Did he jump or was he pushed? It’s been hard to resist speculating about the departure of Hong Kong chief executive Tung Chee Hwa, who resigned last week on health grounds. The most important point, however, is crystal clear. Beijing is replacing one hand-picked Hong Kong leader with another, Donald Tsang, a career civil servant. In doing so, Beijing has acted against the desire of the Hong Kong people to choose their own leaders, and violated the terms of the “constitution” Beijing itself wrote for the territory.

Signs of Mr. Tung’s political ill health developed late last year. The general secretary of China’s communist party, Hu Jintao, publicly criticized the Hong Kong leader and his administration during a meeting in Macau. Mr. Tung’s inept governance exacerbated public health crises, damaged the economy and, worse, from Beijing’s point of view, motivated Hong Kong people to join a rally against Beijing-directed legislation to limit civil liberties in 2003. Nearly 1 million people marched that day, and again last year. As a result, July 1, the anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to Chinese rule, has become associated with the drive for democracy rather than joy at being reunited with the motherland.

By the end of last week, the only suspense about Tung concerned whether Beijing would appoint a successor to a two-year or the five-year term specified in the Beijing drafted “constitution.” Beijing chose the two-year option, prompting objections from Hong Kong people over disregard for the letter of the law, which specifies a five-year term. For his part, Mr. Tsang, who’s advanced under British rule and has a knighthood to prove it, demonstrated why he is now Beijing’s man, obediently repudiating the view of his own Hong Kong government colleagues regarding the term of office. “Regrettably, our previous understanding was wrong.”

Mr. Tsang’s flexibility will serve him well. Beijing now intervenes overtly in Hong Kong affairs with ease. Last year, Beijing decided that Hong Kong’s chief executive would not be elected in 2007 and its Legislature not democratically elected in 2008, and that no further democratization could be taken without Beijing’s approval. Other interventions include overturning a major ruling by the territory’s highest court, the arrest and trials of criminals for crimes committed in Hong Kong, and criticisms of Mr. Tsang’s popular predecessor as chief secretary, Anson Chan, leading to her early resignation.

Each episode of interference has provoked a predictable chorus from foreign governments and editorial pages warning of the threat to the “one country, two systems” arrangement Beijing agreed with the British regarding Hong Kong’s governance after 1997. In fact, Beijing has always enjoyed control of the most important levers of power. These include control over the chief executive and, through its proxies, the Legislature, and the power to say what the Basic Law means – regardless of the text. Now Beijing has used this last power again.

The international community has been willing to go along. On March 10, State Department deputy spokesman Adam J. Ereli responded to the Mr. Tung’s departure by saying the choice of a successor to Mr. Tung was “for the people of Hong Kong and China to decide. “What must Hong Kong’s people make of that? The Hong Kong people have no say in who runs Hong Kong or the rest of China.

Of course, Mr. Ereli should know better. Probably, he does. His remarks reflect Washington’s broader policy to pretend that the system Beijing set up for Hong Kong safeguards its autonomy and allows for progress to democracy. Doing so avoids confrontation with Beijing over Hong Kong, as well as Taiwan, by preserving the fiction that Taiwan might one day be able to come under a similar arrangement. The problem is that failing to oppose the erosion of Hong Kong’s liberties and institutions lets Beijing to believe it may deny democracy in Hong Kong, and perhaps one day, Taiwan as well.

There are other pitfalls to be avoided as well. The international community should resist the temptation to analyze Mr. Tung’s departure as the product of a power struggle between Jiang Zemin, the former general secretary who picked Mr. Tung, and Hu Jintao, the current general secretary. Such analyses fulfill a need to believe that liberal attitude on democracy in Hong Kong lurks inside the hearts of Beijing’s cadres. In fact, the Tung departure is confirmation of what we already know – nothing more and nothing less. Beijing has simply chosen a different apparatchik to run Hong Kong.

Nor must any credit be given to Beijing for cosmetic gestures that may be made regarding the installation of Mr. Tsang. Keep an eye out, for example, for the future expansion of the committee of 800 members that “elects” the chief executive according to guidance from Beijing.

A commitment to Hong Kong’s autonomy forms the basis of America’s policy toward Hong Kong and gives the president power to review that autonomy. Beijing’s sacking of Mr. Tung provides more evidence – if any were needed – that “one country, two systems” is a myth. That ought to provoke a serious reaction from Washington. Just because it hasn’t in the past is no reason it should not now.

Ms. Bork is deputy director of the Project for the New American Century.