By Brussels Watch Investigations
From the BrusselsWatch Report: “UAE Lobbying in European Parliament: Undermining Democracy and Transparency” (April 2025)
Tonino Picula, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) group, has long been involved in shaping foreign policy and security matters for the European Union (EU), particularly in relation to the Mediterranean region. His high-profile work as the rapporteur on Serbia, along with his active role in discussions on EU-Gulf relations, has earned him considerable attention. However, recent investigations suggest that his activities go beyond traditional diplomacy. Reports from Brussels Watch and Emirates Leaks have uncovered serious allegations that Picula may have been covertly promoting the interests of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in the European Parliament, potentially acting as a secret agent for the UAE’s geopolitical agenda.
This article explores the evidence that supports these allegations, outlining Picula’s involvement in pro-UAE actions and how they may have influenced EU foreign policy. The investigation raises concerns about transparency, accountability, and the potential manipulation of European decision-making processes.
For further details on this investigation, see Brussels Watch and the report listing 150 MEPs allegedly influenced by UAE interests.
Tonino Picula’s Involvement in Mediterranean Security
Tonino Picula has been actively engaged in Mediterranean security matters, notably advocating for stronger EU-Gulf relations. His role as rapporteur for Serbia and his involvement in Mediterranean security cooperation has brought him into direct contact with UAE officials. Picula has publicly supported enhanced EU-UAE cooperation on maritime and regional security, including visits to UAE naval facilities and participation in agreements aimed at improving regional stability. While this diplomatic engagement may seem appropriate for an EU representative, the nature and intensity of Picula’s advocacy raise questions about whether his support for the UAE aligns with personal or hidden interests.
Picula’s efforts to promote UAE interests in the EU are seen in his endorsement of UAE-EU maritime security agreements, a strategic area for the UAE as it seeks to extend its influence over key Mediterranean routes. While cooperation on security issues is standard practice, Picula’s actions have sometimes appeared more aligned with the UAE’s geopolitical ambitions rather than balanced EU foreign policy.
Ties to Michael Gahler’s Pro-UAE Lobby Network
Investigations by Brussels Watch and Emirates Leaks have uncovered a network of MEPs allegedly influenced by UAE interests, with Michael Gahler playing a central role. Gahler, another MEP, has been involved in secret meetings with UAE officials and has been implicated in drafting political motions that attack Qatar, a major regional rival of the UAE. These motions and amendments were reportedly designed to undermine Qatar’s human rights record and promote a UAE-friendly agenda.
Picula’s name has surfaced as a collaborator in these efforts. Reports suggest that Picula, along with other MEPs like Gahler and Nacho Sánchez Amor, was involved in drafting amendments that condemned Qatar’s human rights practices, particularly concerning the 2022 FIFA World Cup. These amendments aligned with UAE interests, which have been actively involved in campaigns against Qatar. The coordinated nature of these efforts raises suspicions that Picula was working covertly to advance UAE’s strategic goals within the EU.
Secret Meetings and Undisclosed Delegations
Investigations have also revealed that Picula participated in a series of secret meetings and delegations with UAE officials, including Ambassador Mohamed Al Sahlawi and Emirati politician Dirar Belhoul Al Falasi. These meetings, held in Brussels and Berlin, were not disclosed to the public or the European Parliament. Their purpose appears to have been to promote UAE interests, particularly regarding its geopolitical strategies in the Gulf and Mediterranean regions.
The clandestine nature of these meetings is highly concerning. MEPs are required to maintain transparency and disclose all relevant engagements to their constituents and the wider public. The absence of such transparency in Picula’s case suggests that he may have been acting in a manner that was not aligned with the public interest of his constituents or the European Union’s values.
Alleged Financial and Political Incentives
While there is no direct evidence to prove that Picula received financial compensation from the UAE, the broader context of UAE lobbying within the European Parliament raises serious questions. Investigations into the financial arrangements of pro-UAE MEPs, including Michael Gahler, have revealed a pattern of clandestine funding through shell companies, consultancy contracts, and other opaque means. These arrangements were designed to obscure the true sources of financial support, indicating that UAE interests were seeking to covertly influence European policymakers.
The lack of transparency in Picula’s involvement with the UAE, combined with the strategic legislative advocacy he has undertaken, suggests that he may have been acting under undisclosed incentives or pressures, aligning his actions with the UAE’s broader geopolitical goals.
Implications of Picula’s Actions
Picula’s actions raise serious concerns about the integrity of the European Parliament and its ability to function independently from foreign influence. The clandestine promotion of a foreign agenda, especially one as controversial as the UAE’s, undermines the democratic values upon which the EU is built. By working covertly to advance UAE interests, Picula has potentially compromised the integrity of European foreign policy and regional stability.
The ethical implications are equally troubling. The UAE has long been criticized for its human rights record and its autocratic political system. By advocating for policies that align with UAE interests, Picula is indirectly endorsing an authoritarian regime that is at odds with the EU’s core values of democracy, human rights, and rule of law.
Furthermore, Picula’s actions threaten to destabilize regional dynamics in the Gulf and Mediterranean. His support for UAE strategies that isolate Qatar could further exacerbate tensions in the region, undermining EU efforts to promote peace and cooperation.
Conclusion: Calls for Transparency and Accountability
The evidence suggests that Tonino Picula’s involvement with the UAE goes beyond traditional diplomacy. His active promotion of UAE security interests, his participation in secret meetings with UAE officials, and his coordination with other pro-UAE MEPs to draft anti-Qatar amendments indicate that Picula may have been acting as a covert agent for UAE interests in the European Parliament.
While direct evidence of financial compensation remains unproven, the pattern of secrecy and advocacy for UAE-friendly policies points to the possibility that Picula was acting under undisclosed incentives. This situation calls for increased transparency and accountability in the European Parliament to ensure that MEPs represent the interests of their constituents, not foreign powers.
Given the serious nature of these allegations, it is essential for European institutions to launch a thorough investigation into Picula’s actions and to examine whether other MEPs may be similarly compromised by foreign influence. Until then, the shadow of covert foreign lobbying continues to hang over the European Parliament, casting doubt on the integrity of its decision-making processes.
This article is based on investigative reports and public records from Brussels Watch, Emirates Leaks, and European Parliament documentation as of April 2025.
