𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

Labour’s decision to approve the largest Chinese embassy ever built in Europe, directly opposite the City of London, is being defended as grown-up diplomacy. Apparently, this is what serious countries do, because Britain can no longer “afford to be precious about who it does business with”.

It would be more convincing if the building in question were not sitting beside some of the most sensitive financial and communications infrastructure in the country, and if the partner involved didn’t have a long and well-documented record of espionage, coercion and industrial sabotage.

But apparently that doesn’t matter. The government still expects us to believe that all risks and security concerns have been taken into account, even as MI5 is warning parliamentary staff about Chinese attempts to recruit people with access to sensitive material, and only weeks after the collapse of the Chinese spying case.

This is the same government that has already clocked up more than a dozen U-turns and broken election promises since coming to power, which is, apparently, meant to project a picture of competence. So you’ll forgive my scepticism.

Keir Starmer is clearly convinced that closer ties with Beijing are necessary. There is a lot of talk about trade opportunities, and a visit to China in the coming weeks, which would make him the first prime minister to go there since Theresa May.

The line from Downing Street is that this is about “resetting” relations and not being left behind while everyone else cuts deals. That’s fine, but we’re not coming to the table from a position of strength. British industry has been hollowed out by decades of offshoring and growing dependence on other countries for things we used to make ourselves, a trend accelerated by successive governments’ addiction to cheap Chinese goods. 

Our remaining steel industry has been undercut, parliamentary workers have been targeted for bribery, and intellectual property theft has become routine. Against this backdrop, it’s not hard to see where Labour’s sales pitch falls apart.

What really turns this from a questionable judgement call into something more serious is what it is already doing to Britain’s relationship with the United States. Back in November, four congressmen from Nebraska wrote to the US Treasury, warning that the Royal Mint Court site could expose critical fibre-optic infrastructure used by American insurers and financial services firms whose systems route data through London. One of them was blunt enough to say that Britain may choose to take risks with its own national security – but should not do so in a way that affects America.

This wasn’t some discreet diplomatic nudge. It was US politicians saying out loud that what Britain does now has consequences on their side of the Atlantic. That should have landed heavily in Westminster. Instead, the reaction has been a familiar mix of shrugging and vague reassurance, as if the Americans are being dramatic rather than responding to a problem we have created. You can imagine the wailing from David Lammy and co if the roles were reversed. No serious government would react calmly if another country approved a foreign intelligence hub next to its financial centre and suggested everyone simply trust the process.

For years, British politicians have spoken reverently about the ‘special relationship’ while assuming that it will look after itself. The reality is that Washington doesn’t maintain alliances for sentimental reasons. It does so because they serve its interests and because they are safe.

When members of Congress start publicly questioning whether the UK is creating avoidable vulnerabilities in shared systems, that should prompt some honesty about who is really undermining the relationship.

There is, to be fair, one argument in the government’s favour. Because British contractors will be involved in construction, it is plausible that government actors will have visibility over the building process and its technical layout. In theory, that creates an opportunity for monitoring that would not exist if China controlled everything from start to finish, and it offers at least the possibility that risks could be contained rather than simply ignored.

In a parallel universe where this was part of a deliberate strategy backed by serious planning, it might offer reassurance. But nothing about this government suggests that it is. The embassy decision fits into a broader pattern of legal tidiness and diplomatic signalling taking priority over hard security judgement. It may not prove catastrophic, but it reinforces the impression this government is willing to take significant risks with little regard for broader implications.

If the price of chasing trade deals and foreign visits is that allies begin to see Britain as unreliable on security, that is not pragmatism. It is short-term thinking dressed up as maturity. And as usual, Britain will be paying the price.