It is hard to avoid noticing the increased flow of censorious ultimatums from governing elites and their primary media outlets in the global West stipulating how Hong Kong must behave. These demands, predominantly from the United States and the United Kingdom, can be found in swaggering official reports backed up by ample, bossy media commentary. They suggest these folk do not just harbor a general interest in Hong Kong. Instead, this pattern of behavior intimates a conviction that they have retained some curious proprietary interest in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, close to 30 years after China resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong. 

It is worth considering what might be the basis for this perspective and the behavior it underpins.

First, we must reflect briefly on how British Hong Kong was created. This happened in three stages. Each of the relevant Sino-British treaties under which the territory was acquired was signed after a war in which Imperial China was defeated: the First Opium War (1839-42), the Second Opium War (1856-60), and the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-95). From China’s point of view, these were all improper, unequal treaties imposed by force of arms. Predictably, the British maintained quite a different stance. 

The Age of Exploration, engendered by seafaring European powers in the late 15th century, led to their establishing extraordinary global dominance through conquest and colonization over the following centuries. These dominant powers also assumed the right, secured by their immense global political power, to set down a predecessor of the current (now widely discredited) rules-based international order (RBIO). 

This earlier version of the RBIO became known as the European Law of Nations. It divided the world into civilized (that is, European) and uncivilized nations and comprehensively justified the advancement of colonialism under European-stipulated international law. Under this European RBIO-precursor, “certain un-Christian, uncivilized parts were not considered entirely barbarous”. Nations which were regarded as being semicivilized included China, Japan and Siam (Thailand), together with the Ottoman Empire (Turkey).

Based on this understanding, Britain understandably considered that it held British Hong Kong in complete accord with prevailing international law.

The sharp reality of these differing viewpoints is captured in the primary, early provisions of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Clause 1 declares that China is “recovering” all the area of British Hong Kong and “resuming” the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong from July 1, 1997. Clause 2 declares that Britain will “restore” Hong Kong to China from July 1, 1997. 

Notwithstanding the Joint Declaration’s clarity, the behavior noted above still reveals a view that, somehow, China resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong on a Western-mediated, conditional basis.

Hong Kong is an extraordinary, pivotal Asian city with an exceptional history. Over time, it has developed profound and diverse links with countless communities worldwide.

It is unsurprising that many in the West maintain such a keen interest in how the city is developing. Moreover, well-intentioned international interest is a good thing for Hong Kong, and China as a whole.

The problem arises, however, when Western good intentions transit toward the view that the subversion of stability and prosperity in Hong Kong is, aberrantly, “good” for Hong Kong. 

The West needs to get a grip. It does not retain any quasi-property rights in Hong Kong nor any treaty-based powers to direct or coerce compliance with particular Western values. It should stop trying to subvert Hong Kong’s prosperity

This twisted perspective, which was flagrantly evident during the insurrection that began in mid-2019, is energized by the misconception that Hong Kong should suffer if it does not follow Western stipulations on political reform, not least to confirm the universal importance of Western leadership.

Plus, ceaselessly badmouthing Hong Kong for its infractions (and twisting travel advisories to fit this formulated storyline) can assist with the massive US-led project to stem and, if possible, reverse the rise of China.

In a groundbreaking book analyzing the origins and impact of the Joint Declaration published in 2022 (Treaty for a Lost City: The Sino-British Joint Declaration), Professor C L Lim concludes by observing how the historical imperial environment outlined above continues to form a key aspect of the proximate context within which the Joint Declaration operates today. This is the pivotal context, too, within which the tireless Western badgering of the HKSAR to comply with adamant “RBIO values” is advanced.

Fundamentally misguided as this idea may be, it is still, based on the evidence, fair to surmise that governing elites and their primary media outlets in the West today may have subliminally convinced themselves that Britain and China signed a Sino-British Joint Ownership Declaration in 1984. This is not sensible, but this is how it seems.

When we look at the actual Sino-British Joint Declaration, there is undoubtedly scant support for any quasi-ownership or similar rights for the UK. In his book, Lim essentially sinks the notion that British treaty rights under the Joint Declaration have any ultimate legal character that would allow the UK to deny Beijing’s sole authority to interpret the Basic Law and, thus, ultimately shape how the HKSAR develops.

The West needs to get a grip. It does not retain any quasi-property rights in Hong Kong nor any treaty-based powers to direct or coerce compliance with particular Western values. It should stop trying to subvert Hong Kong’s prosperity. It is best not to hold our breath, but it would be manifestly sensible for the US-led West to revert to interacting with the positive reality of where Hong Kong stands today in good faith. 

The author is an adjunct professor in the Faculty of Law, Hong Kong University. 

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.