Tenzin Nyidon
DHARAMSHALA, Jan. 20: The United Kingdom government on Tuesday approved plans for China to construct what will become its largest embassy in Europe, a contentious decision that has drawn criticism from security experts, opposition lawmakers, and human rights groups concerned about espionage and the surveillance of dissidents, including Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Hong Kong activists living in exile.
The approval permits Beijing to develop a vast diplomatic complex at Royal Mint Court, a historic site near the Tower of London, following years of political delays and legal challenges. The project was formally signed off by UK Housing and Local Government Secretary Steve Reed, overriding objections raised by local authorities, residents, and campaign groups.
The controversial decision comes amid broader efforts by Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government to stabilise relations with China after years of strained ties. Analysts view the move as part of a broader diplomatic recalibration, as London seeks to cooperate with Beijing on trade, climate change, and global security issues. The approval also precedes a planned visit by Prime Minister Starmer to China, marking the first such visit by a British leader in several years.
The decision has reignited concerns among activists and rights groups who argue that the embassy’s size, location, and proximity to sensitive communications infrastructure could pose national security risks. Human rights organisations say these concerns are particularly acute for members of the Tibetan, Uyghur, and Hong Kong communities, many of whom have previously reported harassment, intimidation, and monitoring linked to Chinese state actors operating abroad.
Tenzin Rabga Tashi, a Tibetan activist and Campaign Lead at Free Tibet, a London-based advocacy group that has been at the forefront of protests against the mega-embassy, warned that the development risks normalising intimidation of exile communities.
“In the UK, through their embassies and consulates, the Chinese government has placed million-dollar bounties on activists, urging neighbours and even friends to turn over dissidents who speak out against the Chinese Communist Party,” Rabga told Phayul.
“They have brutally attacked pro-democracy protesters, dragging them into consulate grounds, fully aware that non-citizens and law enforcement are not permitted there,” he added. “These acts took place at the Chinese embassy’s current site. With a new location in the heart of London, and a massive upgrade in size and accommodation, it greatly expands their capabilities to commit further acts of transnational repression, in a manner we as members of communities in the diaspora have yet to experience before.”
Rabga also criticised the UK government for what he described as a failure to meaningfully consult affected exile communities before approving the project. “The UK government has greatly misjudged the stakes involved in this decision-making process,” he said. “If it had genuinely taken into account the voices of opposition, particularly those from the Tibetan community, the proposal for the Chinese mega-embassy would have been rejected outright, with no possibility of appeal.”
He further added that, the decision sends a troubling message to Tibetan activists who believed the UK provided a safe space for dissent. “It signals that our voices will always come second to China’s,” he said. “Political and financial gain will continue to be prioritised over clear evidence of human rights abuses and the ongoing exploitation of Tibet and its people.”
Rabga also linked the timing of the approval to broader diplomatic considerations, describing it as a gesture aimed at Beijing ahead of Prime Minister Starmer’s planned visit. “The decision to approve China’s mega-embassy just a week before the Prime Minister’s first official visit to China is a clear act of appeasement,” he said. “It shows that the UK government has kowtowed to Xi Jinping.”
He argued that if the UK were serious about its stated China policy — to “cooperate where we can, compete where we need to, and challenge where we must” — the approval should have been accompanied by firm conditions.
“That should have included demands for the release of political prisoners whose health has severely deteriorated, an end to colonial boarding schools in Tibet, and meaningful dialogue between the Chinese government and the Central Tibetan Administration,” Rabga added.
