What a difference 48 hours can make. On Saturday afternoon, Lord Mandelson, the UK ambassador to the United States, was treading the green and pleasant lawns of Ditchley Park near Oxford, where he was giving the annual lecture to an audience made up for the most part of the great and the good of UK foreign policy.
The landscape was quintessential England, it was a perfect late summer day, with golden light. Mandelson’s subject, nicely timed for ten days before the US President’s second state visit, was ‘Britain and America in the Age of Trump – and Beyond’. He managed, in characteristic Mandelson fashion, to argue that in most respects the interests of the UK and the US were aligned, while also noting the constraints of the ‘special relationship’ – a term he seemed not to place in inverted commas.
Then, on Tuesday morning came the publication, thanks to a Congressional subpoena, of a birthday greeting that Donald Trump has strenuously denied he penned for the then-unconvicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein. Also in the news came the details of other birthday well wishers, including Bill Clinton, billionaire Leon Black, Harvard law school professor, Alan Dershowitz and… one Peter Mandelson.
As much as the timing of Mandelson’s lecture was ideal – uncontentiously raising the curtain on what could be a difficult state visit – the timing of the birthday-book revelations could hardly have been worse, at least from a UK government perspective. It is a visit, as Mandelson indicated, that has been carefully choreographed to maximise ceremony and avoid controversies. Agreements to be signed will focus on technology, an area that everyone can agree is a jolly good thing that plays to both countries’ strengths. This now risks being sullied by a double taint.
Now, just to be contrarian for a moment, it might be just about possible to argue that for Mandelson and Trump to have a common ‘pal’ in the late Jeffrey Epstein – an association a long time ago now regretted by both – could be an asset that adds a certain something to the UK-US ‘special relationship’. Mandelson and Trump’s worlds have overlapped before; they have more in common than might have been thought. Personal diplomacy is the way Trump works. But how good a look is it really for the US President and ‘our man in Washington’ to share a common taint – real or alleged? And what, if anything, should be done about it?
Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States – the top job in UK diplomacy – was not without controversy, both because it is unusual for the UK to make top diplomatic appointments on political grounds, but also because of Mandelson himself and the various scandals that beset his political career. Personally, having seen Mandelson on visits to Washington in the late 1990s, I had different concerns, about his ability to communicate effectively on the other side of the Atlantic, and whether he could learn to ‘speak American’.
That particular concern was swiftly allayed. Mandelson has applied all his personal charm and savvy with evident success, helped along by an unconventional President who appreciates the personal approach. He would appear to have won the ear of Donald Trump in record time, and the careful programme put together for the President’s second state visit is one result.
But the revelation of Mandelson’s Epstein association, it seems to me, makes for a problem. If these documents had been public, or even mooted, as Mandelson was being considered for HM ambassador to the US, would he have been appointed? I very much doubt it. We are not talking about a contested signature here, which is the main issue with the alleged Trump greeting to Epstein, but a cheery personal message and photographs whose authenticity would appear beyond reproach.
And yes, those were different times, when blind eyes were often turned to the doings of super-rich men, with their private planes, pleasure-islands and attractive young women at their beck and call.
But this is now, and it is not acceptable for a public figure to have been associated with a convicted paedophile, such as Epstein, who committed suicide while awaiting trial for sex-trafficking. The perils may be less for Trump than for many others: with Trump, certain behaviours are effectively factored in and did not prevent him gaining an electoral mandate. But even he understands the potential damage from the Epstein birthday card, which is why, rather than laughing it off, he chose to sue the Wall Street Journal.
And in the UK? If the latest Epstein revelations would have scuppered Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, how acceptable is it for him now to stay in his job? How far might those photos complicate Mandelson’s ability to command respect as UK ambassador in Washington – in a country where the Epstein files, real and rumoured, have become a touchstone political issue?
Even a distant and publicly regretted association with Epstein, or someone else of his ilk, is going to weigh heavily on the CV of anyone who is in public life. Mandelson will no doubt survive to see the successful progress of Donald Trump through the UK next week, but then? That is another tricky item that will be surely be landing in Sir Keir Starmer’s already overflowing inbox.
Comments