It comes as no surprise that Britain’s Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, in her article in the Post last week , waded into Hong Kong affairs and China’s internal affairs once again by dismissing the fact that Hong Kong has long ago returned to China while disregarding the success of “one country, two systems” as well as the Chinese government’s policies towards Hong Kong. I urge British politicians, including Truss, to step out of their misty-eyed colonial memories and refrain from interfering in Hong Kong affairs. One country, two systems is China’s basic national policy. As its creator, enforcer and defender, the Chinese government has fully and faithfully implemented the principles of one country, two systems, “Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong”, and Hong Kong enjoying “a high degree of autonomy”. Since 1997, Hong Kong has maintained prosperity and stability as an international financial, shipping and trade centre by complementing the strengths of the mainland and seeking common growth, and the democratic rights and freedoms of Hong Kong people have been strongly protected. Under the revamped electoral system , Hong Kong enjoys a fresh political climate and has opened a new chapter of sound governance. Its elections have grown more representative, inclusive and fair, contributing to positive interaction between the executive branch and the legislature. In case anyone should forget: over the 150-plus years of British colonial rule in Hong Kong, all governors were directly appointed by the United Kingdom, and all key official posts occupied by the British. The people of Hong Kong were not entitled to elect leaders or the legislature on their own, and never enjoyed genuine democracy and human rights. When the British government ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1976, it explicitly excluded a clause about periodic elections from being applied in Hong Kong. What’s worse, the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance under British Hong Kong imposed draconian restrictions on assembly, demonstration and association. By contrast, one country, two systems serves the best interests of Hong Kong and has been on the right track. As for the UK, only by setting aside prejudices could it possibly stop suffering selective amnesia about its stained history and deliberate blindness to the success and bright outlook of one country, two systems. Over the last quarter of a century, the rule of law in Hong Kong has made great headway under one country, two systems and the Basic Law, its common law system has continued to apply, and its global ranking on legal indexes has soared. Under the principle of targeting a few and protecting the majority , the national security law for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has plugged legal loopholes in the city pertaining to China’s national security, and upheld high standards in respecting and defending human rights. The law has restored order and stability in the city and brought its development back on track. To our dismay, Britain has closed its eyes to Hong Kong’s legal progress and the common global practice of adopting national security legislation while remaining mute about its own raft of laws involving national security. Rather, it is obsessed with mangling the image of Hong Kong and demonising the national security law. Judges’ resignation a British-engineered charade On the one hand, the UK boasts about the rule of law, but on the other it whitewashes anti-China elements in Hong Kong as “democracy activists”, deviating from the tenet that laws shall be enforced and lawbreakers held to account. It also made the politically deceitful move of withdrawing its judges from Hong Kong’s top court to undercut Hong Kong’s justice system. These actions have laid out its ill intentions and double standards, hidden under the cloak of “the rule of law”. The principal function of the Sino-British Joint Declaration is to return Hong Kong to its motherland and that task was accomplished long ago. The provisions relating to the British side in the declaration were all fulfilled upon Hong Kong’s handover and the completion of all follow-up work. The UK has no sovereignty, jurisdiction or right of supervision over Hong Kong after 1997, and there is no such thing as “moral obligation” here. Even its registration with the United Nations does not change the fact that the UK cannot claim any rights or duties over Hong Kong based on the declaration. Britain’s interference in Hong Kong affairs by citing the declaration is a testament to its colonial nostalgia. What’s more, the UK broke its commitment in the 1984 memorandum not to grant BN(O) passport holders the right of abode in the UK, a manipulation of the issue left over from history. Having Hong Kong people’s back is just an excuse for the UK’s hidden agenda of using British National (Overseas) passports to reap profits. The past 25 years have shown the success of one country, two systems. The international community, the UK included, is a beneficiary of the formula and a stakeholder in Hong Kong. Members of the global family should contribute to Hong Kong’s development together, to prevent one country, two systems from being damaged. Hong Kong is part of China, its transition from chaos to stability and prosperity is unstoppable, and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is inevitable. These are facts the UK must accept. It must abide by international law and basic norms of international relations, stop meddling in Hong Kong affairs under any cover, and do more to better Sino-British relations. Liu Guangyuan is Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region