Approving China’s ‘mega-embassy’ is a capitulation that betrays our values and our security
4 min read
The UK government’s decision to green-light the People’s Republic of China’s new diplomatic headquarters at Royal Mint Court is not just a planning failure. It’s a moral capitulation that has prioritised diplomatic expediency over national security and human rights.
When we should be de-risking our relationship with the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) increasingly assertive and repressive regime, we are instead cementing their influence, quite literally, into the foundations of our capital.
As chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Tibet, I view this through the lens of those who have fled the regime's brutality. For Tibetans, as well as Uyghurs, Hong Kongers and many in the Chinese diaspora in the UK, this mega-embassy is not merely an administrative change; it is a source of visceral dread.
The CCP is the world’s most aggressive perpetrator of transnational repression. From diaspora communities in the UK, my colleagues and I hear harrowing accounts of harassment, threatening phone calls, surveillance of community events, and the detention and coercion of family members back home. By permitting the construction of Europe’s largest Chinese diplomatic mission, we are upgrading the engine room of state-sponsored intimidation and signalling to the CCP that these actions are acceptable.
The most high-profile example is of Jimmy Lai, a 77-year-old British citizen who languishes in a Hong Kong jail for his courage to stand up for Hong Kong’s promised democratic rights and freedoms. Yet, while the CCP keeps a British national in solitary confinement on trumped-up charges, the UK Government rewards these actions, by rolling out the red carpet for his jailers. This fact, in addition to sanctions unjustly imposed on my parliamentary colleagues, leaves the UK in a humiliating position.
The security implications of this specific site are terrifying
Beyond the moral outrage, the security implications of this specific site are terrifying. Royal Mint Court sits above the digital arteries of our economy. Fibre-optic cables running beneath the site carry the lifeblood of the City of London’s financial data, alongside the private communications of millions of UK citizens.
The embassy’s design includes undisclosed basement facilities situated adjacent to sensitive cabling, barely a metre away. Intelligence experts have warned that such proximity makes non-invasive data interception relatively simple. Yet the CCP has refused to engage with our legitimate concerns and has instead sought to push through the application by making a hostage of the UK’s own diplomatic mission in Beijing, reportedly going so far as to cut water and power supplies to force compliance with their demands. Essential maintenance is blocked, tying cooperation with approval of their mega-embassy in London. This lack of reciprocity should not define our relations with China. It signals weakness and tells the CCP that their coercion works.
Furthermore, we must consider the right to protest. For marginalised groups like the Tibetans, the ability to demonstrate visible opposition is a lifeline. Victims must be able to call for justice, and to speak truth to the power that abuses them. Yet the Royal Mint Court site is unsuited for large gatherings, as recent demonstrations have proven. By moving the embassy to a location where safe, visible protest is logistically impossible, we are helping the CCP hide from public scrutiny.
It’s no wonder that local residents and diaspora are gearing up for a Judicial Review. They have legitimate grievances regarding the lack of transparency in the planning process and the site’s compatibility with local needs.
The protection of the realm is the first duty of government. By approving this project, the UK has failed in that duty. We have chosen to appease a regime that bullies our allies, imprisons our citizens, and threatens our infrastructure. It is not a question of whether China should have an embassy, but whether Europe’s largest diplomatic complex should be that of a regime that is hostile towards us, does not share our values and is, if not a threat, then at the very least a strategic competitor. It is an issue not just of values and national security, but of national self-respect.
Chris Law is SNP MP for Dundee Central and chair of the APPG on Tibet
