A diplomatic fortress or a Trojan Horse? The battle over China’s London mega-embassy

When the UK reversed its stance on China’s controversial mega-embassy, critics saw more than a policy shift — they saw a warning. Was Britain trading national security for diplomatic favours?

Featuring Sam Dunning, Director of UK-China Transparency, on Metropolitan Police behaviour at protests against the China mega-embassy. Video: Joanna Chan.

This isn’t just about an embassy

The cold air does little to stifle the chants outside Royal Mint Court in London. Protesters gather, their breath visible in the winter dusk, as banners reading “Say NO to the China Mega-Embassy” wave in their hands. Hongkongers, Uyghurs, Taiwanese, Tibetans, and Chinese nationals stand united — not just by the moment but by shared fears of an uncertain future.

“This isn’t just about an embassy. It’s about control,” says Hipper, a Hongkonger who studied military affairs before moving to London. “If this project goes ahead, it will be the biggest Chinese diplomatic site in the world. But why do they need it? Who will they be watching?”

Some protesters wear all black, faces covered — a habit from years of dissent. Others arrive with families, pushing prams or wheelchairs. Young activists and elderly exiles share anxieties about the embassy’s implications.

A safe haven or a surveillance outpost?

China’s plan to convert Royal Mint Court into Europe’s largest embassy has been fraught with controversy. Despite Tower Hamlets Council rejecting the application in 2022 over security concerns, Beijing pressed forward relentlessly.

In late 2024, after Prime Minister Keir Starmer met Xi Jinping at the G20 summit, the UK government’s stance softened. The following January, Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper backed the plan, arguing that diplomatic premises are a fundamental part of international relations. 

Detailed timeline of the China mega embassy’s plan. Image: Joanna Chan

To some, including UK ministers, the embassy is seen as a diplomatic necessity, with officials stating that all countries should have “functioning diplomatic premises in each other’s capitals.” Their support came after the Metropolitan Police withdrew objections, concluding there was sufficient space for protests. Meanwhile, Chinese officials defended the embassy as a routine diplomatic expansion, expressing frustration over what they described as UK delays.

UK intelligence agencies, including MI5, warn that the embassy’s proximity to critical communication cables could make it a cyber-espionage threat. Concerns extend beyond digital security — they fear Beijing’s influence creeping into daily life.

Benedict Rogers, 8th February 2025. Image: Joanna Chan

Benedict Rogers, co-founder of Hong Kong Watch, calls the UK government’s intervention “a snub to democracy, an insult to local governance, and a national security risk.” 

He continues, “Ignoring intelligence agency warnings while handing Beijing a new surveillance foothold in London is more than reckless — it’s dangerous.”

Who’s watching whom?

For Carmen Lau, an exiled Hong Kong activist, these fears transcend mere speculation. At the 8th February 2025 protest outside Royal Mint Court, she takes the stage and highlights her first-hand experience with China’s transnational repression:

“We do not allow the UK to roll out the red carpet for Beijing’s creeping influence,” Carmen declares. “This embassy will only embolden their efforts. We will not back down.”

Carmen Lau, 8th February 2025. Image: Joanna Chan

Now in exile, she knows too well the tactics she warns about. In 2025, so-called “wanted” posters arrived at her neighbours’ homes, offering HK$1 million (£100,000) for information on her whereabouts — or to “deliver” her to the Chinese embassy.

“I do not feel safe living at my current address,” she says. “It’s pure intimidation.” Her experience is a powerful reminder of why protesters remain fearful: a diplomatic presence can swiftly turn into personal intimidation.

“There are these thuggish behaviours related to the Chinese Embassy, affecting the safety of people on British soil,” she says. “And seriously — would Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner still decide to give it a go? Law enforcement should immediately design substantial measures to safeguard the Hongkonger community.”

The letter which Carmen’s neighbours received. 5th March 2025. Image: Carmen Lau

Political allies and warnings

Politicians from across party lines share activists’ concerns. Former Conservative leader and current IPAC co-chair Iain Duncan Smith suggests Chinese agents may have already photographed participants at the demonstrations. Speaking about the embassy’s proposed location, he expressed frustration over the government’s apparent disregard for security threats and local worries, questioning why these urgent warnings are being ignored.

Kevin Hollinrake, Conservative MP and shadow minister for local government, also strongly opposes the embassy, promising to fight the plans through “every method possible.” Liberal Democrat MP Luke Taylor, sympathetic to Hongkongers, points out the fear protesters have of “cross-border intimidation,” explaining their decision to protest masked.

Tensions escalate: Changing police tactics

On 8th February 2025, protesters faced aggressive policing and two arrests. By 15th March 2025, anxiety intensified when demonstrators noticed a camera photographing them from a window inside the Royal Mint Court building.

In another incident, a man draped in a Chinese flag and wearing a balaclava aggressively filmed protesters, leading to police intervention and a half-hour confrontation that drew public attention.

Police intervene as a masked man in a Chinese flag films protesters. 15th March 2025. Image: Joanna Chan

Sam Dunning, director of UK China Transparency, highlighted a significant shift in police stance: “Initially, the Metropolitan Police objected to the embassy being here because there was no room for protests. Yet today, they’ve actively restricted that room themselves — diverting cars and people around the area. Their original objection to the embassy has now been withdrawn. That’s interesting. I’d like to know why.”

Local voices: Between fear and indifference

For Mark Nygate, a local resident since 1998, the primary worry isn’t diplomatic — it’s personal. His building is separated from the embassy quarters by a mere fence, just 8.5 metres away. “It’s too close — there’s simply no privacy here,” he states. “With today’s technology, even everyday activities like gardening or photography, or simply how you walk, could be misinterpreted.” Residents requested increased security, but China has yet to respond.

Yet not everyone shares Mark’s concerns. An hour after protesters dispersed, a 70-year-old local woman walks quietly through the emptying protest area. Pausing briefly to glance at scattered banners, her expression is neutral, almost detached. Asked about the protest, she shrugs lightly: “I just came by after it’s ended. What was all this about?” After hearing the explanation, she remains untroubled: “It’s just another embassy, only bigger, isn’t it? Just let them have it — I doubt it really affects most people directly.”

Her indifference sharply contrasts with Mark’s fears and the protesters’ urgency, emphasising another subtle danger: public apathy, which might unintentionally pave the way for unnoticed intrusions into Britain’s freedoms, masked by daily concerns.

A protester uses a drawing to explain to a local resident why the mega-embassy is being opposed. 15th March 2025. Image: Joanna Chan

The battle has only begun

For many protesters, the fight seems unwinnable. “We know the UK needs money,” says Hipper, referencing Starmer’s G20 comments on closer economic ties with China. “But if business overrides security, what can we do?”

Uncle Leo, a former aide to exiled Hong Kong legislator Ted Hui, calls it personal: “China’s surveillance is unparalleled. Covering your face is useless — they track you by your eyes. That’s why I never cover mine.”

These fears extend beyond Hongkongers alone. “Will there be official secret police operating here?” asks an anonymous protester attending with his children. 

“This would only make it easier for Beijing to monitor those speaking up against them in Britain.” He adds, 

“One day, how do I explain to my kids that the country we fled to for safety now feels no different from the one we left behind?”

A child’s hand grips a protest sign. 15th March 2025. Image: Joanna Chan

How much is Britain willing to give up? 

As China’s global influence grows, the mega-embassy at Royal Mint Court is no longer just a proposal — it is becoming a reality, reflecting Beijing’s ambitions and challenging Britain’s principles. To some, it represents a surveillance fortress. To others, it is a diplomatic necessity, vital to Britain’s post-Brexit future.

At the core of this debate lies a fundamental question: should economic gains come at the cost of security and human rights? For activists like Carmen Lau, the choice is clear. She vows, “I will not be silenced.” Politicians like Iain Duncan Smith warn that this is a tipping point — a test of Britain’s democratic resilience.

8th February 2025. Image: Joanna Chan

Although Tower Hamlets Council rejected the application, the UK government called it in for review. A final decision is expected by May. Now, with the government’s approval secured and police objections withdrawn, the embassy looms over London, both physically and symbolically. This issue cuts to the heart of Britain’s democratic values.

Uncle Leo criticises the decision, calling Royal Mint Court “more than just a building — it is a historic landmark.” He continues, “The UK doesn’t know how to protect what is valuable. If they hand it over to China, it will be lost.”

This is more than a diplomatic debate. It is a test of Britain’s resolve. Will the nation stand firm on its security and freedoms — or quietly surrender them?

Satirical protest sign shows the UK Prime Minister licking the foot of Winnie the Pooh — a symbol often used to mock China’s leader Xi Jinping. 15th March 2025. Image: Joanna Chan