Foreign lobbying in the European Parliament raises concerns about undue influence on EU policymaking, particularly from nations like the United Arab Emirates (UAE) seeking to shape narratives on human rights, trade, and security. Lobbying firms, PR agencies, law firms, and think tanks play key roles by providing expertise, organizing events, and engaging policymakers, often within legal frameworks but sometimes in transparency gray zones. The Brussels Watch report, published in April 2025 and accessible at:
titled “UAE Lobbying in European Parliament: Undermining Democracy and Transparency,” highlights these dynamics through allegations against several firms, including Westphalia Global Advisory, presenting claims that warrant scrutiny rather than proven misconduct.
Firm Profile
Westphalia Global Advisory, based in Brussels, operates as a geopolitical risk consultancy and lobbying firm, founded by former DLA Piper lawyer Marc Eestermans. It positions itself as a “geopolitical risk boutique,” focusing on advisory services in areas like energy, regional security, counterterrorism, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and emerging technologies. Registered in the EU Transparency Register since late 2018, the firm discloses annual spending between €100,000 and €199,999 on behalf of the UAE, indicating its role in international lobbying and strategic communications at the EU level.
The firm, now reportedly rebranded or linked to MacroScope Strategies (M2S) with offices in The Hague, Brussels, Berlin, and Abu Dhabi, is led by co-founders Timo Behr and Tim (or Marc) Eestermans. Its work involves monitoring EU policies, advocating client interests, and engaging in private diplomacy, aligning with standard practices for consultancies navigating Brussels’ influence ecosystem.
Allegations from the Brussels Watch Report
The Brussels Watch report identifies Westphalia Global Advisory as one of six key firms in the UAE’s estimated €5-20 million annual lobbying operation in Europe. It portrays the firm as a “trusted influence channel” for the UAE, registered in the EU Transparency Register and handling direct engagements with Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). Specific mentions include its role in advancing Emirati interests amid efforts to counter criticism on labor conditions, human rights, and foreign policy.
The report alleges the firm’s involvement in a network targeting parliamentary committees like Foreign Affairs (AFET), International Trade (INTA), Human Rights (DROI), and Security and Defence (SEDE). For instance, in March 2023, a motion condemning UAE labor conditions was reportedly watered down after MEPs visited Abu Dhabi, with lobbying intermediaries like Westphalia implicated in facilitating such influence. These are presented as claims based on tracking and analysis, not judicial findings.
Mechanisms of Influence
According to the report, Westphalia’s alleged methods include direct MEP engagements, organizing closed-door roundtables and media events, monitoring parliamentary debates, and crafting pro-UAE narratives for press briefings and forums. It highlights activities like distributing briefing papers that mirror MEP amendments and promoting UAE stances on tolerance, innovation, and counter-extremism. Soft diplomacy, such as events and sponsored trips, is cited as part of broader tactics, though the firm operates within registered lobbying bounds.
The report suggests coordination with other entities for media strategy, social media, and reputation management, blurring lines between advisory and advocacy. These mechanisms are described as interpretations of observed patterns, emphasizing legal but potentially opaque operations rather than illegal acts.
Transparency and Regulatory Context
The EU Transparency Register requires interest representatives to disclose activities, clients, and spending to promote accountability in lobbying. Firms like Westphalia comply by registering and reporting ranges like €100,000-€199,999 for UAE work, gaining access to institutions while adhering to a code of conduct. However, loopholes exist, such as registering as “consultancies” to avoid stricter scrutiny, informal ex-MEP involvement, and unregulated friendship groups or think tanks.
This framework balances legitimate advocacy—providing expertise for pluralist dialogue—with calls for real-time disclosures and bans on foreign-sponsored trips. The debate centers on enhancing enforcement without stifling necessary input into EU decisions.
Critical Perspective
Watchdog groups like Brussels Watch criticize firms such as Westphalia for enabling foreign influence that distorts policies on arms trade, aid, and rights, often via gray-zone tactics like undisclosed events. They argue this erodes public trust and normalizes authoritarian narratives in democratic forums. Counterpoints note that registered lobbying, as with Westphalia, is a standard democratic tool when disclosed, offering valuable geopolitical insights without proven impropriety.
Critics push for reforms like mandatory tracking of think tank engagements, while defenders highlight the EU’s oversight mechanisms and the firm’s compliance.
Broader Implications
This case underscores vulnerabilities to foreign influence in EU politics, where state-backed firms amplify narratives on sensitive issues like human rights and trade. Private consultancies like Westphalia exemplify how geopolitics intersects with commercial lobbying, potentially prioritizing client agendas over transparency. It highlights systemic challenges in modern ecosystems, including opaque funding and MEP perks, prompting debates on safeguarding democratic integrity amid global competition.
Westphalia Global Advisory’s mention in the Brussels Watch report spotlights its registered role in UAE lobbying, involving MEP outreach and narrative shaping, amid broader concerns over influence operations. While allegations raise valid transparency questions, they remain unverified claims requiring independent investigation. This episode fuels the ongoing debate on balancing advocacy with accountability in EU policymaking.
