Brussels is a key centre for diplomacy and a recent arrival to the scene is Independent Diplomat, set up in 2004 by Carne Ross, a British diplomat who resigned from government service after giving evidence to Butler inquiry on intelligence and weapons of mass destruction that contradicted British government claims. Nicholas Whyte has been running Independent Diplomat’s Brussels office from its inception in January 2007. How does he define an independent diplomat? “We’re a diplomatic non-profit advisory group, we provide diplomatic advice to actors who are marginalised in international politics. Very often countries and actors who have to carry the greatest burden of in peace processes we are the least involved and the least prepared in for the negotiations. Our early work was with Kosovo in during the preparation of the Ahtissaari Plan, and with the Polisaro Front in the Western Sahara. In both of these cases their institutional framework was inadequate for seriously challenged by the processes. Kosovo was actually barred from having a Foreign Ministry at the time, and we were able to give them assistance in constructing their case and interacting with the outside world.
“We work directly with the leadership in all cases. There are three strands to our work. Firstly, there is the more classic diplomatic activity of finding out what exactly is going on, - very often international officials won’t meet our clients because of concerns over protocol or implying status. Sometimes it is easier to talk to an NGO that is interacting on their behalf. The second strand is that we can provide an outside source of expertise and analysis for them, such as preparing papers for a negotiating process. Foe example we helped Kosovo examine issues like the protection of minorities and the framework of the future Kosovo state. The third strand is that we help our clients with presenting their case to the public. What we don’t do is lobby. Our clients must be their own advocates”.

Diplomacy 2.0 For Virtual States?

They also work with aspiring states such as the former British colony of Somaliland, ignored by many other states who don’t want to talk to them, preferring to recognise Somalia. “It’s an interesting case; there is a functioning multi-party state in Somaliland but no real government in Somalia, and yet the international community likes to pretend the situation is the other way round. Our job then, is to try to redress the balance.” To illustrate the difference between the states, Whyte mentions piracy, “Somaliland has a good record on fighting piracy, if you look at the maps the attacks are coming from Somalia, mainly around Puntland and Somaliland has a record of co-operation internationally, but this doesn’t translate into political recognition.” This doesn’t mean that they will be representing nations like Zimbabwe as clients have to pass their strict ethical guidelines, such as commitments to democracy and human rights, but Whyte insists that this hasn’t been a problem because, “It’s precisely the regimes that are uninterested in democracy and human rights that are uninterested in external advice. Not everybody in all circumstances can deliver perfectly on democracy, human rights and a commitment to peaceful processes. For example the Polisario are living in refugee camps and to insist on multi-party democracy in a situation like that is going to far, but their commitments are very clear, if they regain control of their territory, then the current arrangements will change. But the important question is, are they heading in the right direction?” Their Independent Diplomat’s offices are based near the major institutions, New York for the UN, Washington DC, London, Addis Abbaba for the Africa Union and Brussels, so how open is the EU? Are they confined by their own diplomatic protocol? “I find that most EU institutions and officials are open to dialogue, my sense is that 26 out of 27 countries do welcome input from NGO’s. One country doesn’t , I won’t name that one, but the other 26 do. I find the Commission approachable on the areas we work in. Perhaps it is precisely because the Brussels machinery seems opaque from the outside, I find that once you find the right person to talk to, they are very keen on dialogue and to try to make you understand why they are doing what they’re doing, or more often why they’re not doing what I think they should be doing! In fact I find it easier to get access because officials instinctively understand what an independent diplomat is, indeed many have wished for such a person to exits, because I am a channel to the people I’m working for and, unlike a thinktanker or a journalist, I’m not going to cherry pick and publish what they say”.

Life After Lisbon

Looking towards the future Whyte sees himself working with more fullyfledged states than now as “There are a lot of countries out there who are finding the calls made on them by the international community to be quite onerous and engaging with the EU is a clear example of this. Even if you’re a small developing nation you probably need decent links to many institutional actors in Brussels.” He also sees them being more involved in Asia, where currently they’re representing assisting the Burmese opposition, but the biggest increase in workload is expected to come if and when the Lisbon Treaty is adopted because he sees, “It will make things more complicated. It’s fairly clear that the proposed External Actions Service will lead to two more sets of administration in areas I’m interested in and it’s going to be difficult to work out where lines of power will actually run, as to where decisions are going to be made. In the field it may get simpler, for example the double-hatting situation in Macedonia where one person has represented both the Council and the Commission, so combining external representation is good. As we move to more QMV, that will bring more politics into decision making.” Reflecting on his experiences, Whyte says “I’m appreciating more and more, that it’s impossible for one person to represent an entire country. Diplomats represent governments but they don’t represent popular will. Another thing is that it is a very closed world and although I find it, in my position, where I’m working with particular governments, I find it quite easy to get meetings with officials. The diplomatic world is closed to new ideas, to openness to the press and to the public in general and that is bad. It’s undiplomatic and illiberal to have important diplomatic policy decisions made without public scrutiny.”