Yes, it was. A failure under extremely complex and constrained circumstances, but still a failure.

Question for you: how do you rate that moral failure vs. the moral value of China's political system?

In other words, do you see non-democratic systems as moral failures? I don't have any specific point or advocacy to make here. Just wondering what your broader perspective is given exactly what you said.

Yes, it was also a moral failure of the Chinese political system, but I assumed that they were morally bankrupt anyway (perhaps a good illustration can be found by reading between the lines of Liu Cixin first book).

I believe that they saw it as a huge win for themselves, what makes it even less appealing.

I do not think that a non-democratic system is automatically a moral failure, but it becomes one if they try to enforce it on others.

moral failure? I got a long list of solution for the British government:

1. not to fight the Opium War and sell Opium in the first place. 2. not to invade other country on the other side of the world. 3. not to pretend to be a dominant power.

if you focus on the first two points, they seem to be morally right in ALL culture.

Your comment isn't coherent. However, fighting a war in the 1830s and 1840s was most certainly in the best interests of Britain. Certainly your "long list of solution" wasn't a good enough reason for them to abandon their empire. And no, Britain didn't need to pretend. They were THE dominant power starting from the fall of Napoleon to the end of WWI.

Hong Kong was severed from China, "The people of Hong Kong were not party to the discussions, nor were they consulted about the final decision, which had a profound effect on their futures and freedoms"

Then it was returned in the same fashion.

Ironically, the people who desired to return to their homeland, gradually lost their roots and become indifferent to the idea that Hong Kong is an integral part of China.

There were only a few thousand people in Hong Kong when it became a British possession. The population at the time of the negotiations was descended from people who decided to leave China for a foreign jurisdiction.

So it's ok to invade usa and force the sever of Alaska because there are only 738,432 people, and then force economic sanction so that the mainland usa is super suppressed and migrate to Alaska, right?

This theoretically is much harder to do due to the geographic situation, but it's not far from your reasoning.