Following the disqualification of four Hong Kong legislators for breaching their oath of office and allegiance last week, British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab declared a “serious breach of the Sino-British joint declaration” concerning the city, stating that it was an attack on the territory’s “high degree of autonomy” and subsequently summoned China’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom Liu Xiaoming to the Foreign Office to account for it. Hawkish MPs in the House of Commons subsequently pressed the Minister for Asia Nigel Adams on the idea of potentially implementing sanctions on local officials over the matter.

Britain should understand that the century of humiliation is over, and China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong is non-negotiable. This is not violating any “commitments” but an extension of national rights. The UK does not have the right to dictate down to China on this issue and politicians should be prudent to note that there is nothing they can do to change this. ... The Sino-British Joint Declaration is not another unequal treaty

The UK continues to believe that the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong is akin to an unequal treaty — whereby one side alone believes it has an exclusive right to dictate its terms and interpretation to the other, with China not getting an equal say in what constitutes the best interests of the city, which remains Britain’s exclusive right. Given this, the UK should understand the following: That China’s national sovereignty over Hong Kong is non-negotiable and that does not contravene the principle of “one country, two systems”. This is not the “century of humiliation” anymore and that nothing London, or for that matter anyone, can do will change Beijing’s position on this. 

The UK seems to believe that it has an exclusive oversight or “guardianship” over Hong Kong. The handover of the territory in British discourse is not viewed as the rightful end to a severe injustice placed on China or a territory forcefully annexed from it, as it is in China, but instead as the regretful dusk of a glorious imperial era which should be accredited, than atoned for. Hong Kong was not imperialism and exploitation using Chinese labor but idealized as a capitalist utopia. Thus, the city’s return to China is seen as a begrudging necessity owing to the looming expiration of the New Territories lease, than a voluntary change of heart. 

Therefore, the British believe their legacy ought to be preserved and it is on this premise that the Sino-British Joint Declaration takes the approach of “talking down” to Beijing as a superior party, that this is not an equal agreement to return Hong Kong but a “restraint” against the inferior China who should be allowed to meddle in the more exceptional city. Instead, it should be a platform for what the west at large aspires China to be. Thus Britain appoints itself a de-facto “supervisor” which acts as if Hong Kong is still a colony, and that Hong Kong is a part of the country in “name only” as if Beijing has no right to sovereignty of it.

“One country, two systems” does not mean that Beijing has no sovereignty over Hong Kong, or oversight of its politics. It does not mean it is exempt from provisions such as national security and the Basic Law itself has mandated this. “One country, two systems” means that Hong Kong continues to pursue its own unique economic, social, healthcare and public administration policies, areas such as foreign policy, defense and national security are the exclusive domain of Beijing because it is these dynamics which make “sovereignty” real, whereas the West seems to assume that “one country, two systems” means that Hong Kong is part of China in name only.

Beijing is subsequently exercising its national rights over Hong Kong and owing to the legacy of British imperialism in the first place, takes the notion of sovereignty very seriously. This is not about “expansion”, “aggression” or “ambition” — but about defending what is China’s right against those who continue to believe they have a right to violate and undermine it. On this note, Britain should understand that the century of humiliation is over, and China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong is non-negotiable. This is not violating any “commitments” but an extension of national rights. The UK does not have the right to dictate down to China on this issue and politicians should be prudent to note that there is nothing they can do to change this. With Britain’s economy forecast to shrink 10 percent by the International Monetary Fund owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, they are not in a position to start a sanctions race which will not change anything, but one they cannot possibly come out on top of. Instead, there ought to be recognition that the days of the empire are long gone and they should stop pretending that Hong Kong is a “moral cause” to be rescued, but a product of British aggression and imperialism. The Sino-British Joint Declaration is not another unequal treaty.

The author is a British political and international relations analyst. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.