The issue of constructing a new embassy building for the People’s Republic of China in London has evolved over several years from a construction project into a large-scale socio-political conflict involving issues of national security, diplomatic pressure and human rights. The story surrounding the so-called ‘super embassy’ reflects a broader crisis in relations between the UK and China and demonstrates how vulnerable democratic procedures can be in the context of geopolitical confrontation.
In 2018, the Chinese government acquired the Royal Mint Court, a historic complex of buildings in east London, near the Tower and the City. The plan was to build a new embassy, which was to become China’s largest diplomatic mission in Europe, with a total area of approximately 20,000–22,000 square metres. The new complex was to replace several Chinese diplomatic facilities scattered across London and become a single diplomatic centre. The project was seen as a symbol of the strengthening of Sino-British ties, which had developed actively during the so-called ‘golden era’ of relations under David Cameron’s government.
However, the project faced organised resistance at an early stage. In 2022, Tower Hamlets Council rejected the building application, citing several problematic aspects. Official documents emphasised that the scale of the future complex significantly exceeded the parameters of a typical diplomatic mission and posed increased risks to public safety in a densely populated area with heavy tourist traffic. Separately, they noted the potential for transport infrastructure overload, given the proximity of the Tower, the City of London and busy motorways. Protests by local residents, who feared increased security measures, restrictions on movement and the effective transformation of part of the area into a closed zone, also played a significant role.
The municipality’s decision was made against the backdrop of a noticeable deterioration in the political climate between London and Beijing. During this period, the UK sharply criticised the actions of the Chinese authorities in Hong Kong, including the introduction of a national security law, which, according to the British government, violated the terms of the 1984 Sino-British Declaration. At the same time, international accusations against Beijing intensified in connection with massive human rights violations in Xinjiang, where, according to human rights organisations and Western governments, forced detention camps for Uyghurs were operating. Additional tension was created by reports from European intelligence services about the growing activity of Chinese intelligence structures, ranging from cyber espionage to attempts to exert political influence through academic and business circles. In this context, Tower Hamlets’ refusal was seen not simply as a construction decision, but as a symptom of a crisis of trust between the UK and China.
Following changes in the political context in the UK in 2024-2025, the issue of construction was removed from the jurisdiction of local authorities and transferred to the central government. It was this step that became the starting point for a new round of controversy.
The main source of tension was concerns about national security. British parliamentarians, experts and representatives of the special services pointed out that the proposed embassy building would be located near key communication hubs and financial infrastructure in London. In January 2026, the British media (primarily The Telegraph and the Daily Mail) published previously classified/redacted parts of the project. It turned out that 208 underground rooms were planned for the future embassy, one of which was located just a metre away from the most important fibre-optic cables, through which huge amounts of financial information pass between the City and Canary Wharf. Many politicians and security experts openly refer to this as a potential espionage platform for eavesdropping or even physical access to cables.
The scale of the project caused additional concern, as the new Chinese embassy significantly exceeds the size of most diplomatic missions in the British capital. According to critics, this is not just a building for diplomatic work, but an element of China’s long-term strategic presence in the UK.
The second factor was diplomatic pressure from Beijing. Chinese officials have repeatedly stated that delaying or blocking the project would have ‘consequences’ for bilateral relations. These statements, widely quoted in the British media, were perceived as an attempt to directly influence the UK’s sovereign decisions. Against this backdrop, voices in parliament grew louder, demanding that the project be treated not as a routine real estate deal, but as a matter of foreign and defence policy.
Public distrust and protests became another line of conflict. In 2025, mass demonstrations took place at Royal Mint Court, involving human rights activists, Hong Kongers, Tibetan and Uyghur activists. For them, the new embassy became a symbol of the Chinese authorities’ impunity and disregard for human rights issues in favour of economic interests.
The situation surrounding the embassy exposed an internal divide in British politics. On the one hand, the government seeks to stabilise relations with China, an important trading partner and global player. On the other, there is growing pressure from parliament, the security services and NATO allies, who warn of the risks of excessive dependence and underestimating threats.
The situation is further complicated by the so-called ‘mirror’ diplomatic factor. According to The Guardian, in recent years, the Chinese authorities have delayed or blocked the approval of projects to expand and modernise the British Embassy in Beijing, including issues of security, reconstruction and the use of adjacent territory. British diplomats have unofficially indicated that these delays are not so much technical as political in nature and are being used by Beijing as leverage in negotiations on other sensitive issues. Against this backdrop, there are increasing assessments in London that the fate of the Chinese ‘super embassy’ at Royal Mint Court has in fact been built into a system of diplomatic concessions, where decisions on one project are directly linked to conditions on another. This practice is fuelling criticism within the UK. Opponents of the project argue that this approach undermines the principle of independence of national institutions and sets a dangerous precedent, whereby the construction of a diplomatic facility and security issues become the subject of foreign policy bargaining.
Disagreements over the Chinese ‘super embassy’ also arose within the Labour Party itself, which only heightened tensions surrounding the project. In January 2026, nine Labour MPs sent an open letter to the relevant minister, demanding that construction at Royal Mint Court be blocked. The document used the strongest possible language. The authors of the letter directly called China a ‘hostile state’ and emphasised that the UK ‘should not encourage the aggressive behaviour of authoritarian regimes’ by providing them with large-scale facilities in central London. For a party that traditionally strives for unity on foreign policy issues, such public defiance caused quite a stir.
Nevertheless, despite the growing scandal, protests and pressure from some parliamentarians, most British media outlets and political insiders agree that Prime Minister Keir Starmer is inclined to approve the project. Sources in the government point to several reasons for this choice. Firstly, Beijing has agreed to close a significant portion of its current diplomatic facilities in London and consolidate its activities into a single complex, which, according to the authorities, will simplify monitoring and control by the British security services. Secondly, rejecting the project threatens to seriously complicate relations with China ahead of Starmer’s planned visit to Beijing at the end of January 2026, which is seen as a key element of the strategy of ‘cautious warming’ of bilateral relations. Finally, according to several publications, MI5 and other security services have given conditional approval to the project, subject to the implementation of unprecedentedly strict security and technical control measures.
The government’s final decision is expected in the coming days, tentatively by 20 January 2026, although the deadline has already been postponed several times, which only fuels suspicions of backroom negotiations and political bargaining. Whatever the verdict, it will almost certainly not put an end to the story. If the project is approved, residents of the Royal Mint Court area and human rights activists are prepared to initiate legal action, declaring their intention to drag out the proceedings for years. If the government unexpectedly decides to reject the project, it will send a powerful political signal to Beijing and deal a serious blow to the Starmer administration’s efforts to restore dialogue.
Meanwhile, a real geopolitical drama is unfolding around the former Royal Mint: rumours of intelligence basements and communication tunnels, protesters waving Hong Kong flags, MPs openly opposing their own prime minister, and a giant diplomatic complex that could become either the most heavily guarded embassy in Europe or the largest ‘Trojan horse’ in the heart of the British capital.