of the country.

The world has not formed a consensus on defining terrorism. Many countries have not released a formal definition, while the definition in the Chinese anti-terrorism draft law could be the clearest one yet.

According to the draft, terrorism is defined as any proposition or activity that, by means of violence, sabotage or threat, generates social panic, undermines public security, infringes personal and property rights, and menaces government organs and international organizations - with the aim to realize certain political and ideological purpose. The definition incorporates the opinion of international observers and also distinguishes terrorism from the anti-social behavior.

The freedom of expression is the most commonly used excuse by the West to bash China. The National Security Law, passed a few months ago, has also met similar criticism. In Western thinking, any regulatory measure will have no legitimacy if the freedom of expression is suspected to be compromised by it.

China and the US have a wide range of interdependent interests in the era of globalization. The US has the right to express its view over what China does. Criticism and complaints sometimes serve as reminder. But generally, the US has adopted an arrogant attitude toward China's regulations surrounding State security.

As the global center of Internet technology and information, the US has a control over its national security that cannot be matched by other countries. Domestically the US has taken anti-terrorism actions at the cost of individual freedom, but it demands complete openness of the Internet in other countries.

With its discourse power, Washington can disguise its selfishness as international justice. Therefore, Chinese legislators don't need to take the US attitude too seriously. China must decide by itself how we should do things.