Monthly Archives: January 2026

Britain, China, Economic, Government, National Security, Politics, United States

Questions to be answered over China’s super-embassy

NATIONAL SECURITY

The construction of the new Chinese “super-embassy” in the heart of London has been a long-running saga, its development plans shrouded in secrecy. Back in 2018, Beijing bought the Royal Mint site – an act whose symbolism was not lost on most Britons – for £255m. Assurances were given that the building would be used for normal diplomatic functions. But when the plans were released, they included a vast basement complex with no obvious purpose. Curiously, the details of the basement were redacted.

The true extent of Beijing’s plan has now been revealed. There will be 208 underground rooms, including a hidden chamber equipped with hot-air extraction systems, one metre away from Britain’s most sensitive communication cables, which transmit financial data to and from the City of London, as well as messaging traffic for millions of internet users.

Even before these revelations came to light, the Chinese plan came with obvious security risks: last year MI5 issued an “espionage alert” about Beijing’s spies targeting MPs and parliamentary staff “at scale”, while the US told Britain to reject the proposal on the grounds that it could effectively become a den of spies working against Western interests.

Planning permission has not yet been granted, but it is widely expected that Sir Keir Starmer will approve the proposal ahead of his visit to China later this month. For many in Britain, the obvious question should loom: why?

Labour’s 2024 general election manifesto promised an audit of Britain’s relationship with China. In the end, only two paragraphs of it were published, in the National Security Strategy. And, as is publicly known, the failure last year to prosecute Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, two alleged spies for China, was because the UK Government was not prepared to provide witnesses willing to describe China as “an enemy”.

Britain is in the economic doldrums, and Starmer is desperately seeking more direct investment for his growth plans. China has slowly been buying up Britain, purchasing UK gilts as well as companies. This leaves the UK vulnerable to pressure from Beijing, which has a record of using debt as leverage. The PM clearly believes Britain needs to be on good terms with China.

However, that shouldn’t stop him quizzing Beijing. If there is nothing to see, why was so much of the plan redacted? Why does a foreign embassy need 208 rooms underground? Why demolish and rebuild the outer basement wall of the secret chamber, directly beside the fibre-optic cables that carry information critical to Britain’s national security and prosperity? And if the embassy is built, what does Britain gain?

These questions need to be satisfactorily answered before the green light is given to build a Chinese super-embassy in London.

Standard
Arts, Books, Culture, Drama, Films, Literature

Hamnet

FILM REVIEW

Intro: This film adaptation is based on Maggie O’Farrell’s deeply moving historical novel that reimagines the life of William Shakespeare’s family, specifically focusing on the death of his only son, Hamnet, and how that tragedy may have influenced his most famous play, Hamlet

In 1596, William Shakespeare’s only son, Hamnet, died at the age of 11. Sometime between three and five years later, Shakespeare wrote a play which almost shared the boy’s name, and which has since become one of the most lauded dramatic works in existence. The possible link between these two events was the subject of an acclaimed 2020 novel by Maggie O’Farrell.

Now comes this quietly astonishing screen adaptation – with a script sensitively adapted by O’Farrell and the film’s director, Chloe Zhao – and with Jessie Buckley as Shakespeare’s wife, Anne Hathaway, and Paul Mescal as Shakespeare.

As in the book, Hathaway is here called Agnes, the name she was given in her father’s will. Her husband, meanwhile, is no famous playwright yet – his name is not mentioned for more than an hour – but the educated son of a Stratford glovemaker keeps pootling off to a London theatre for work. Agnes, meanwhile, remains with their three children – daughter Susanna and twins, Judith and Hamnet – close to the ancient woodland with which she shares a deep and strange bond.

– In cinemas now

We see in this play that Zhao has swapped the Terrence Malick-like lyricism of Nomadland and The Rider for a less insistent style that allows the story’s emotions to naturally drift to the fore. These emotions are often tough – Agnes’s life, alongside her mother-in-law (a superb Emily Watson), can be hard, even before the plaque comes that will claim the life of one of her children. But there are also constant flashes of everyday wonder and joy, many of which we’re invited to imagine might have inspired elements in Shakespeare’s future work. (The twins often disguise themselves as one another for a game: very Twelfth Night.)

The slow start to this production is groundwork, and the sober visual approach puts a greater burden and expectation on Zhao’s leads, but they don’t so much rise to the challenge as spiral above it. Mescal has never been better, while as Agnes, Buckley seems to discover her character before your eyes: every moment she plays rings transparently true.

This is a category of film that is described as devastating, heartbreaking, even hard to watch – and at times it is certainly all of these things. But, without any doubt, it isn’t a downer, thanks in no small part to the sublime final reel.

Here, Agnes makes the journey to her husband’s playhouse in London – only for her grief to be both complicated and clarified by this play he has written called Hamlet, and is now staging with acutely moving variations on the same two-humans-swap-places trick that the couple’s children once adored.

One of these springs from the casting: the actor appearing as the young Danish prince is played by Noah Jupe – the real-life older brother of the child actor, Jacobi Jupe, who portrayed Hamnet in the earlier scenes.

The play’s speeches are raw and revelatory, despite being among the most worn in the English tongue: that sense of freshness is one of the film’s wildest achievements. What Hamnet leaves you with isn’t sadness, but joy – at the human capacity to reckon with death’s implacability through art, or love, or just the basic act of carrying-on in its defiance. It blows you back on to the street on a gust of pure exhilaration. 

Hamnet U cert, 125 min

Verdict: An exceptionally delivered adaptation ★★★★★

Standard
Britain, Europe, European Union, Government, Greenland, Military, NATO, Society, United States

UK troops could be sent to Greenland to ease fears

GREENLAND

Intro: European allies have been in talks to deploy a force to Greenland in countering the growing threat from Russia and China. Sending a NATO force might help to ease President Trump’s security fears

The UK is in talks with European allies about deploying a force to Greenland that would guard the Arctic and ease anxieties in Washington.

Military chiefs are drawing up plans for a possible NATO mission on the island, which President Trump has threatened to seize for security reasons.

Officials from Britain have met with counterparts from countries including Germany and France in recent days to start the preparations.

The plans, still at an early stage, could involve British soldiers, warships, and planes being deployed to protect Greenland from Russia and China.

It is hoped that by significantly stepping up their presence in the Arctic European nations would persuade Mr Trump to abandon his ambition to annex the strategic island.

It is believed this would allow him to claim a victory for American taxpayers by arguing that Europe was paying more for the cost of policing the Atlantic.

Mr Trump has threatened to take ownership of Greenland through the use of force. It is a self-governed island but is territorially part of Denmark, a NATO member.

He has cited concerns that Moscow or Beijing will seize the island if he does not, insisting that “we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbour”.

Greenland is also rich in natural resources – including copper, nickel, and rare earth minerals crucial for powering modern technology.

Sir Keir Starmer is taking the threat from Russia and China in the area “extremely seriously” and is said to have agreed that action must be taken. There is increasing acceptance by the UK Government of President Trump’s view that growing aggression in the High North must be deterred, and Euro-Atlantic security be strengthened.

Mr Trump has also floated the idea of effectively buying the territory by offering each of its 30,000 citizens up to $100,000 to switch allegiance to the US.

Purchasing Greenland may be Mr Trump’s preferred option, but he has not ruled out using military force in annexing the island, insisting that “we are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not.” Ominous language.

His pursuit of the territory has plunged NATO into crisis and prompted speculation that the 75-year-old alliance could fall apart.

While plans are at an early stage, European countries are hoping to pull Mr Trump back from the brink by offering to station a military force on the island. This idea was discussed at a meeting of NATO allies in Brussels.

Members instructed the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, the alliance’s military headquarters in Belgium, to determine what more could be done to secure the Arctic.

It could be a full-blown troop deployment or a combination of time-limited exercises, intelligence sharing, capability development, and re-routed defence spending.

Any operation would likely be carried out under NATO’s banner and would be separate and distinct from existing missions in the Baltic and Poland.

Preparations in Britain for a greater role in Arctic security have already started. These include commandos and Royal Navy ships taking part in Exercise Joint Viking, a joint NATO drill in Norway’s sub-zero temperature.

This year, 1,500 Royal Marines will also deploy to Norway, Finland, and Sweden for Exercise Cold Response, a training mission on defending frozen terrain.

It is also understood the European Union is drawing up plans for sanctions on US companies should Mr Trump reject the offer of a NATO deployment.

US technology giants such as Meta, Google, Microsoft, and X could be restricted from operating on the Continent, as could American banks and financial firms.

A more extreme option could be to evict the US military from its bases in Europe, denying it a key staging post for operations in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Analysts said the president’s actions were typical of his negotiating strategy, which involves making maximalist demands to extract money from other countries.

Examples include his threat to impose massive tariffs on European pharmaceuticals but exempting countries, including Britain, that agreed to pay more for US drugs.

In recent months, the White House has also suggested that it wants Japan to pay more towards covering the cost of the 55,000 American troops based there.

Sibylline, a risk analysis firm, said Mr Trump was “likely weighing the unity and resolve of European nations” over Greenland. It said allies could “call Trump’s bluff” by proposing a NATO force in Greenland, implying security wasn’t the president’s real reason for wanting the island.

It came as a former RAF chief cast serious doubt over Britain’s ability to protect the Arctic, saying the nation’s defences had become “a flimsy façade”.

Air Marshal Edward Stringer said that the gap between the perception of the UK’s military strength and its actual capabilities had become cavernous.

In a report for Policy Exchange, he warned that not a single formation in the British military was currently sustainable in combat in its own right.

He wrote: “Now the US is signalling strongly that it is putting ‘America First’ and the rest of NATO will have to look after its own defences.

This fundamentally challenges the model that we had semi-accidentally slipped into – our national defences have been revealed to be a flimsy façade.

The ‘Say-Do’ gap between the image of ourselves we have come to believe, and the reality of the hard power we can project in practice, is stark.

The first necessary step is to recognise that, and recognise that the methods that got us into this mess have to be discarded ruthlessly.”

Standard