Why did British authorities change their mind about installing unnecessary and offensive “world headquarters of repression” in their capital?
By Ruth Ingram
February 17, 2025
Anger and indignation spilled onto the streets of London last week as thousands of protesters railed against plans for a Chinese “super embassy,” a stone’s throw from the Tower of London, a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Major arterial roads were closed and slews of extra police called in as around 4000 Hong-Kongers, Uyghurs, Tibetans, politicians, dissidents, and local residents, converged around the projected new embassy site, to express fears of espionage, terror attacks, and “desecration” of a “priceless heritage” should the scheme go ahead.
The David and Goliath battle has been raging since 2020 when Beijing lodged plans to convert the former Royal Mint, bought for US$325 million in 2018, into its largest embassy in Europe. Beijing’s human rights record, particularly over Uyghur Muslims hit a nerve with the local borough of Tower Hamlets, 40 per cent of which is Muslim, and a campaign to oppose the plan began in earnest.
Victory was in sight by August 2022 after the Council blocked the plan on safety grounds, supported by Chief Inspector Dave Hodges, of the Metropolitan Police who had issued stark warnings at the time of the dangers of even 200 protesters gathering in front of the embassy.
London mayor, Sadiq Khan had refused to use his powers to overrule the planning verdict in February 2023 when he had the chance, and the British government declined to step in. Campaigners headed by Rabina Khan, former Tower Hamlets councillor for ten years until May 2022, were hopeful they could draw a line under their struggle.
All went quiet until August 2024 when Beijing took advantage of a change in U.K. government to try again. But they were thwarted for the second time in December by the same council on identical grounds.
No one could have known at the time that plans were afoot to subvert the council decision during November 2024’s G20 Summit in Brazil. Faced with a potential quid pro quo over stalled requests to expand the U.K. embassy in Beijing, and a new Labour regime hoping to kick start its own economy by cosying up to Beijing, a whisper in President Xi Jinping’s ear was enough to set in motion a dramatic U-turn which could green light the project. UK Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, promised President Xi he would “call it in.”
Fast forward to January 8, 2025, when all objections to the project mysteriously evaporated overnight. A surprise U-turn by the Metropolitan police withdrawing its objections left the council with no choice but to kowtow. All that now stands between democracy and the might of China is a public inquiry which many fear will be a rubber stamp.
Worries of increased Chinese undercover operations and harassment of dissidents aside, the planned 700,000 square foot building, at the heart of the Tower of London conservation area also occupies the last resting place of Black Death victims, buried beneath its foundations. The well preserved foundations of the 14th century, first city-based Cistercian Monastery in the country, can be seen in the partially open basement of the site, and the remains of the late 16th century Royal Navy’s first yard are also clearly visible.
Speaking at the inquiry on February 11, long term Tower Hamlets Councillor Peter Golds wondered how Beijing might react given a similar scenario. “It’s a prestige site. It’d be a bit like us going to the Forbidden City,” he added, “What an insult!”
“Can you imagine the French or the Italians permitting the most famous World Heritage site in their country to have a gigantic embassy next to it? And not just any embassy!” he said.
Objections at the public enquiry due to last two weeks, headed by Housing Secretary Angela Rayner, centred around the secrecy surrounding the U-turn and inconsistencies in the police report. “Diplomatic pressure should not feature at any level,” said Luke de Pulford, Executive Director of IPAC, the international cross party alliance of lawmakers focussed on relations with China. He noticed “erratic and contradictory statements” in the police and council reports, that suggested “other forces were at play.”
Security for local residents and large scale traffic disruption such as was seen on February 8, when protesters were “kettled” and were forced to “balance on traffic islands,” should not be “airbrushed,” he said.
Barrister Michael Polak, representing the Royal Mint and Tenants and Residents Association, pro bono, had “strong concerns over the integrity of the application.” “The UK government has told the Chinese government ‘we are going to push this through’” he said, calling for an independent hearing of evidence to explain how “everyone changed their minds,” so suddenly.
His clients had “no grudge against the Chinese people,” he said, but were perturbed at the “flip flopping” of the Metropolitan Police Service. They have “lost all faith” in the process, he said.
Simon Cheng, British Hong Kong exiled pro-democracy activist saw the proposed embassy as a “fortress of oppression.” He feared increased transnational repression and monitoring of dissidents and was disappointed that the UK government would consider “legitimizing the regime” in this way. “They will be further emboldening the regime,” he said. “It is the government’s duty to protect those who have sought refuge here.”
Rahima Mahmut, Executive Director of Stop Uyghur Genocide, speaking at the February 8 rally feared what a mega embassy would signal. “This is not just about a building. It is about what it represents,” she said. “The Chinese Communist Party is committing genocide against my people the Uyghurs. It has no place establishing a world headquarters of repression in our city.”
“This is a regime that has turned my homeland, East Turkestan into an open air prison; a regime that uses the most sophisticated surveillance technology to control, round up, and criminalize an entire population. The very same technology used to control Uyghurs is now being deployed worldwide. Make no mistake, if this embassy is allowed to go ahead it will not simply be a diplomatic hub it will be a command centre for transnational repression, monitoring, intimidating, and silencing those who dare to speak up,” she said.
“We urge the UK government to take a stand. Do not grant approval for this embassy,” she said.
Source: Bitterwinter.org
Comments