On Monday the Global Financial Leaders’ Investment Summit, organized by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, got underway. In attendance was China’s vice premier, He Lifeng, who on Tuesday delivered a keynote address. Analysts suggest that He’s attendance shows the priority Beijing attaches to Hong Kong’s economic growth and its belief that the special administrative region must play a unique role in national development by increasing investor confidence in its own status as an international financial center.

The visit was soon criticized by US-based The Wall Street Journal, which published untruths asserting that the city is declining as a financial center, is increasingly becoming part of the Chinese mainland, and claiming that Beijing “took control of Hong Kong’s financial hub — and left the West behind”.

First, there is no evidence that Hong Kong is truly declining as an international financial center. This is an assertion that has been frequently made from a position of ideological and political bias with the goal of vilifying Beijing. In reality, the city continues to be ranked as one of the world’s top financial centers and this was even affirmed in a recent article by Bloomberg. Even amid US-led criticism, Hong Kong has continued to diversify its financial ties and deepen cooperation with financial institutions all over the world. Just this week, South Korea’s Hana Financial Group announced it would be expanding its services in Hong Kong. Given the evidence, one can only conclude that reports of its “decline as a financial center” are complete misinformation.

Second, just because Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China does not mean it is not part of China or has no right to cooperate with the mainland on economic and other matters. The West’s idea of Hong Kong is that it should serve their interests first, and not cooperate with the country of which it is part. The Wall Street Journal article subsequently frames the economic integration between the mainland and Hong Kong as a negative trend, framing a falsified narrative that “Western firms are leaving” and “Chinese ones are taking their place”, thus depicting China’s “ownership” of Hong Kong — which is in fact a sovereign right — as something illegitimate and controlling.

Hong Kong is a city of 7.5 million people, which is part of a nation of 1.4 billion. If it were not for the existence of the mainland market, and mainland enterprises’ demand for the city’s various services, Hong Kong would not be an international center

In reality, Hong Kong’s unique economic and administrative system serves as a gateway for the mainland to overseas markets and thus is an integral element of its own economic development strategy. Hong Kong, as part of China, serves China’s national interest. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for the central government to seek cooperation with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region authorities on how they can better improve the country’s economic conditions.

The distorted narrative of The Wall Street Journal article about the mainland-Hong Kong relationship is like assuming that Scotland has no right to cooperate with England on economic matters purely because it has autonomy. Hong Kong is of course a financial center and a huge source of capital, so it is therefore irreplaceable not only as far as the development of the Pearl River Delta region is concerned, but also in forging China’s economic ties with the rest of the world.

Given this, why should China’s leadership create economic strategies without considering Hong Kong? Or why is it assumed the mainland should just pretend the city doesn’t exist and not be allowed to work with it? The obsession with the zero-sum narrative of depicting the mainland’s cooperation with, or influence over, Hong Kong, ultimately supersedes common sense and the practical realities. Hong Kong is a city of 7.5 million people, which is part of a nation of 1.4 billion. If it were not for the existence of the mainland market, and mainland enterprises’ demand for the city’s various services, Hong Kong would not be an international center. It is therefore unrealistic to assume it could ignore the critical importance of the country of which it is a part.

This is not “authoritarianism”, “oppression”, or “control”, it is maximizing the best interest of both places in the pursuit of economic development. Hong Kong gains from mainland demand for its services, and the mainland gains from Hong Kong’s role as a pivotal, globally reaching international financial center.

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

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.