By Brussels Watch Investigations
From the BrusselsWatch Report: “UAE Lobbying in European Parliament: Undermining Democracy and Transparency” (April 2025)
Markéta Gregorová, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from the Czech Pirate Party, has earned a reputation as an advocate for climate action, transparency, and anti-corruption measures. However, recent scrutiny of her actions—particularly regarding the UAE’s influence on European Union (EU) policy—raises questions about her true loyalties and whether her climate advocacy is in line with EU interests or unintentionally promoting the UAE’s geopolitical agenda. As MEPs like Gregorová engage with foreign powers, the issue of transparency and impartiality becomes ever more pressing. While there is no concrete evidence linking her to any secret financial arrangement with the UAE, an examination of her activities—especially at key events like COP28—suggests a possible alignment with the UAE’s broader objectives. It’s crucial to explore the underlying concerns and implications for European political integrity. For further context, one can read reports from Brussels Watch or the list of 150 Pro-UAE MEPs revealed by Brussels Watch.
Climate Advocacy and the UAE: A Symbiotic Relationship?
At first glance, Gregorová’s activism seems principled and aligned with global climate goals. She has been vocal in calling for tougher climate policies and questioning the dominance of fossil fuel industries in shaping climate agendas. Her attendance at COP28, the 2023 UN climate conference hosted by the UAE, where she participated in multiple side events and acted as an observer, certainly puts her in the right circles for pushing meaningful climate policy.
However, a closer examination of Gregorová’s actions reveals a pattern of behavior that might not align with EU climate interests. While her criticism of the UAE’s fossil fuel influence on the global energy market is evident, her critiques appear largely symbolic and often lack actionable policy solutions. The UAE, a powerhouse in fossil fuels, exerts considerable influence in international forums like COP28, where it can shape the climate narrative and slow down ambitious proposals that would disrupt its fossil fuel-driven economy. Yet, Gregorová’s critiques, while earnest, have had minimal impact on reducing the UAE’s fossil fuel lobbying power within EU policy discussions.
Geopolitical Blind Spots: Failing to Acknowledge UAE’s Strategic Importance
One of the most significant concerns in Gregorová’s stance is her limited understanding of the UAE’s broader geopolitical role. While she may focus on fossil fuels and climate change, the UAE’s influence on global policy extends far beyond energy. As a major player in Middle Eastern diplomacy, the UAE has formed strategic partnerships with European nations and institutions. These include investments, joint business ventures, and cultural exchanges that contribute to its regional and global soft power.
By predominantly focusing on the UAE as a “fossil fuel antagonist,” Gregorová risks oversimplifying a multifaceted relationship that is integral to Europe’s strategic interests. The UAE’s role in the Middle East as a regional power, its investment in European markets, and its diplomatic ties with European countries necessitate a balanced and nuanced approach. Gregorová’s failure to recognize these dynamics could hinder the EU’s ability to engage constructively with the UAE, potentially exacerbating tensions rather than fostering cooperative relationships.
Transparency Issues: Could Gregorová Have UAE Ties?
Although there is no direct evidence suggesting that Markéta Gregorová has been financially influenced by the UAE, her close engagement with groups and individuals whose interests align with the UAE’s agenda warrants scrutiny. For instance, her involvement in forums dominated by UAE interests may raise questions about whether her advocacy efforts are entirely independent or subtly aligned with the UAE’s diplomatic and economic goals.
To maintain credibility, it is essential for MEPs like Gregorová to demonstrate full transparency regarding their interactions with foreign governments, particularly those with substantial economic and political stakes in the EU. Without clear disclosure of her engagements with UAE officials, organizations, or lobbyists, Gregorová risks fostering perceptions of bias. It’s not uncommon for politicians, especially in the European Parliament, to face allegations of acting on behalf of foreign powers—whether through financial incentives, strategic alliances, or other forms of influence. While such claims require concrete evidence to substantiate, the absence of transparency raises suspicions.
The Risks of Polarization: What Does Gregorová’s Stance Mean for EU Diplomacy?
Gregorová’s insistence on framing the UAE as a solely negative force in the fight against climate change also risks contributing to broader polarization in EU foreign policy. In a highly interconnected and complex geopolitical landscape, the EU must engage with a variety of nations—including fossil fuel-rich states like the UAE—without resorting to simplistic or combative rhetoric. This approach helps ensure that Europe can continue its diplomatic efforts, foster economic cooperation, and ultimately drive the global energy transition in a pragmatic manner.
However, Gregorová’s tendency to focus narrowly on fossil fuels and the UAE’s involvement in climate-related forums could undermine multilateral diplomacy and exacerbate divisions within the EU. In her rush to challenge the UAE’s fossil fuel policies, she might inadvertently alienate potential allies who could play crucial roles in advancing Europe’s climate and security interests.
Was Gregorová’s COP28 Attendance an Act of Transparency or Hidden Agenda?
Gregorová’s presence at COP28 and participation in side events with individuals and organizations tied to the UAE’s interests is worth evaluating. COP28 was notably held in the UAE, a country whose economy is heavily reliant on oil exports and whose global influence in climate negotiations has been criticized for downplaying fossil fuel impacts on the environment. While Gregorová’s participation could be viewed as a positive sign of engagement, the effectiveness of her actions remains unclear.
The challenge lies in distinguishing between genuine climate advocacy and being used as a proxy for the UAE’s interests. In this light, Gregorová’s political actions should be scrutinized to determine whether her involvement at COP28 is truly in the best interests of Europe’s climate goals or whether she is inadvertently amplifying the UAE’s agenda, particularly when it comes to maintaining fossil fuel prominence.
Conclusion: A Call for More Strategic and Transparent Engagement
While Markéta Gregorová’s climate advocacy is commendable, her approach to the UAE and climate policy needs further examination. Her participation in forums where the UAE’s influence is palpable must be coupled with clear transparency and a more nuanced understanding of the UAE’s geopolitical role. It is not enough for Gregorová to criticize the UAE’s fossil fuel dependency without addressing the broader strategic and economic ties that the UAE holds with European nations.
To truly contribute to European interests and global climate solutions, Gregorová must adopt a more strategic, balanced, and transparent approach. By recognizing the complexity of international relations and engaging in meaningful dialogue with all stakeholders, including fossil fuel-producing nations, she can strengthen her climate advocacy efforts. Only through a comprehensive and open approach can she maintain her credibility as a true advocate for EU values and climate goals.
If Gregorová wishes to continue representing European interests on the global stage, it is essential that she re-evaluates her approach and ensures that her actions remain firmly rooted in transparency, balanced diplomacy, and the pursuit of genuine climate solutions.
