“中国超级大使馆”缘何惹众怒 Why China's 'Super Embassy' Has Sparked Outrage

By Xin Tong

抗议中国政府于英国伦敦皇家铸币厂旧址兴建“超级大使馆”的集会活动在2025年进入新高潮。2025年2月8日、3月15日、5月3日，旅英华人群体于皇家铸币厂旧址外连续组织了三次大规模示威活动，每次参与者均达数千人。考虑到在英华人数量之少、华人群体政治参与热情之低、华人群体政治组织之松散，这一规模堪比在美国支持或抗议川普的数十万之众。为何中国政府计划在伦敦皇家家铸币厂旧址兴建新使馆的计划为如此惹人众怒？

一、波澜骤起

中国驻英国大使馆现址位于伦敦波特兰广场49-51号（49-51 Portland Place, London W1B 1JL）。虽位于寸土寸金的马里波恩地区，但客观来讲，规模确实相对较小；与位于新旧两个美国大使馆相比，的确明显落于下风。我们并不清楚中国与美国在伦敦争此面子的真正动机是什么，但这一“欧洲最大”外交机构建筑的称号，在一开始，是作为前首相卡梅伦口中的中英关系“黄金时期”的注脚而存在的。

然而，即使有中英关系“蜜月期”、“黄金时代”的加持，这一“超级大使馆”计划仍然在当地市议会和大都会警察局接连碰壁。的确，皇家铸币厂旧址正对伦敦的标志性建筑——伦敦塔和塔桥，紧邻伦敦金融城，与马里波恩这样在伦敦并不罕见的普通“老钱区”不同，是伦敦真正的核心地带之一。可以想像，超级大使馆上飘扬的五星红旗给游客和整个伦敦带来的震撼，胜过千千万万的大外宣。

因此，中国政府买下地块后，建设计划屡屡受阻，本在各方意料范围内，这个“超级大使馆”计划反而成了无人问津的、不值一驳的笑话。

然而，在2024年的英国大选中，工党大胜，斯塔默成为新任首相，旋即对外放风，表示愿意推动中国大使馆新址计划；之前一直明确反对的大都会警察局和哈姆莱茨塔市议会也很有眼色地收回了“不适合大规模示威游行”和“影响本地居民生活环境”的反对意见。一时间，本已不得翻身的“超级大使馆”计划竟重获生机，甚至得到了本届英国政府的大力推动。而这背后，显然是工党政府一贯的左翼亲中立场在作祟。因此，旅英华人群体在今年连续举行了三次大规模的示威抗议活动，要求英国政府停止推动“超级大使馆”计划。

善观政治风向的华人显然没有得到他们希望的结果。就在2月8日抗议后不久，哈姆莱茨塔市议会举行了新的听证会，会议不但被中国政府雇佣的“水军”占领，以切断抗议者和本地居民的发声机会，项目官员更是有意无意地表露了对项目的绝对支持态度，这与其2022年坚决反对中国大使馆新址计划的态度截然相反。背后缘由令人不寒而栗。

二、“超级大使馆”会如何影响旅英异议人士和英国本地居民？

旅英华人异议群体和英国本地居民对于中国大使馆新址计划其实有着完全不同的反对理由。

对异议者而言，“超级大使馆”是中国政府推动海外监控和骚扰计划的重要物质保障。众所周知，这种违法行为是通过外交特权和豁免进行掩饰的，而这种特权只存在于主权国家使领馆的地理范围内。对外交人员本身的豁免并无太大意义，除了2022年中国驻曼彻斯特总领事亲自出门将抗议者拖入领事馆外，中国高级官员身体力行监控和骚扰海外异议人士，并不符合中国官僚的普遍作风。然而，目前位于马里波恩的中国驻英国大使馆规模较小，难以容纳足够的人员和设备进行这种对海外华人的违法监控与骚扰，而马里波恩虽然也位于伦敦市中心，但属于闹中取静的老钱区，逼格拉满、人流量却明显不足。这一切都使得中国政府在英国的海外镇压难以顺利进行。

而英国目前已经成为中国异议人士的首选聚居地。这当中当然包括以数十万计的港人，他们在香港逐渐丧失中国所承诺的自治地位后被迫背井离乡，来到曾经的宗主国寻求庇护；而内地人也逐渐成为在英华人异议人士中不可忽视的群体，他们中的大部分最初是通过正常的留学、工作、商务等渠道来英国，却因为在自由中沐浴过久而无法再接受中共的高压统治，随着英国移民政策的收紧而被迫“造反”。

中国在英国潜在海外镇压对象的激增和现有海外镇压能力的矛盾，成为了中国政府希望在英国建立“超级大使馆”的原动力，也正是旅英华人异见者反对这一计划的根本原因。他们不愿意这片收留和保护他们的珍贵土地再次被中国占领，再次被驱使他们离开故乡的力量所侵蚀。

而英国本地居民则有完全不同的反对理由。这当中最重要的一点就是大都会警察局一开始所提出的反对意见，即中国大使馆必将面临频繁的抗议示威活动，而皇家铸币厂外并没有合适的空间容纳这种规模和频率的抗议。在马里波恩的中国大使馆现址，这一问题就已经十分突出，但因为中国大使馆现址本身位于“使馆区”，各国的抗议示威司空见惯，而本地居民和商业数量并不多，这才没有过激化矛盾。而皇家铸币厂位于伦敦著名旅游景点塔桥和伦敦塔，紧邻伦敦金融城，哈姆莱茨塔区又是人数众多的居民区，频繁的抗议示威活动必将彻底颠覆现有的居住环境和旅游业秩序。这也是今年几次抗议示威活动的初衷之一——他们希望各界都认识到这种频繁的示威活动将如何影响现有的交通、商业、居住环境。

事实上，早在今年2月8日的第一次反对中国“超级大使馆”抗议活动中，就有抗议者因与警方发生冲突而被逮捕，而冲突的原因竟是穿越马路时阻塞了正常交通。对此，警方显然应该担心，一旦新址落成，这将成为常态，对当地旅游业造成负面影响，给伦敦本已不堪重负的地面交通再一次沉重打击。最近警方态度的又一次转变说明了这一点。在5月3日的抗议示威中，警方临时更改了原定的游行线路，原本从塔桥横贯泰晤士河的游行活动被更改为环绕皇家铸币厂旧址进行；他们不得不承认，这一游行活动会对正常的居住和旅游环境造成不成比例的破坏。

而抗议者们要的就是这句话。

三、“超级大使馆”被妖魔化背后

当然，众多反对中国大使馆新址计划的理由中，也有很多缺少事实依据的部分。比如，有人担心，中国政府会在大使馆新址地下窃听和干扰英国伦敦金融城的核心通讯线路，威胁英国金融安全。然而，伦敦金融城不止是英国的金融业基础设施，也是全世界的金融业基础设施，是与曼哈顿比肩的世界金融中心，至今仍是世界最大的外汇交易中心、航运保险市场、金融衍生品交易市场和金属交易市场、海事服务中心、黄金市场、碳交易市场，等。中国如果通过受到外交保护的使馆设施进行窃听或干扰，那无异于对英国和全世界宣战，即使疯狂而低能的习近平也很难做出这项决定。

但是，无风不起浪。中共虽然很难从理性上做出通过“超级大使馆”窃听和干扰伦敦金融城地下核心通讯线路的行为，但是他们在其他领域大肆通过基础设施和人员的渗透进行海外干涉，怨不得人们对“超级大使馆”进行妖魔化。这也代表着中国与海外华人及全世界各国的矛盾已经激化到不可调和的地步，意味着中共和中国与世界进行和解的希望已经越来越小，这是对二十一世纪的世界和平的巨大威胁与挑战。

对于“使馆区”，中国人本该有痛彻心扉的领悟。《辛丑条约》在北京东交民巷划定使馆区为国中之国，被中共曲解为百年耻辱叙事的一部分；然而，事实上，划定使馆区的根本目的，是为了防止义和团违反国际法暴力冲击外交领事人员的现象重演，今天北京使馆区外的铁丝网与荷枪实弹的武警恰好说明了这一点。这是中国与文明世界冲突的一个典型例证，也是中国最应当吸取教训的部分。然而，中国一面对内歪曲历史、对自己违背国际法和外交准则的黑历史视而不见，反将义和团暴民视为爱国者，一面又在海外大肆进行镇压与渗透，以至于当自己试图强化自己的外交存在时，不但遭遇了正义人士理所应当的反对，甚至被妖魔化，实属活该。

长期以来，“不守规矩”不但是中国民众、中国商人在海外的印象，也是中国政府在海外的印象。远到晚清时的各种外交笑话，近到一带一路项目中的各种豆腐渣工程和经济陷阱，中国从未在国际舞台上展现过其所宣称的“负责任的大国”之形象，而总是搅局者、破坏者、欺骗者的形象，并且试图用这种形象去污名化和绑架海外华人，导致他们难以融入海外文明社会，迫使他们不得不与中国政府站在一条船上。对于这种险恶用心，旅英华人异见者必须有所防范，在抗议活动中遵守英国本地法律规定、尊重当地秩序，用实际行动彰显他们与中共截然相反的行事作风，在文明世界的心目中对比中共先胜一筹。

Protesters near the current Chinese Embassy. Photo By Timothy Huang

Why China's 'Super Embassy' Has Sparked Outrage

By Xin Tong

Protests against the Chinese government’s plan to build a “super embassy” on the site of the former Royal Mint in London have reached a new peak in 2025. On 8 February, 15 March, and 3 May, the UK’s Chinese community organised three large-scale demonstrations outside the former Royal Mint, each attracting thousands of participants. Considering the relatively small number of Chinese residents in the UK, their traditionally low political engagement, and the lack of cohesive organisation, these demonstrations are comparable in scale - relatively speaking - to the hundreds of thousands who gathered in the US either to support or oppose President Trump. Why has the Chinese government’s plan to construct a new embassy provoked such widespread anger?

1. Storm Brewing

China’s current embassy in the UK is located at 49-51 Portland Place, London W1B 1JL. While situated in the prime real estate area of Marylebone, it is, objectively speaking, relatively small in scale; it clearly pales in comparison to both the old and new US embassies. The true motivation behind this diplomatic one-upmanship between China and the US remains unclear, but the title of “Europe’s largest diplomatic facility” was originally presented as a symbol of the so-called “golden era” of Sino-British relations under former Prime Minister David Cameron.

Yet even with this so-called “honeymoon period” in Sino-British relations, the “super embassy” project faced repeated setbacks from local councils and the Metropolitan Police. The Royal Mint site, after all, sits directly opposite two of London’s most iconic landmarks - the Tower of London and Tower Bridge - and is adjacent to the City of London. Unlike Marylebone, which, though affluent, is a fairly typical “old money” neighbourhood, this new site is London’s true heart. One can imagine the impact of seeing the Chinese national flag flying over a colossal embassy in such a location - a propaganda coup far more powerful than any amount of state-run media.

It was therefore no surprise that, after China acquired the site, its building plans hit one obstacle after another. The project seemed destined to fade into a fantasy, dismissed by many as a futile vanity project. However, after Labour’s landslide victory in the 2024 UK general election, and the appointment of Keir Starmer as Prime Minister, the mood shifted. Starmer’s government signalled a willingness to revive the embassy project, and the Metropolitan Police and Tower Hamlets Council - both of which had previously voiced strong objections - quickly fell into line, withdrawing earlier concerns about the site's unsuitability for large-scale protests and its potential impact on local residents. Suddenly, a once-doomed project was given new life, actively promoted by the new government. This change clearly reflected Labour’s long-standing leftist and pro-China stance. In response, the UK’s Chinese community organised three major protests this year, demanding that the British government halt the “super embassy” scheme.

Astute observers of political trends were left disappointed. Shortly after the protest on 8 February, Tower Hamlets Council held a new hearing. The meeting was packed with “supporters” hired by the Chinese government to drown out the voices of protesters and local residents. Officials overseeing the project made little effort to conceal their support for the scheme - a stark reversal from their resolute opposition back in 2022. The underlying reasons for this volte-face are deeply unsettling.

2. How the 'Super Embassy' Would Impact Chinese Dissidents and Local Residents

Chinese dissidents in the UK and local British residents oppose the embassy for fundamentally different reasons.

For dissidents, the “super embassy” would serve as a critical infrastructure hub for China’s overseas surveillance and harassment operations. It is well known that such illegal activities are disguised under the cloak of diplomatic privilege and immunity, which apply strictly within the physical boundaries of sovereign embassies and consulates. Immunity for diplomatic personnel themselves is of limited practical significance; apart from the notorious 2022 incident where China’s Consul-General in Manchester personally dragged a protester into the consulate compound, it is rare for senior Chinese officials to engage directly in such acts of intimidation. However, the current embassy in Marylebone is small, lacking the capacity to house sufficient staff and equipment to support extensive surveillance and harassment operations. Moreover, while Marylebone is centrally located, it is a quiet, upmarket district with limited foot traffic. These factors have constrained China’s capacity to suppress dissent on British soil.

Meanwhile, the UK has become the top destination for Chinese dissidents. This includes hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers who were forced to flee as Beijing reneged on its promises of autonomy, as well as an increasing number of mainland Chinese. Many of the latter arrived in Britain through normal channels such as study, work, or business, but after experiencing personal freedom, they found themselves unable to accept the CCP’s authoritarian rule. Britain’s tightening immigration policies have pushed many of them into open opposition.

The clash between China’s growing need to suppress dissent abroad and its currently limited ability to do so is a key driver behind its push for the “super embassy.” This is also the fundamental reason why Chinese dissidents in the UK oppose the plan so fiercely. They fear that this rare haven of safety and freedom will be further infiltrated and undermined by the same regime that drove them into exile.

Local British residents, by contrast, have different concerns. Chief among these is the Metropolitan Police’s initial objection: the embassy is certain to attract frequent protests, yet the Royal Mint site offers no suitable space to accommodate them. The embassy’s current Marylebone location already experiences regular demonstrations, but being within London’s “Embassy District,” such events are commonplace, and there are relatively few local residents and businesses to disturb. The Royal Mint, however, sits next to major tourist landmarks and a dense residential area in Tower Hamlets. Frequent large-scale protests would upend the existing environment for both residents and tourists. This was one of the core messages of this year’s protests: to highlight how such disruptions would impact local traffic, business, and quality of life.

Indeed, during the 8 February protest, several demonstrators were arrested following clashes with police. Ironically, the conflict arose from nothing more than blocking traffic while crossing the road. The incident highlighted precisely what the police should be concerned about: once the new embassy is operational, such disruption would become routine, harming local tourism and placing further strain on London’s already overstretched transport network. The police’s recent change in attitude reflects this reality. On 3 May, the police altered the planned protest route at the last minute, moving the march from Tower Bridge across the Thames to a route circling the Royal Mint site instead. They tacitly acknowledged that such demonstrations would inflict disproportionate disruption on local life and tourism.

And that, in fact, is precisely the point the protesters wanted to make.

3. Demonisation of the 'Super Embassy' - What Lies Beneath

Naturally, some of the arguments against the embassy project are less well-founded. For instance, there are fears that China could use the embassy’s underground facilities to eavesdrop on and disrupt core communications infrastructure in London’s financial district, threatening the UK’s financial security. However, the City of London is not just Britain’s financial nerve centre; it is one of the world’s foremost financial hubs, rivalling Manhattan. It remains the largest global centre for foreign exchange, shipping insurance, derivatives trading, maritime services, gold markets, and carbon trading, among others. For China to engage in state-sponsored espionage of this nature from embassy grounds - protected by diplomatic immunity - would be tantamount to declaring war on both Britain and the international community. Even Xi Jinping, for all his authoritarianism and blunders, is unlikely to take such a reckless step.

Nevertheless, where there’s smoke, there’s fire. While China may not resort to such dramatic measures, its aggressive interference in other countries - through infrastructure projects and human networks alike - means it has only itself to blame for the embassy’s demonisation. This reflects a deeper, irreconcilable conflict between China and both its diaspora and the wider world. It also signals that hopes for reconciliation are fading fast, posing a grave challenge to global peace in the 21st century.

China, of all nations, should understand the bitter lessons of “embassy districts.” The Boxer Protocol of 1901 carved out Beijing’s Legation Quarter as a de facto foreign enclave, which the CCP has distorted into part of its century-of-humiliation narrative. Yet the truth is that these zones were established to prevent violent mobs - like the Boxers - from attacking foreign diplomatic personnel. The barbed wire and armed paramilitary guards surrounding today’s Beijing embassy district tell their own story. This is a classic example of China’s conflict with the civilised world and one from which it should learn. Yet the regime continues to distort history, glorify the Boxer mobs as patriots, and wilfully ignore its own violations of international law and diplomatic norms. Worse still, it actively exports repression abroad. It is no surprise, then, that its attempts to strengthen its diplomatic presence are met not just with principled opposition, but also with outright demonisation. Frankly, it’s richly deserved.

For decades, China’s reputation - whether of its citizens or its government - has been one of not playing by the rules. From the diplomatic gaffes of the late Qing dynasty to the shoddy construction and debt traps of the Belt and Road Initiative, China has never convincingly portrayed itself as the “responsible global power” it claims to be. Instead, it is seen as a spoiler, a disruptor, and a deceiver. Worse, it seeks to stigmatise and co-opt overseas Chinese communities, making it harder for them to integrate and forcing them into reluctant alignment with Beijing. Chinese dissidents in the UK must remain vigilant against such tactics. They must continue to comply with British laws and respect local order during protests, demonstrating - through their actions - the stark contrast between themselves and the CCP. In this way, they can decisively win the moral high ground in the eyes of the civilised world.