Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features
SUBSCRIBE TODAY
It’s with a horrible sense of déjà vu that I read the news about Peter Mandelson’s sacking from his position as British Ambassador to Washington. It was only six years ago that another British Ambassador, Sir Kim (now Lord) Darroch, was also obliged to leave this post following the leaking of controversial emails he had written. As in Darroch’s case, which occurred when I was still a British diplomat, working for him at the embassy, I imagine embassy staff are again left reeling by the sudden departure of their head of mission. The timing is also unfortunate, coming on the eve of Donald Trump’s second state visit to the UK, next week.
However, the circumstances between the two cases could not be more different. Sir Kim was ousted after highly unflattering emails he had written about the chaotic nature of Trump’s first administration were illegally leaked to the British press. The reports were classified. Sir Kim was entirely legitimately and correctly doing his job, in giving his honest assessment to the British government, about what was going on in US politics. He had every right to expect that his confidential messages would be treated securely. If Ambassadors fear that their communications will be leaked, they will never put anything useful down in writing, but merely communicate utterly pointless bland nothings back to London.
Although the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, and her Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, told Darroch he still had their strong backing, he personally concluded he could not stay on in the role after the likely future Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, six times refused to back the Ambassador during a TV debate with Jeremy Hunt, with whom he was competing to succeed Theresa May. Without the support of either the current American leader, or likely British leader, he concluded he had no option but to resign. This news was received with dismay by staff across the Foreign Office, who agreed with Foreign Office Minister Alan Duncan’s subsequent assessment, that Johnson had “thrown Darroch under the bus.”
Keir Starmer’s Reluctant Sacking of Peter Mandelson Over Epstein Connections Gives the Lie to His ‘Crackdown on Cronyism’
The Prime Minister and his advisers spent years dismissing questions about Mandelson’s relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein
Adam Bienkov
Darroch came out of the episode with his honour and integrity intact, and ultimately was rewarded by May for his self-sacrifice by being made a peer in the House of Lords.
Mandelson’s tenure at the embassy in Washington ends on a much more disgraceful note. What brought him down was not any foul play against him, but the revelation of his own foul dealings with the convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein.
It is also clear from the language he used in his farewell message to embassy staff that, unlike Darroch, he did not decide to go of his own volition. Far from choosing to resign, and maintaining some last vestige of honour, he makes it clear that it was not his own choice to leave. As he wrote in his letter “I have no alternative to accepting the Prime Minister’s decision.”
The tawdry episode does not reflect well on either Mandelson himself, or the man responsible for his appointment, Prime Minister Keir Starmer. This is the case even if we take at face value No 10’s assurances that they were not aware of the extent of Mandelson’s friendship and support for Epstein over the years, including after the latter’s conviction.
Mandelson himself should have been more honest upfront about his association with Epstein. His personal ambition kept him quiet. Like Icarus, he flew too close to the sun, and ultimately crashed to the ground. He is now facing calls to resign his peerage as well. He has made many political comebacks in his time, but it is hard to see how he can ever recov…