The transatlantic Epstein crisis: Washington shrugs, Westminster melts

LONDON – The political scandal surrounding the activities of Jeffrey Epstein started as a US affair. The obscene story of the billionaire who sexually abused minors and ran a trafficking operation that recruited girls as young as 14 initially threatened the reputation of

top US politicians

.

Yet, while no prominent US leader was forced to resign after the release of an estimated three million documents related to Epstein’s crimes, it is in Britain where the ripple effects of the Epstein story are now most strongly felt. The scandal is almost certain to destroy the political career of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

The historic closeness between the British and US political establishments partly explains this unexpected twist. But it is also the product of a hitherto little-known aspect of the Epstein affair:

the billionaire’s baleful interest

in European financial, political and even intelligence operations.

The personal probity of Mr Starmer has never been in doubt: He entered politics only in 2015, long after Epstein was convicted as a paedophile. Ironically, however, and precisely because Mr Starmer’s political experience was so brief, he became accidentally entangled in Epstein’s sordid affairs.

US President Donald Trump’s re-election in November 2024 shocked Europe; all European leaders feared that when he returned to the White House, Mr Trump could tear up the US military guarantees protecting their continent.

But while most governments responded by ordering their experts and civil servants to draw up strategies on how to deal with Mr Trump, the British went in an entirely different direction: They launched a desperate search for friends of Mr Trump who could secretly influence the US leader.

This strategy was entirely in keeping with Britain’s behaviour over generations. Since the end of World War II, when its empire started disintegrating, the British have relied on personal connections to maintain their preferential access in Washington.

And to date, the idea has worked as intended. Britain maintains its uniquely intimate access not only to US intelligence but also to US nuclear technology and the innermost US decision-making processes, in large part due to its network of friends and influencers.

So, when Mr Starmer decided that the best way of dealing with the incoming Trump administration was to appoint a trusted British politician as the new ambassador in Washington, few thought this was a bad idea; after all, humouring the man in the Oval Office was the essence of British diplomacy.

‘Prince of Darkness’

The snag for Mr Starmer is that he picked Mr Peter Mandelson as the next British ambassador, for Mr Mandelson was the absolute personification of another classic British trait: the closed, cliquish, conspiratorial nature of the country’s political class.

The grandson of a senior politician in Mr Starmer’s ruling Labour Party, Mr Mandelson had pulled strings behind the scenes for decades, promoting politicians he liked, while destroying the careers of those he didn’t.

He was the strategist behind the rise of Mr Tony Blair, who ran Britain from 1997 to 2007, and was also the man who advised subsequent British prime ministers, including Mr Starmer.

Mr Mandelson’s maternal grandfather was Mr Herbert Morrison, the founding general secretary of the Labour Party and later, deputy prime minister in the post-war Labour government of Mr Clement Attlee.

Yet not for nothing was

Mr Mandelson nicknamed “The Prince of Darkness”,

for he operated mainly in the shadows. And on the two occasions he was appointed to senior Cabinet positions, those ended in scandals and his resignation, due to Mr Mandelson’s propensity for being what the British politely call “economical with the truth” about his dealings with wealthy businessmen.

Nobody knows why Mr Starmer considered Mr Mandelson, who is hardly in Mr Trump’s inner circle, a good choice for an ambassador in Washington. Nor can anyone explain why Mr Starmer, who knew about Mr Mandelson’s personal links with Epstein, chose to ignore this significant problem.

In all probability, the British leader believed that the guy who was such a good puppet master in London would also be good at pulling strings in the US, and that the Epstein scandal was old news.

Only that it wasn’t, and the appointment proved to be a catastrophic miscalculation. Recent documents from the Epstein files indicate that

Mr Mandelson copied the sex offender

on confidential British government documents and correspondence and alerted him to major economic events, such as the European Union’s financial bailout during the 2008 financial crisis. Armed with such privileged advance information, Epstein and his friends could have made a fortune on the financial and stock markets.

More bizarrely still, while a member of the British Cabinet, Mr Mandelson also instructed Epstein on how US bankers could lobby other British ministers against newly imposed taxes on the banking sector. In effect, Mr Mandelson was actively briefing against his government.

And although Mr Mandelson is gay and, therefore, appears to have had little interest in Epstein’s offerings of prostitutes, he allegedly facilitated visits by some of the women Epstein sent to London to meet with Mr Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the British monarch’s brother, who was stripped of his titles because of his association with Epstein.

Epstein’s tentacles reached Russia’s intel services

Investigators in London are now concentrating on other details suggesting that Epstein’s tentacles went even further, right up to Russia’s intelligence services. The US paedophile visited Russia repeatedly and seems to have had an inexhaustible supply of what he termed “beautiful Russian ladies” to “introduce” to his friends.

Epstein file documents also indicate more than 4,000 wire transfers totalling nearly US$1.1 billion (S$1.4 billion) with multiple Russian banks, which allegedly represent “payments related to sex trafficking”, as US Senator Ron Wyden put it.

Why would Epstein be so generous with his “hospitality”? Where did he get his money? All are questions still to be answered.

“Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament and my party,” Mr Starmer admitted to Parliament in London on Feb 5. “If I knew then what I know now, he would not be anywhere near government,” he told MPs.

But few people, even within his ruling Labour Party, accept this explanation. The reality remains that Mr Mandelson’s shady past was known; only the extent of his transgressions was unknown.

Either way, Mr Starmer’s fate is now hanging by a thread, after the

British Parliament ordered him to release all the documents

relating to Mr Mandelson. The expected revelations are unlikely to make for comfortable reading.

Meanwhile, researchers will continue to unravel “gems” from the vast Epstein files. However, chances remain high that it is politicians in Europe – rather than those in the US – who are most likely to lose their jobs.