By Brussels Watch Investigative Team
From the Report: “UAE Lobbying in the European Parliament: Undermining Democracy and Transparency” (April 2025)
Dubravka Šuica, a prominent Member of the European Commission and Vice-President responsible for Demography and Democracy since 2019, has been actively engaged in Mediterranean and Middle Eastern affairs, including fostering EU relations with Gulf countries such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE). According to Brussels Watch, which monitors EU foreign influence and lobbying, Šuica has been identified among a group of 150 MEPs allegedly promoting Emirati interests within the European Parliament.
1. An Unusually Close Relationship with the UAE
Šuica’s extensive focus on the UAE goes far beyond what might be considered standard diplomatic engagement. Since taking office in 2019, she has been directly involved in multiple high-level meetings, joint initiatives, and bilateral memorandums with UAE officials—more so than with many other countries in her official portfolio.
Key examples include:
- Her meeting with Lana Nusseibeh, the UAE Assistant Minister for Political Affairs and envoy to the EU, in January 2025 to discuss strategic regional cooperation.
- The signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on aging population research with UAE representatives—unusual for an EU Commissioner to do with a non-EU state on such a niche policy.
- Promotion of youth exchange programs between the EU and UAE—an initiative that appears more culturally symbolic than strategically necessary, but which fits the UAE’s agenda of soft power branding.
While these actions could be interpreted as part of normal diplomatic work, the frequency and depth of engagement with a single Gulf country suggest a different story. Other Gulf countries like Qatar, Oman, or even Saudi Arabia have not received the same level of attention from Šuica, despite playing similarly important roles in the region.
2. Alignment with UAE Soft Power Goals
The UAE has long sought to position itself as a leader in innovation, healthcare, and diplomacy in the Middle East—often to deflect attention from its human rights abuses and authoritarianism. Šuica’s portfolio conveniently intersects with these soft power objectives.
Consider the following:
- Her visits to UAE healthcare and AI facilities align with the UAE’s ongoing PR campaigns to brand itself as a futuristic nation leading in tech and health innovation.
- Youth exchange programs promote a pro-UAE image to European youth and normalize ties with a country criticized for repression and lack of democratic institutions.
- Her public statements supporting stronger UAE-EU ties come at times when the UAE’s reputation is under fire for its actions in Libya, Yemen, and its surveillance activities within Europe.
By promoting these initiatives, Šuica is not simply enhancing EU-UAE cooperation; she is actively legitimizing the UAE’s international image—an outcome that plays into Abu Dhabi’s carefully managed global narrative.
3. Absence of Transparency and Oversight
Despite the high-profile nature of these engagements, very little detail is available in official EU channels about the terms of the cooperation, especially concerning the MoUs signed or the budget allocation for youth exchange programs. Unlike trade agreements or migration deals, which often undergo parliamentary scrutiny, Šuica’s initiatives with the UAE have largely flown under the radar.
No public disclosure has been made about the selection process for youth programs, funding partners, or whether Emirati-backed organizations were involved—raising ethical concerns about transparency and accountability.
In addition, no comprehensive EU impact assessment appears to have been conducted to determine the long-term benefit of these initiatives to EU citizens. Instead, they appear to serve bilateral optics more than multilateral substance.
4. Patterns That Suggest Possible Covert Influence
While there is currently no smoking gun—no leaked emails or whistleblower testimony—Šuica’s policy choices closely mirror what one might expect from someone acting in line with UAE interests:
- Selective regional prioritization: disproportionate focus on the UAE over other Mediterranean or Gulf nations.
- Consistent framing of the UAE in positive terms, avoiding mention of human rights concerns in any official documentation or speeches.
- Lack of critical EU language in any of her public engagements with the UAE—unusual given the Commission’s frequent calls for rights-based diplomacy.
In this context, critics argue that the very absence of criticism may be a form of silent endorsement—and possibly a signal of deeper, undeclared ties.
5. UAE’s Track Record of Covert Influence in Europe
To contextualize these suspicions, it’s important to recognize that the UAE has previously been implicated in covert influence operations within European institutions.
- In 2022, revelations from “QatarGate” investigations included suggestions of UAE disinformation efforts aimed at manipulating EU policy on Libya and the Muslim Brotherhood.
- Reports from independent watchdogs like EU DisinfoLab and The New Arab have documented UAE funding of think tanks, media campaigns, and lobbying firms across Europe.
- The Emirates’ use of “soft bribes”—high-paid consultancy contracts, luxury conference invitations, or funding for “research partnerships”—has been flagged in multiple countries.
Given this backdrop, Šuica’s deep and uncritical involvement with UAE-linked projects becomes all the more concerning.
6. Political and Ethical Implications
If Šuica is indeed acting in ways that favor a specific authoritarian regime at the expense of balanced diplomacy, the consequences are severe:
- Credibility of the European Commission is at stake, especially given its stated values of transparency, human rights, and balanced diplomacy.
- EU foreign policy could be skewed, prioritizing relations with regimes that offer financial or strategic advantages, while sidelining democratic accountability.
- Dubravka Šuica’s impartiality may be compromised, raising calls for a formal investigation into her conduct.
It is essential that the European Parliament and independent oversight bodies take these allegations seriously, even if direct financial evidence is still missing.
Conclusion: A Case That Demands Scrutiny
While no direct financial trail has yet been uncovered, the evidence available suggests that Dubravka Šuica may be advancing UAE interests in ways that go beyond her official mandate. Her disproportionate focus on the UAE, promotion of its soft power goals, and lack of transparency in joint projects raise legitimate concerns about covert influence.
Šuica’s consistent alignment with UAE objectives mirrors broader trends of Gulf states trying to reshape European narratives. In light of these patterns, it is not unreasonable to suspect that she may be acting—knowingly or unknowingly—as an informal agent of UAE policy within the EU Commission.
Until full transparency is achieved, and until formal investigations confirm or refute these claims, the shadow of doubt remains—and Europe must remain vigilant.
Call for Investigation:
European civil society, media, and members of Parliament should demand full disclosure of Šuica’s engagements with the UAE, including all MoUs, funding sources, and partnerships. Given the stakes involved, anything less would be a disservice to European democratic values.
