Prosperity or Principle?: The ‘Super-Embassy’ and the Sino-British Relationship

Images - zibik and Jurica Koletic

‍

The conduct of the United States over the past year, and especially over the past few days amidst the Greenland Affair, has dominated the discussion regarding the future of British foreign policy. But while the future of the ‘special relationship’ hangs in the balance, another debate has finally reached a conclusion. On the 20th January 2025, the three-year clash between the People’s Republic of China and opponents in the UK came to a head as planning permission for the so-called Chinese ‘Super-Embassy’ was approved by Downing Street.

‍

The debate over the planning permission has run in the background of British politics and security studies and has become a stand-in for the wider Sino-British relationship, representing the crux of the debate between the moral and security costs, voiced by both diaspora dissident communities and the official opposition establishment alike, and the drive of a government desperate to improve the nation’s stagnant economic growth through new trade partnerships. For now, the latter argument has won. Should it have?

‍

The ‘Super-Embassy’ refers to a project kickstarted by the Government of the PRC to transfer their London Embassy from their Qing-Era home at 49 Portland Place to a much larger facility at the former Royal Mint in Tower Hamlets. This would allow for the merger of several small satellite buildings, currently used by the PRC to host embassy staff and services due to size constraints at Portland Place, into a single complex. The new embassy would serve as the largest embassy in Europe, seizing the title from the US’ London Embassy - the symbolism of such a shift unlikely to be mere coincidence.

‍

Such an investment was, at least officially, designed to “write a new chapter for a China-UK golden era” and become “the welcoming public face for China in the UK” - and even for the most Sinosceptic observers it is clear that there is truth in this push. While certainly a rollercoaster of ups and downs, the long-term trend of the Sino-British relationship since the turn of the new millennium has been one of reconciliation. With the handover of Hong Kong in 1997 and the drive of the post-Maoist Communist Party of China (CPC) to cement itself as a reformed and reliable economic power in the global economy, both London (under Conservative and Labour premiership alike) and Beijing pushed to “bury the hatchet” in a previously-strained relationship. Even now, Sir Keir Starmer (accompanied by Rachel Reeves and key business leaders) is preparing for a state visit to Beijing before the end of the month - the first PM to do so since 2018. Under such conditions, especially with the unpredictable and erratic decision-making of the UK’s current superpower ally, the new embassy represents a welcome signal to British business that both parties are placing strengthened economic ties in high regard.

‍

However, there remain strong barriers to a reliable and trustworthy Sino-British relationship and grave concerns over the decision to try and break said barriers down . One such glaring concern, especially in regards to the planned ‘Super-Embassy’, is the accusation of a sustained Chinese espionage campaign against key British policymakers made by the British intelligence community. Although the high-profile trial against two British males suspected of collusion with the PRC’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) failed to convict, several previous incidents - such as the 2022 legal case between MI5 and a reported Chinese spy and a 2024 accusation of Chinese cyberattacks on the Electoral Commission - have led MPs (on both sides of the bench), intelligence experts, and elements of the academic community (also subjected to Chinese intimidation) to criticise the ‘Super-Embassy’ plan.

‍

These calls are reinforced by the vicinity of the Royal Mint Court to fibre optic cables serving the City of London - the heart of the UK’s financialised economy. The PRC appears all too aware of this vulnerability - plans for the ‘Super-Embassy’ include a network of “secret rooms and a concealed chamber that sat alongside cables”.

‍

National security is not the sole concern. In regards to the ‘Super-Embassy’ and the wider thawing of relations alike, an obvious moral and ethical conflict persists too. For local residents, the ‘Super-Embassy’ represents a potential hub for harassment against dissidents and persecuted minorities living in the area, many of whom have actively protested the plan even before the final decision was made on the 20th. Even for those not at risk of being targeted by Embassy staff, the probability of regular protest in the area serves as a source of disruption for the livelihoods of those living in Tower Hamlets.

‍

Furthermore, there is the issue of what this move symbolises on the world stage. Endorsement of Beijing’s totalitarian surveillance system, ethnic cleansing campaigns in Xinjiang/Tibet, and military aggression in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea (only exacerbated by Chinese support for aggressive powers abroad) in a period where authoritarian states grow bolder and democratic alliances grow disunited would be immensely counterproductive to the UK’s image and status in the world as a defender of “an open and stable international order…based on respect for the UN Charter and International Law” as set out in the 2023 Integrated Review.

‍

While planning permission has received approval, there remains considerable resistance to the ‘Super-Embassy’ plans and though news of the approval has concluded one phase of this three-year contest, it by no means closes the window of action for anyone wishing to make their opinions known on the subject. Residents living at Royal Mint Court are preparing to trigger a judicial review of the planning permission which they claim already contains multiple errors and widespread criticism continues to be raised across Parliamentary opposition - even seeing an unprecedented case of Liberal Democrat and Reform UK crossover during London protests.

‍

But every reader, regardless of how detached they believe themselves to be from this fight over planning permissions, should take the opportunity at the end of this article to ask themselves a simple question. Is the prospect of financial gain from economic cooperation with Beijing worth sacrificing the principles of our democracy, sovereignty and beliefs? Interpret that question as you wish.