Grammatical analysis versus accuracy of translation in international affairs

In this widely cited article, "China says Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong no longer has meaning", Reuters  (6/30/17) quoted PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) spokesman, Lu Kang, as follows:

Now Hong Kong has returned to the motherland's embrace for 20 years, the Sino-British Joint Declaration, as a historical document, no longer has any practical significance, and it is not at all binding for the central government's management over Hong Kong. The UK has no sovereignty, no power to rule and no power to supervise Hong Kong after the handover.

In "Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang's Regular Press Conference on June 30, 2017", the same remarks by Lu Kang were translated by the MFA (6/30/17) thus:

It's been 20 years now since Hong Kong's return to the motherland, and the arrangements during the transitional period prescribed in the Sino-British Joint Declaration are now history and of no practical significance, nor are they binding on the Chinese central government's administration of the Hong Kong SAR. The British side has no sovereignty, no power to rule and supervise Hong Kong after the handover.

In "Grammar Matters: Did China Really Declare that the Entire Sino-UK Joint Declaration is 'Not At All Binding'? Maybe Not." (Lawfare, 7/3/17), Julian Ku interrogates the implications of the two English translations for the Chinese government's apparent willingness to "spurn the entire Joint Declaration without even offering a plausible legal justification."

From the MFA's own official website, here's what spokesman Lu Kang said in Chinese, together with my translation:

Xiànzài Xiānggǎng yǐjīng huíguī zǔguó huáibào 20 nián, “Zhōng-Yīng liánhé shēngmíng” zuòwéi yīgè lìshǐ wénjiàn, bù jùyǒu rènhé xiànshí yìyì, duì Zhōngguó zhōngyāng zhèngfǔ duì Xiānggǎng tèqū de guǎnlǐ yě bù jùbèi rènhé yuēshù lì. Yīng fāng duì huíguī hòu de Xiānggǎng méiyǒu zhǔquán, méiyǒu zhìquán, yě méiyǒu jiāndū quán.

现在香港已经回归祖国怀抱20年，《中英联合声明》作为一个历史文件，不具有任何现实意义，对中国中央政府对香港特区的管理也不具备任何约束力。英方对回归后的香港没有主权，没有治权，也没有监督权。

Now that Hong Kong has already returned to the motherland's embrace for twenty years, as a historical document the "Sino-British Joint Declaration" does not have any practical significance, nor does it possess any binding force on the Chinese central government's management of the Hong Kong SAR.  The British side has no sovereignty over Hong Kong after reunification; it has no right to rule, and it has no right to supervise.

Regardless of what Lu Kang may have intended by these remarks, they lit up a storm of discussion on the Chinese internet over their implications for China's obligations to a twenty-year old treaty, just as Reuters' English translation led to widespread umbrage over China's evident disregard of its treaty obligations.

Julian Ku states:  "the MFA translation should obviously be treated as authoritative (or at least more authoritative)."  But what if the MFA translation is inaccurate?  The MFA translation may be "authoritative" in the sense that it is "official", but in drawing legal conclusions, what matters is the degree of its accuracy.  With regard to China's adherence to treaty obligations, it makes no sense to argue over the grammar of competing translations.  When it comes to authoritativeness, all that matters is what Lu Kang originally said in Chinese.

I leave it to the lawyers and linguists on Language Log to determine whether what Lu Kang said amounts to a disavowal of the stipulations of the Sino-British Joint Declaration of December 19, 1984.

[H.t. Bill Holmes]