Cui Jianchun, the commissioner of the Chinese Foreign Ministry in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, recently commented that the principle of “one country, two systems” was a “continuously developing process” and that it was now taking a “new historical direction”, and underscoring “deeply integrating with national strategies such as the Belt and Road Initiative and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area”.

What exactly is “one country, two systems”? In the eyes of the Western media and politicians, this principle ought to refer to a state of antagonism whereby Hong Kong is part of China “in name only” and exists purely to serve Western interests in opposition to the country as a whole. Such individuals want to fundamentally deny that the city belongs to China, or that it could serve any respective purpose for the greater whole; in other words, the sustaining of Hong Kong as a colonial “enclave” designed to project into and influence China, and not the other way round. Thus, with the imposition of the national security laws, it has been misleadingly claimed that such a principle no longer exists.

From the Chinese point of view, however, the return of Hong Kong to China was a process of national reunification and the fundamental question for policymakers even since the era of Deng Xiaoping has been how to achieve “harmony” and “coexistence” between the city and the rest of the country. The “one country, two systems” principle does not in fact refer to a state of antagonism or ideological conflict, rather, it represents the reality that while Hong Kong continues to maintain its own economic, legal, social, and administrative systems, it is nonetheless a part of China and therefore ought to be harmonious as a component of the country, and serve the national interest, as opposed to being a tool of foreign powers.

In the eyes of the Western media and politicians, this principle ought to refer to a state of antagonism whereby Hong Kong is part of China “in name only” and exists purely to serve Western interests in opposition to the country as a whole. ... At the root of these Western assumptions is a misplaced sense of ownership and a patronizing mindset that does not respect China’s position accordingly

In other words, Hong Kong is to maintain its unique advantages while working with the Chinese mainland in pursuit of the goals of national development, and not against Beijing as the West idealizes it to be. It is not a question of diminishing the city’s autonomy or unique advantages, but a question of what purpose they are used for. For example, rather than Hong Kong becoming a conduit for anti-China activities and American-funded political influence, the city as part of China, should seek to involve itself with projects such as the Belt and Road Initiative, the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area initiative and so on, for the purpose of advancing China’s development and needs respectively. This is where Hong Kong’s inherent advantages as a financial and free port lie. It is in essence a gateway to China’s markets, economy and thus a hub of international business and investment.

In other words, if Hong Kong belongs to China, why are we to assume that China’s leaders are not permitted to use the city for the national interest? Why is there an underlying assumption that Hong Kong has to be “protected” from the country it is lawfully part of, and reunified with?

At the root of these Western assumptions is a misplaced sense of ownership and a patronizing mindset that does not respect China’s position accordingly.

This interpretation of “one country, two systems” is more like “two countries, two systems”, rejecting the idea of cooperation between the two, rejecting the idea of national unity and rejecting Hong Kong as serving China’s own national goals.

Therefore, it can be argued that the “one country, two systems” principle has not been abolished, nor has it even been reinterpreted, but the “one country” aspect has finally been clarified. Hong Kong retains its high degree of autonomy and privileges, in harmony and coexistence with the entire country. Such autonomy does not mean Hong Kong should be in opposition to, antagonistic toward and therefore, at variance with the country, its national interests or its sovereignty. The Western interpretation of this principle is ultimately ideological and geopolitically motivated.

The author is a British political and international-relations analyst.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.