OPINION
Ahead of a Nov 15 demonstration by critics of Beijing’s policies, actions, and rule in their repressed homelands, Tsering Passang* and Clara Cheung* contend that any final British government approval of China’s mega-embassy plan in Central London will not only erode British sovereignty and compromise national security, but also endanger the very communities who fled CCP repression for safety in the country.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is not content with ruling within its own borders. It is exporting its authoritarian model into the heart of open democracies – Britain included.
The proposed conversion of the historic Royal Mint Court into Europe’s largest Chinese diplomatic compound is no ordinary embassy. It is a calculated strategic and intelligence hub designed to tighten Beijing’s grip on Britain’s political, economic, and social fabric.
This project threatens to erode British sovereignty, compromise national security, and endanger the very communities who fled CCP repression for safety on these shores.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and his government face a defining test. Will Labour defend Britain’s democratic principles and strategic independence – or repeat the pattern of moral and political capitulation that has too often characterised the West’s dealings with Beijing?
A Defiant Stand: The Voices of the Persecuted
On 15 November 2025, Hongkongers, Uyghurs, Tibetans, Chinese dissidents, Taiwanese communities, and British allies will unite in central London for their seventh protest against this mega-embassy plan.
This is not merely another demonstration – it is a call to conscience. For the exiled and persecuted, this project represents the physical embodiment of the regime they escaped. For Britain, it is a test of moral resolve and national sovereignty.
A Pattern of Capitulation: The 2008 Tibet Betrayal
The UK has faced such crossroads before – and chosen wrongly.
In October 2008, under Gordon Brown’s Labour government, then–Foreign Secretary David Miliband issued a Written Ministerial Statement that formally abandoned Britain’s historic position recognising China’s “special position” in Tibet under the notion of suzerainty.
Miliband declared: “Our recognition of China’s ‘special position’ in Tibet developed from the outdated concept of suzerainty. Some have used this to cast doubt on the aims we are pursuing and to claim that we are denying Chinese sovereignty over a large part of its own territory. We have made clear to the Chinese Government, and publicly, that we do not support Tibetan independence.”
He went further, calling Britain’s previous policy “an anachronism imported into the present,” and insisted that the UK did “not harbour continued designs to see the break-up of China.”
This was not a simple semantic shift. It marked a complete reversal of nearly a century of policy that had quietly acknowledged Tibet’s de facto autonomy. It was, in truth, a calculated gesture to curry favour with Beijing during the global financial crisis – a trade of moral principle for perceived economic gain.
Brown’s government sought China’s cooperation at the 2009 G20 Summit, which he hosted in London. Instead, Beijing pocketed the concession and offered nothing in return. The damage went far beyond diplomacy. It told Beijing that Britain’s moral stance was negotiable.
The CCP responded by tightening repression in Tibet and Xinjiang, and later by dismantling Hong Kong’s freedoms in open defiance of international law. That same arrogance was on display in Manchester, when Chinese consulate officials assaulted Hong Kong protesters on British soil – and then left the country without facing justice. The message was unmistakable: we can act with impunity, even here.
Britain’s Duty to Hong Kong: A Broken Promise
The 1984 Sino–British Joint Declaration is not a relic of history. It is a binding international treaty, lodged with the United Nations, guaranteeing Hong Kong’s autonomy, rule of law, and fundamental freedoms for 50 years after 1997.
Beijing’s imposition of the National Security Law in 2020 shredded that treaty, criminalising dissent and extinguishing what remained of Hong Kong’s liberty.
Britain responded honourably with the British National (Overseas) visa scheme, offering sanctuary to those escaping tyranny. More than 200,000 Hongkongers have rebuilt their lives here. Yet the construction of a vast CCP compound only miles from Parliament would place these same refugees under renewed threat – an insult to Britain’s duty of protection and to the integrity of the Joint Declaration itself.
To proceed with this embassy would not only betray the persecuted; it would betray Britain’s word as a treaty-bound democracy.
Why the Mega-Embassy Must Be Stopped: Five Clear Dangers
1. A National Security Nightmare
The Royal Mint Court sits atop vital infrastructure – including data and communication lines connecting Canary Wharf and the City of London, the financial heart of the UK. Allowing a CCP-controlled complex on this site would create an unprecedented security vulnerability. Such a facility could serve as a nerve centre for espionage, cyber operations, and data interception – enabling Beijing to penetrate Britain’s economic and governmental systems from within the capital itself.
2. A Proven Record of Espionage
MI5 has repeatedly warned that Chinese interference in the UK is “serious and growing.” Recent high-profile cases – including alleged CCP agents infiltrating Parliament and universities – underscore that warning. Granting Beijing its largest diplomatic site in Europe would not merely overlook this danger; it would legitimise and expand the very network of covert operations that British intelligence is striving to contain.
3. A Hub for Transnational Repression
The CCP’s United Front network has already been exposed for running covert “police stations” and intimidating exiles across Western democracies. A mega-embassy in London, protected by diplomatic immunity, would provide the regime with a legal shield for surveillance, intimidation, and psychological harassment of Tibetan, Uyghur, Hongkonger, and Chinese dissident communities. What should be a diplomatic mission risks becoming an operational base for transnational repression on British soil.
4. A Betrayal of Local Democracy and Heritage
The Grade II–listed Royal Mint Court, a cornerstone of Britain’s economic and architectural heritage, was twice rejected by Tower Hamlets Council for reasons of excessive scale, heritage impact, and national security risk. Those local decisions were later overturned, despite initial opposition from the Metropolitan Police. The reversal raises urgent questions about who influenced the outcome – and whether local democratic and security concerns were sidelined in favour of foreign pressure.
5. A Secretive Deal that Undermines Democracy
No independent security review or impact assessment has been made public. Yet diplomatic meetings between senior British and Chinese officials reportedly discussed the embassy project extensively. These talks were preceded by direct lobbying by President Xi Jinping during the G20 Summit in Brazil (November 2024), and further intensified following Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ visit to China in January 2025, where Beijing reportedly pressed hard for the project’s approval.
If true, this sequence suggests that political lobbying and backroom diplomacy have overshadowed due process. Such disregard for transparency and local governance mirrors the CCP’s own contempt for accountability and the rule of law. Allowing this project to proceed would repeat the 2008 Tibet mistake – surrendering principle and sovereignty for short-term political or economic convenience.
Britain cannot afford to make that error again.
Heed the Persecuted: A Warning for Every Briton
The CCP does not build embassies – it builds citadels of control. From Lhasa to Hong Kong, from Kashgar to Taipei, the pattern is consistent: infiltrate, dominate, silence.
Those who have lived under this regime recognise the signs. We are not alarmists; we are witnesses. When the CCP expands its presence, repression follows. What begins as surveillance of exiles soon becomes coercion of businesses, politicians, journalists, and ordinary citizens.
This is not a distant human-rights issue. It is a direct test of Britain’s sovereignty, democracy, and moral strength.
Break the 2008 Curse – Defend Britain’s Future
The CCP never honours agreements; it exploits weakness. Britain must learn from the 2008 Tibet betrayal, not repeat it.
By refusing permission for this mega-embassy, the government can reassert Britain’s independence, reaffirm its commitment to international law, and send a clear message: our democracy is not for sale.
Sir Keir Starmer now has the chance to draw a line and defend Britain’s moral and strategic interests. Appeasement is not diplomacy; it is surrender disguised as pragmatism.
—
* Clara Cheung is former Hong Kong District Councillor. Tsering Passang is founder-chair of the Global Alliance for Tibet & Persecuted Minorities.