As Washington’s geopolitical strategy against China intensifies, claims of “Beijing eroding the autonomy” of Hong Kong frequently appear in the headlines of Western media. Such claims are essentially premised on the narrative that Hong Kong has inherent power, or autonomy, as a result of having been governed by the British.

Western critics of China have deliberately conflated Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy of a special administrative region of a unitary country with the full autonomy of an independent political entity.

They totally ignore the lived reality of Hong Kong: The special administrative region has no inherent power whatsoever; its high degree of autonomy is derived from central authorization, which aligns with the constitutional principles of a unitary state.

Under the “one country, two systems” framework, the special administrative region is governed under China’s Constitution and the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region — not the Sino-British Joint Declaration, whose intended utility is to facilitate the handover and ensure a smooth transition.

Notions of Hong Kong’s “autonomy” and “special political status” repeatedly floated by Western critics are propaganda — sleights of hand merely aimed at clouding the fact of China’s sovereignty over its HKSAR in order to create a fake moral high ground for their interference in the region’s affairs. Such narratives are a willful distortion of historical facts.

Hong Kong has been an inseparable part of Chinese territory since ancient times. On July 1, 1997, the Chinese government resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, putting an end to a century of national humiliation and unambiguously demonstrating to the world that the “colony” narrative about Hong Kong must be corrected.

The return of Hong Kong to the motherland was an inevitable outcome of historical justice, a robust application of international law, and a significant milestone in the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

The return of Hong Kong to the motherland was an inevitable outcome of historical justice, a robust application of international law, and a significant milestone in the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation

The history of Hong Kong dates back over 2,000 years to the Qin (221–206 BC) and Han (206 BC-AD 220) dynasties. Archaeological finds prove that early Chinese inhabitants were active in the Hong Kong region as early as the Neolithic period. Successive dynasties established administrative bodies in the region, exercising effective jurisdiction. During the Ming (1368–1644) and Qing (1644–1911) dynasties, Hong Kong Island was under the jurisdiction of Xin’an County, Guangzhou Prefecture. The Qing government set up military facilities such as forts, collected taxes, and exercised full state sovereignty.

Through three unequal treaties — the Treaty of Nanking (1842), the Convention of Peking (1860), and the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory (1898) — the United Kingdom forcibly occupied and leased the Hong Kong region. This process was marked by threats of force and diplomatic coercion, completely violating the basic norms of international relations.

International law explicitly states that treaties obtained through force or threats are invalid. Therefore, the UK’s so-called “colonial rule” over Hong Kong lacked legal legitimacy from the very beginning, and successive Chinese governments never recognized the validity of these unequal treaties.

After the adoption of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 in 1971, which restored the lawful seat of the People’s Republic of China in the UN, the international community widely acknowledged that the Hong Kong issue was purely China’s internal affair.

In March 1972, Huang Hua, China’s permanent representative to the UN, wrote to the UN Special Committee on Decolonization, clearly stating that “Hong Kong and Macao are part of Chinese territory occupied by the British and Portuguese authorities. The settlement of the questions of Hong Kong and Macao is entirely within China’s sovereign right and does not at all fall under the ordinary category of ‘colonial Territories’.”

The UN committee concurred. Consequently, in November of the same year, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution to remove Hong Kong and Macao from the UN list of “colonial Territories”. This laid a solid foundation in international law for the return of Hong Kong to China, instead of allowing the region to determine its political status as a genuine colony would otherwise do under the UN’s Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960).

According to modern international law, a colony refers to a territory geographically separated and ethnically or culturally distinct from the administration of power. Hong Kong, whether in terms of historical origins, geographical ties, or ethnic composition, has always been an inseparable part of China and never possessed the legal characteristics of a colony.

The Chinese and British governments signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984, confirming that the Chinese government would “resume the exercise of sovereignty” over Hong Kong on July 1, 1997. This process strictly followed international legal procedures and resolved a historical issue through peaceful consultation, setting an example for the international community. The Chinese government creatively formulated the “one country, two systems” principle to ensure Hong Kong’s smooth transition, reflecting both respect for history and concern for the well-being of Hong Kong compatriots.

It is worth noting that the Joint Declaration explicitly uses the term “resume the exercise of sovereignty” rather than “transfer of sovereignty”. This strongly proves that the sovereignty over Hong Kong has always belonged to China and that the UK was obligated to hand over the administration of an illegally occupied Chinese territory to China. During the negotiation process for the handover, the Chinese government flatly rejected London’s proposal of a kind of “sovereignty in exchange for administration”, firmly upholding national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Historical facts cannot be distorted. Any attempt to meddle with Hong Kong affairs under any guise is a gross interference in China’s internal affairs and constitutes contempt for its sovereignty, and will never be tolerated.

The author is a law professor, director of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, and president of the Association for the Promotion of Rule of Law, Education and Technologies.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.