Grenville Cross says Starmer should play fair and grant permission for new state-of-the-art facility in London

Adecision on whether to approve China’s application to build a new embassy in London has been repeatedly delayed. A final ruling was initially due by Sept 9, after the government took the matter out of the hands of the Tower Hamlets borough council, which had earlier rejected the application (primarily over concerns for the safety of protesters on narrow streets). This was then delayed, and it was indicated that the British housing secretary, Steve Reed, would make a ruling by Oct 21, although this was then changed to Dec 10.

China’s current embassy, which is cramped and no longer fit for purpose, dates back to 1877. Understandably, Beijing wants an upgraded facility. In May 2018, it purchased Royal Mint Court, located near the Tower of London, which is spacious and well-connected. If approval is forthcoming, the new embassy will cover 20,000 square meters. A state-of-the-art facility is envisioned, which will rival the new American embassy in London’s Nine Elms District, opened in 2018.

Although China bought the site in good faith, this has not been reciprocated.

At the time of the purchase, as The Guardian has revealed (Oct 29), Boris Johnson, the then-British foreign secretary, told his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, that he was “pleased to confirm that I have today agreed to grant consent for Royal Mint Court to be designated as diplomatic premises”. He welcomed “the fact this is China’s largest overseas diplomatic investment”, adding that the redevelopment of the UK’s own embassy in Beijing would be “one of our largest overseas diplomatic investments”. He was committed “to ensuring that our projects develop alongside each other”.

However, Johnson’s assurances seven years ago turned into weasel words, and the project remains in limbo. It is little wonder that the Chinese embassy accused the UK last month of having shown “a total lack of the spirit of contract, credibility and ethics, and has repeatedly put off the approval of the project, citing various excuses”. In other words, Perfidious Albion had struck again (just as it did with Huawei in 2020, when its usage was first approved by Johnson in January and then, under US pressure, refused in July).

As soon as China’s planning application was announced, an unholy alliance mobilized to oppose it. Whereas some residents were concerned over the project’s impact on the area, the anti-China brigade opposed it in principle. Particularly vocal were the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) and Hong Kong Watch, which raised bogus security concerns and organized noisy protests outside Royal Mint Court. On Nov 15, the seventh such protest was organized, comprising assorted exiles from the UK’s communities of immigrants from Hong Kong, the Xinjiang Uygur and Xizang autonomous regions, and Taiwan, together with some local Chinese malcontents.

Not to be outdone, US Representatives John Moolenaar, chairman of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, and Chris Smith, who co-chairs the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, weighed in from afar. They claimed that if the embassy were given the green light, it would embolden China’s “efforts to intimidate and harass UK citizens and dissidents and experts across Europe who oppose or criticize its policies”.

For its part, the Chinese embassy said the proposed complex would enhance “mutually beneficial cooperation” between China and the UK, which is the last thing the ideologues want to see.

Those opposing the application cited safety and security implications, including the location, size and design of the building. However, these were illusory, and the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) indicated in January that they no longer opposed the new embassy. This was because, as the government explained to the Tower Hamlets borough council, the MPS had reassessed the situation and was “content” that there was sufficient space for protestors (albeit there remained “differences of opinion on where protesters would most likely congregate”).

Although the MPS saw no objection to the plan on safety grounds, the alleged security fears were for others to assess — step forward, Sir Richard Moore.

Moore was the chief of the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) from 2020 to 2025. Known within the service as “C”, he has described spying as “an ancient craft”, one that he appears to have thoroughly relished. Although Russia was one of MI6’s “key missions”, he said the other three priorities (“enduring challenges”) were “China, Iran and counterterrorism”.

After Moore stood down on Sept 30, the prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, presumably as a reward for what he considered a job well done, appointed him to chair the prestigious Kennedy Memorial Trust, starting on Oct 1.

Although frequently critical of China, Moore at least had the good sense, in a valedictory address (Sept 19), to declare “We, in the UK, want a respectful and constructive relationship with China” (which must have horrified IPAC and Hong Kong Watch).

Whatever his views, Moore is undoubtedly a hardheaded realist, unafraid to call out threats as he sees them. Coming from the dark world of espionage, he is not a man who would ever allow the wool to be pulled over his eyes. Moreover, he would not countenance anything that imperiled his country’s security.

It was, therefore, revelatory when his views on China’s proposed embassy were reported by The Daily Telegraph (Nov 14). He said the project should be approved, and Starmer’s government had to come up with a solution that enabled it to proceed.

In refreshing contrast to the fanatics, Moore grasped the realities of the situation. The UK plans to demolish and rebuild its embassy in Beijing, including the ambassador’s residence and staff accommodations, on two existing sites, which requires official approval. The project includes new, linked buildings and is part of a larger, multiphase plan. As the UK wanted to “retain and develop our own excellent embassy in Beijing”, it had, he said, to show good faith in London. This meant, “It’s right and proper that the Chinese should get their embassy.”

As both China and the UK want to build new embassies, they should, as Moore appreciated, be facilitating each other’s efforts, not trying to queer the pitch.

Moore would clearly not have thrown his weight behind the new embassy if he felt it posed any security threat to his country, and few, if any, are better placed than he is to make such judgments.

The ball, therefore, is once again firmly in Starmer’s court. The experts have indicated the proposed embassy is unobjectionable in both public safety and national security terms, which is all he needs to know. It is blindingly apparent that the supposed concerns are politically driven, and he should treat them with the contempt they deserve. If, as he claims, he wants to improve Anglo-Chinese relations, he should redeem the UK’s reputation for fair play, demonstrate that he is made of better cloth than Johnson, and ensure permission is forthcoming on Dec 10.

The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.