{"id":903772,"date":"2026-04-19T00:40:23","date_gmt":"2026-04-19T00:40:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/903772\/"},"modified":"2026-04-19T00:40:23","modified_gmt":"2026-04-19T00:40:23","slug":"top-client-of-peter-mandelsons-firm-linked-to-chinese-military","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/903772\/","title":{"rendered":"Top client of Peter Mandelson\u2019s firm linked to Chinese military"},"content":{"rendered":"

The single biggest client of Lord Mandelson\u2019s lobbying firm was a company linked to the Chinese military, according to leaked documents.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Last year Global Counsel, in which Mandelson<\/a> retained shares while he was the UK ambassador to Washington, received \u00a32.24 million from WuXi AppTec, a Shanghai-listed life science company. In 2024, when Mandelson\u2019s appointment was announced, it received \u00a31.42 million.<\/p>\n

As a result, the company topped a list of \u201cbiggest clients by revenue\u201d shared among senior executives at Global Counsel,\u00a0co-founded by the peer in 2010.<\/p>\n

Daily Briefing newsletter<\/p>\n

Get our top stories and exclusive analysis sent straight to your inbox every morning.<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\tSign up with one click<\/p>\n

The Pentagon recently described WuXi as a company engaged in assisting the Chinese military and urged Congress to add it to a list of companies that pose security risks, according to Bloomberg.<\/p>\n

Its alleged links to the Chinese People\u2019s Liberation Army and human rights abuses in Xinjiang long predated its work with the company.<\/p>\n

Ge Li, WuXi\u2019s chair and chief executive, signed an open letter in 2024 which denied the company posed a national security risk to any country. \u201cWe strongly object to blanket allegations and preemptive actions against our company without due process,\u201d the letter added.<\/p>\n

The disclosures come as senior government sources said it had been the peer\u2019s foreign links that accounted for the decision by the UK Security Vetting agency to recommend against his appointment, rather than his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.<\/p>\n

They will raise further questions about what Sir Keir Starmer knew as he prepares to justify his handling of the appointment in a parliamentary appearance on Monday.<\/p>\n

\"AndrewAndrew Mountbatten-Windsor, Jeffrey Epstein and Lord MandelsonPA<\/p>\n

\u2018Honestly the hardest bit\u2019<\/p>\n

Mandelson resigned from Global Counsel shortly before the 2024 general election and stood down as an adviser in December 2024, though he maintained a stake in the company.\u00a0He served as the UK ambassador to America from February 10 to September 11 last year.<\/p>\n

Sir Oliver Robbins, then permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, told MPs in November that determining whether Mandelson should relinquish his shares was \u201chonestly the hardest bit of this bit of the process for both of us.\u201d<\/p>\n

He told the foreign affairs committee: \u201cWhile he was confident that he could conduct his role as ambassador<\/a> without giving rise to a conflict, we wanted to make sure we managed and mitigated that possibility in some particular ways. I did put in place some measures to do that with him, which we added to as time went on.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Robbins added that while Mandelson had been \u201cactively trying\u201d to find ways out of his shareholding, \u201can extra guarantee\u201d was imposed to ensure he wouldn\u2019t benefit in any \u201cupside\u201d in the shares while ambassador. Robbins was sacked in a phone call from the prime minister last week.<\/p>\n

\"OllyRobbins in 2018Simon Dawson\/Bloomberg\/Getty Images<\/p>\n

Separately, a source familiar with the content of the negotiations between Mandelson and Robbins said the former permanent secretary had been relaxed about Mandelson\u2019s ongoing shares in Global Counsel. They said that Robbins\u2019s preference had been for Mandelson to divest, but Robbins never made a strenuous effort to make this happen.<\/p>\n

An opening for Burnham?<\/p>\n

On Monday, Starmer will address MPs about a saga that has left even some of his most loyal supporters in a state of suspended disbelief. They are being required to accept that the prime minister was left in the dark about a vetting process that, he had long maintained, gave Mandelson the green light\u00a0\u2014 and that the\u00a0fault lies with an overreaching mandarin,\u00a0and\u00a0not with an insufficiently curious prime minister.<\/p>\n

\"PrimeLord Mandelson with the prime minister during a reception at the ambassador\u2019s residence in Washington last yearAlamy<\/p>\n

As Starmer prepares for this appearance in the House of Commons, officials were this weekend continuing to search for the full details of the extraordinary affair, a Kafkaesque struggle that advisers blamed on an \u201cobstructive\u201d Foreign Office. \u201cEven since Tuesday evening, it\u2019s been a difficult process getting information out for Foreign Office,\u201d one No 10 source said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

With a vital set of elections just over a fortnight away, on May 7, the timing is dire. Allies of Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, have signalled that the Mandelson affair has renewed his interest in seeking a parliamentary seat. One person close to the mayor told the Financial Times that Burnham was \u201ckeeping an eye\u201d on how the composition of the party\u2019s National Executive Committee (NEC) might look after voting for 16 of its about 40 places begins in July. The person added that Burnham\u2019s team had held conversations with four trade unions about the NEC\u2019s makeup.<\/p>\n

Allies rally around Robbins<\/p>\n

Starmer is expected to tell MPs that both he and parliament should have been alerted sooner to the fact that security officials did not believe Mandelson should have access to secret material.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Indeed, No 10 believes Robbins, who did not disclose the recommendations by the UK Security Vetting (UKSV) to Starmer or any government minister, had four previous opportunities to inform them of the vetting advice.<\/p>\n

First, he could have done so as soon as he saw its advice; second, when Mandelson was sacked in September; third, when emails published by the Department of Justice paved the way for a \u201chumble address\u201d, forcing the government to release material on Mandelson\u2019s appointment; fourth, when the government said it would review security vetting last month.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But allies of Robbins continued to make the case this weekend that the prime minister had misunderstood the vetting process.<\/p>\n

This process of developed vetting (DV) is not, these friends maintain, a simple pass\/fail but rather an assessment of the risks, after which mitigating factors can be put in place to allay concerns.\u00a0There were two vetting phases Mandelson was subjected to, one a due diligence inquiry\u00a0conducted by officials and another to secure DV. This latter process is conducted by UKSV, a division of the Cabinet Office.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s more,\u00a0these friends\u00a0argue, a permanent secretary is severely restrained in what they can share about this\u00a0latter\u00a0process with a prime minister.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Allies of Robbins making this case include Ciaran Martin, former head of the National Cyber Security Centre, who said \u201cthe laws and procedures on vetting are clear.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"CiaranCiaran MartinBen Gurr for The Times<\/p>\n

Martin added: \u201cThat\u2019s not to say they\u2019re perfect. But if the prime minister feels it\u2019s not the right system then the answer is for him to change the system, and, if need be, the law. Instead he has sacked someone who appears to have applied the current rules correctly.\u201d<\/p>\n

On Saturday Lord McDonald of Salford, who ran the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020, joined in, arguing that vetting report details are \u201cvery closely held\u201d and would \u201cnever be shared with No 10 or the prime minister.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd they are, generally, when things are confused or sensitive, a matter of judgment and mitigation. And it feels to me as though we are in that grey area rather than in a very black and white world,\u201d he told the BBC.\u00a0<\/p>\n

McDonald also cited the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which he said \u201crequires those in charge of the vetting process to maintain confidence.\u201d Asked if Robbins was effectively being thrown under the bus, McDonald said: \u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n

The former mandarin also suggested that the process to replace Robbins should be fast and confined to internal candidates. One Foreign Office insider\u00a0suggested Dame Karen Pierce, Mandelson\u2019s predecessor as ambassador to Washington, would be\u00a0a strong candidate for the role.<\/p>\n

Included in this chorus of Robbins\u2019s allies is also understood to be Baroness Gray of Tottenham, the former Downing Street chief of staff, who has texted some Labour MPs in his defence.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"PhotoBaroness Gray of TottenhamStefan Rousseau\/PA<\/p>\n

However, Sir Richard Dearlove, the former boss of MI6, said he would have expected Robbins at least to have alerted Starmer to the conclusions of the vetting process, stopping short of sharing the details. \u201cI cannot believe the permanent secretary didn\u2019t ring up his minister who he sees every day and say: \u2018Look, we have a problem\u2019,\u201d Dearlove told LBC. \u201cThe idea you don\u2019t tell this is quite frankly, rubbish. You don\u2019t tell them the reasons why they are being rejected.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mandelson is said to have emerged from the vetting process with mitigations in place, including restrictions related to specific former clients.\u00a0The arrangements included a requirement that Mandelson\u2019s deputy head of mission in Washington had to have knowledge of or supervise contacts with those clients, The Spectator reported on Saturday.<\/p>\n

On Tuesday Robbins will be questioned about this process in more detail when he appears before the foreign affairs select committee. This is not, friends insist, part of any \u201cstrategic grand plan\u201d on his part.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe reality is Olly is a tremendously proper, old fashioned civil servant in many ways,\u201d one said. \u201cA committee of MPs has summoned him to attend a hearing. So of course he is going to attend. He would only turn parliament down if there was a clash and in those circumstances he\u2019d apologetically request a rearrangement. But given he\u2019s lost his job, he\u2019s obviously free.\u201d<\/p>\n

But these friends are confident that Robbins will emerge exonerated from the affair. \u201cHis treatment has been beyond shabby,\u201d a former senior ambassador and friend of Robbins said, describing his sacking as \u201cmean-minded, blame-shifting and self-righteous.\u201d<\/p>\n

They added: \u201cOlly Robbins did not deserve to be fired, and certainly didn\u2019t deserve the subsequent pile-on. And ultimately, it won\u2019t work \u2014 everyone knows it was Starmer that made the decision, and hanging a brilliant and dedicated civil servant out to dry won\u2019t shift that one iota.\u201d<\/p>\n

On Saturday Matthew Gould, the former UK ambassador\u00a0to Israel, described Robbins as \u201cone of the outstanding public servants of his generation\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n

He said: \u201cAt the Foreign Office he has led a painful process of cuts and redundancies, showing decisive, courageous leadership, a model of how to drive reform.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2018Lying is a better look than downright incompetence\u2019<\/p>\n

Starmer, for one, will come under significant pressure on Monday to explain precisely what he knew, and when. On Friday, it emerged that two senior civil servants \u2014 Dame Antonia Romeo, the cabinet secretary, and Cat Little, the permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office \u2014 were aware of the fact last month. Starmer maintains that he was first told of the vetting recommendation on Tuesday evening. So why the delay?<\/p>\n

\"CatherineCat LittleTayfun Salci<\/p>\n

Downing Street is adamant that Romeo and Little acted appropriately in conducting checks before sharing the revelation with Starmer. \u201cThe whole reason Little got the UK Security Vetting form was because she was gathering documents to publish them as part of the humble address,\u201d a No 10 source said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The source went further, adding that the suggestion the officials \u201csat on\u201d the findings was \u201cjust pals of Olly Robbins desperately trying to kind of shift the blame \u2013 from the man who did keep the prime minister in the dark to the people who\u2019ve actually been doing their best to get these documents out in the open\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n

On Monday, Starmer will be forced to defend himself from accusations that he misled parliament, having maintained in recent months that full due process had been followed. Opposition leaders are questioning why he did not appear before the House to update the record sooner.<\/p>\n

\u201cHow can we honestly believe that the prime minister was going out on telly and in parliament saying Mandelson passed the vetting, full due process was followed, and not a single person told him?\u201d Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, told The Sunday Times.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd we only found out from The Guardian. It\u2019s not like he suddenly discovered this and is coming out to confess. I\u2019m afraid I don\u2019t believe him and that\u2019s why I\u2019m saying either he lied or he\u2019s incompetent.\u201d<\/p>\n

A Labour source put it more starkly. \u201cAt some point lying becomes a better look than downright incompetence. I think that point has been reached.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The single biggest client of Lord Mandelson\u2019s lobbying firm was a company linked to the Chinese military, according…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":903773,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[13,12,14],"class_list":{"0":"post-903772","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-news","8":"tag-headlines","9":"tag-news","10":"tag-top-stories"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/116428592401841459","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/903772","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=903772"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/903772\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/903773"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=903772"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=903772"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=903772"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}