Britain faces a pivotal moment in its relationship with China over its plan to build Europe’s largest embassy in central London.
Luke de Pulford says the China proposal is an assertion of power rather than a logistical necessity. “They want it because it would be a huge status symbol, victory for them, enabling them to project their power over the whole of Europe,” he says.
De Pulford is the creator and executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, known as iPAC, which he co-founded in 2020 with lawmakers from eight legislatures. He also co-founded the Coalition for Genocide Response, serves as a commissioner on the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, and advises the World Leader Congress.
“Can we imagine that during the height of the Cold War, Margaret Thatcher would have allowed the Soviet Union to build the biggest embassy in Europe in the center of London?” he asks. “That is what the United Kingdom stands on the precipice of doing right now.”
He argues that the United Kingdom’s decisions in the matter will reveal whether democratic nations are prepared to defend their long-term interests over short-term expediency.
The process has been met with public pressure to slow down. “We’ve forced at least three delays now to the decision on this embassy,” de Pulford says. He describes sustained coercion from Beijing, including pressure on Britain’s diplomatic presence in China. “Our mission in Beijing periodically has the electricity and water switched off,” he says, adding that British intelligence agencies face an impossible trade-off between approving the London project or risking the functionality of their operations abroad.
Local opposition first halted the project. The Tower Hamlets Council unanimously rejected the proposal in 2022, prompting an extraordinary response from Beijing. “They said, we will not apply again for planning permission for this embassy unless we get assurances from the UK government it will be successful,” de Pulford says. The central government later assumed control of the process, a move residents now challenge in court.
Parliamentary oversight has struggled to keep pace. Procedural constraints prevent ministers from answering questions while acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. “Parliamentarians who legitimately want to scrutinize the government over a matter of critical national security can’t get answers,” de Pulford says. Signs of internal dissent nonetheless continue to grow. “Government members of Parliament have been expressing their concerns,” he adds, calling that development politically significant.
The pressure follows the broader mission of iPAC. “We are in a hybrid war with China,” de Pulford says. “Governments have not been willing to speak up in defense of core values.” The alliance brings together legislators across parties and countries to force debate when executives hesitate. “We’re throwing parliamentary grenades again and again to force the debate,” he says.
Beijing has responded aggressively. “They really hate us,” de Pulford says, describing diplomatic coercion aimed at iPAC members, including pressure on African governments to withdraw. “The Ministry of State Security is not happy with our work because they can see that it’s effective,” he says. The network has since expanded from eight founding countries to 44.
Deterrence, he argues, requires clarity and collective resolve. “We have to come together and make very clear what our red lines are,” de Pulford says. “Opposing change in the status quo means opposing it with hard power if necessary.” He frames the moment starkly. “This is the defining fight of the century,” de Pulford says.
