The British government has given final approval for plans to build an enormous Chinese embassy in the heart of central London. The plan, delayed for years over security concerns, gained rapid approval as the current Keir Starmer cabinet chose an "economic pragmatism" course.
While the dominant view is that this is a conciliatory step to improve relations with China, the United States and other allies, as well as the British opposition, pushed back strongly, calling it a "dangerous gamble" with national security as collateral.
On the 20th (local time), according to the BBC, Reuters and other foreign media, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities conditionally approved China's plan to build a new embassy on the former Royal Mint Court site in Tower Hamlets, London. Housing Minister Steve Reed explained the decision, saying, "In consultation with the intelligence authorities, we put in place measures to mitigate security risks." With this, China secured the largest diplomatic hub in Western Europe in London's financial center.
The site sits directly opposite London landmarks Tower Bridge and the Tower of London. It covers about 20,000 square meters (about 6,050 pyeong). China bought the land in 2018 for £255 million (about 460 billion won). China initially planned to build a "super embassy" the size of three football pitches right after the purchase.
But concerns about security persisted because the location is adjacent to the City of London, the heart of Britain's finance, and sensitive fiber-optic communications cables run underground. In 2022, the Tower Hamlets council, which has jurisdiction over the site, actually rejected the construction permit, citing local opposition and security issues.
The approval came just ahead of Prime Minister Starmer's trip to China. At the end of this month, Starmer is set to become the first British prime minister in eight years since 2018 to visit Beijing and meet Chinese President Xi Jinping. Because of that, experts said that with Britain's economy stuck in a slump, the Labor Party government put security concerns aside and offered an advance gift to promote trade and investment ties with China. A British government Spokesperson argued that "consolidating China's diplomatic missions in one place actually favors security management."
The United States, an ally, immediately expressed displeasure. The concern is that the decision could fracture the West's united front to check China. The Telegraph, citing a senior White House official, reported, "We are deeply concerned about the possibility that hostile actors could exploit the core infrastructure of our closest allies." The United States is said to have warned the British side about the site's security vulnerabilities since last summer.
Criticism surged within the United Kingdom as well. Priti Patel, the Conservative Party's shadow foreign secretary, called the decision a "surrender." Patel said, "With the humiliating approval of a 'super embassy,' Prime Minister Starmer sold out national security to the Chinese Communist Party." The right-leaning Reform UK party likewise commented, "The Labor Party government invited security threats to curry favor with China."
Hong Kong activist Chloe Cheung, who sought asylum in Britain, said in an interview with The Japan Times, "I thought the UK would be a safe haven, but a giant Chinese fortress in central London will intimidate dissidents." Cheung also said, "The new embassy will become a symbol showcasing how powerful the Chinese government is."
Security experts said the Starmer cabinet undermined strategic autonomy for economic gains. Jake Shrub, a former UK parliamentary aide, wrote in a contribution to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) that "the UK sold a long-term security issue to reap short-term economic benefits," calling it "a cautionary example of how economic weakness can lead to strategic vulnerability."
China, by contrast, welcomed the decision as a "victory for pragmatic diplomacy." Wang Hanyi, a researcher at Shanghai International Studies University, told the state-run Global Times that it was "a case where reason prevailed over excessive security logic" and "a positive signal for the healthy development of bilateral relations." Li Guanzhe of the Shanghai Global Governance Institute also argued, "The security threat claims lack grounds because the UK intelligence agencies conducted a thorough review."