These days I am getting used to lies spread from the West. Indeed, even Western mainstream media from time to time expose some of these lies, while they wittingly or unwittingly propagate other lies. CNN, for example, had a list of month-by-month top lies of 2019 on its website. One of the best-known lies that US President Donald Trump told was that he had kept COVID-19 under control, and that he had saved many American lives.

Another lie that I recently came across was in an article about the Diaoyu Islands published in Newsweek, in which the author claimed that China had once recognized the islands as Japanese territory. I challenge Newsweek to offer evidence that China had ever recognized the islands as Japanese. If it cannot, please put the record straight. 

Of the lies that are prevalent today, I think the biggest must be the alleged about-turn of Beijing in its “promise to allow double universal suffrage” in Hong Kong, and Beijing’s alleged walking away from the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. America’s draconian sanctions, with the passing of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019, followed by the Hong Kong Autonomy Act, and then the latest sanctions on named officials, are “to punish those who played a part in the betrayal”.

First of all, the “Joint Declaration and its annexes shall be equally binding” on the part of the United Kingdom and China. So both China and the UK should honor the terms of the joint declaration. 

Let us look at some key stipulations in the joint declaration. These include: China will resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong; the HKSAR shall be “directly under the authority of the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China” and shall “enjoy a high degree of autonomy”; the Basic Law shall prevail and “will remain unchanged for 50 years”.

The violators of the “one country, two systems” principle are the “pro-democracy” camp. They want to sidestep the nominating committee altogether. If this is not trying to change the Basic Law, what is? Why put the blame on Beijing and Hong Kong officials whose policy responses are only in order to uphold the joint declaration and the Basic Law?

Let it be known, then, that Hong Kong’s autonomy is subject to governance as laid out in the Basic Law. Even though since 1997, additions have been made several times to the Basic Law, those additions mainly clarify some clauses in the original text that are not clear or represent additions that add to, rather than violate, the original commitments. There are circumstances that could not have been anticipated when the Basic Law was drafted. 

The main grievance by the so-called pro-democracy camp is that the central government had allegedly agreed to allow “double universal suffrage” but had broken its promise. “Double universal suffrage” refers to election of the chief executive and all members of the Legislative Council through an open, transparent, and fair election with equal voting rights among all eligible voters. 

This allegation is serious. However, it is totally false. Let us see what was promised in the Basic Law, which “will remain unchanged over 50 years”.

According to Article 45 of the Basic Law, “The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.” 

This article clearly stipulates the requirement of nomination “by a broadly representative nominating committee” before the candidates for the chief executive post stand for election. The complaint that the current composition of the nominating committee is not sufficiently “broadly representative” may be valid. But we need to note that the article clearly says this desirable scenario would be the “ultimate” result of a gradual process. As to the speed of progress, that depends on “the actual situation” in the HKSAR. The implication of the article is that if the situation shows that Hong Kong people are trustworthy (if they show that they respect China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong and the Basic Law), Beijing will accelerate the progress. If the situation shows that Hong Kong people are not trustworthy, then Beijing will slow down the progress.

What I have cited from the Basic Law is verbatim. It clearly shows that the violators of the “one country, two systems” principle are the “pro-democracy” camp. They want to sidestep the nominating committee altogether. If this is not trying to change the Basic Law, what is? Why put the blame on Beijing and Hong Kong officials whose policy responses are only in order to uphold the joint declaration and the Basic Law? Will Britain point out it is the protesters’ fault?

There was indeed a public demand for abolishing LegCo seats elected in functional constituencies. But this is neither in the joint declaration nor the Basic Law. On the other hand, a reform package within the framework of the Basic Law for electing the chief executive was proposed by the Hong Kong SAR government. It was rejected by “pro-democracy” legislators.

Given the circumstances, the need to shore up national security in Hong Kong is obvious. The West understands well the need for national security. It needs to see “one country, two systems” for what it is and respect China’s need for national security.

The author is a senior research fellow at the Pan Sutong Shanghai-Hong Kong Economic Policy Research Institute, Lingnan University.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.