Owen Au
Thousands protested on February 8 against plans for a new Chinese embassy in London. Beyond concerns about the impact on local residents and the potential for the Chinese government to conduct overseas surveillance and transnational repression, the demonstration reflected growing unease over the UK government’s deepening ties with Beijing.
The proposed embassy, if approved, would be 10 times the size of the current facility, twice the size of its building in Washington, and the largest in Europe. It is often referred to as the “mega-embassy”. Its planned location next to the Tower of London in the heart of London—a privilege not even granted to the US—underscores China’s diplomatic significance to the Labour government. This comes as UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer works to reset London’s relationship with Beijing.
In an era of geopolitical uncertainty, Starmer may see engagement with China as a pragmatic move to prevent conflict with a rising superpower. However, aligning too closely with Beijing could prove more risky than beneficial by weakening the UK’s standing among democratic allies.
UK’s Diplomatic Struggles
For decades, the UK has struggled to define its global role. The Labour government blames its Conservative predecessors for clinging to nostalgia and failing to recognise Britain’s diminished place in today’s world. It has also criticised the Conservatives for their inconsistent approach to China due to a lack of a coherent strategy.
Labour’s proposed solution, outlined during last year’s general election, was “progressive realism”. Foreign Secretary David Lammy described this as a doctrine requiring “tough-minded honesty about the United Kingdom, the balance of power, and the state of the world” to pursue progressive ends that best serve the country’s values and interests. Under this approach, Labour pledged to conduct an audit of UK-China relations and implement a consistent policy based on three pillars: “cooperate, compete, and challenge”.
More than 200 days after the transition on Downing Street, however, the China audit appears to have become little more than a post-mortem, with “cooperate” appearing to be the only surviving pillar. From Starmer’s expressed desire to strengthen UK-China relations during his first meeting with Xi Jinping to the first UK-China strategic dialogue since 2018, and from the resumption of the UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue to the green light given to China’s mega-embassy proposal, Labour has prioritised cooperation above all else. As it stands, the party’s promise of a consistent China policy means a panda-hugging approach, despite China’s ongoing human rights violations and assertive behavior abroad.
The Labour government’s approach to China can be partly explained by growing uncertainty in international politics. While the UK has long regarded the US as an indispensable ally, Washington’s increasing unpredictability, with its threat to pull away from Europe and its waning regard for its closest allies, has made the UK wary of over-reliance and eager to diversify its diplomatic ties.
While it’s understandable to diversify ties with other nations, China is far from an ideal alternative.
The Inherent Tensions in UK-China Relations
The UK and China may share common economic interests, as well as the need to cooperate on global issues such as climate change and public health. However, these shared concerns will never translate into a genuine partnership due to their fundamentally opposing national interests and values.
As a liberal democracy, the UK is deeply embedded in the postwar international order, championing democracy and human rights. Despite its diminished global influence, it remains committed to defending these values. Both Labour and the Conservatives agree that preserving the liberal international order is not only a matter of ideological preference but is also fundamental to Britain’s national security and strategic interests.
China as an authoritarian state, by contrast, views liberal democratic ideals as dangerous to its national security. A political directive issued at the outset of Xi Jinping’s presidency made clear that China sees the liberal international order as inherently threatening.
As a rising superpower with global influence, Beijing is actively working to reshape the international order in its favor, which will be defined not by liberal values of democracy and human rights, but by power and influence. This ideological divide is evident in China’s repeated criticism of Western nations for imposing their values and its efforts to redefine human rights in terms of economic development and stability—a narrative that resonates with some in the Global South.
The belief that globalisation and economic engagement would eventually lead China to adopt liberal international norms has proven naive. By prioritising cooperation while failing to compete or challenge, Labour is playing Beijing’s game. The UK has received very little in return. The controversial revival of the UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue yielded financial agreements worth just £600 million over five years—which are, as a Liberal Democrat MP puts it, “equivalent to just five and a half hours of NHS spending a year” and a “small beer” to the country’s economy.
Despite London’s warm embrace, China’s mistrust of the UK remains unchanged. Four sitting UK MPs and two members of the House of Lords—including one from Labour — remain under Chinese sanctions. Meanwhile, China continues to condemn Britain’s stance on Hong Kong. The fact that China’s economy is more than five times the size of the UK’s further underscores the asymmetry in their relationship. As some analysts point out, the UK is neither viewed as an equal nor a trusted partner in Beijing’s eyes. Labour’s enthusiasm for engagement is little more than wishful thinking.
The Cost of Closer Ties with Beijing
Labour’s push for stronger UK-China relations will not only fail to deliver meaningful benefits, but it will also backfire. It is no secret that cultivating a friendly relationship with China often requires turning a blind eye to human rights abuses and even condoning aggressive territorial claims. This damages the UK’s international credibility and distances it further from Lammy’s own vision of “progressive ends”.
Despite Labour’s assurances that it will stand firm on human rights, its actions suggest otherwise. The decision to withdraw plans for formally recognising China’s treatment of Uyghurs as genocide ahead of Lammy’s visit to Beijing was a worrying signal. Even more embarrassingly, Starmer refused to directly condemn the harsh sentences imposed under Hong Kong’s national security law on dozens of pro-democracy activists, which came just one day after Starmer’s meeting with Xi Jinping
Moreover, any further alignment between London and Beijing will have consequences for Britain’s relationship with the US. While Washington may be trending toward isolationism, it still considers countering China’s influence a priority—especially under a Trump administration filled with China hawks like Marco Rubio, who is sanctioned by Beijing. As the UK was pressured into banning Huawei from its 5G telecom network during Trump’s first term, it is unlikely that Starmer will be immune from future US pressure.
In a volatile international landscape, the UK’s strategic focus should be on strengthening ties with Europe, with which it shares cultural, ideological, and geopolitical interests. Labour has indeed worked to deepen UK-Europe relations. In the recent Paris emergency summit, Starmer adopted a more proactive stance to support Ukraine, positions Britain as an active and committed player in European security. However, its efforts may be undermined by a closer relationship with China.
In recent years, the EU has increasingly recognised China’s geoeconomic playbook and has adopted a more defensive posture. The bloc has emphasised “de-risking” from China, as demonstrated by its newly imposed tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and a crackdown on Chinese e-commerce imports. Additionally, since the war in Ukraine, Russia has emerged as Europe’s top security threat, and China’s economic and military support for Russia through substantial exports of dual-use technology has further strained EU-China relations.
The more the UK aligns itself with China, the more it will raise suspicion among its European partners, pushing itself further into isolation.
Conclusion
The world is no longer divided into Cold War-style blocs, and full “decoupling” from China is neither realistic nor desirable. Some level of cooperation is necessary. However, this does not justify the UK’s compromising its international standing, security, or commitment to liberal values.
David Lammy himself stated that progressive realism requires both an honest assessment of global realities and progressive ends that best serve the country’s values and interests. The UK’s current approach to China meets neither of these standards. London must recalibrate its China policy before Britain finds itself further marginalised on the world stage.
Owen Au is an independent researcher, focusing on China’s diplomacy, Indo-Pacific geopolitics, maritime security, and human rights.
