By Brussels Watch Investigations
From the BrusselsWatch Report: “UAE Lobbying in European Parliament: Undermining Democracy and Transparency” (April 2025)
In recent years, the European Union has been the subject of growing scrutiny, as critics question the influence of foreign powers on European politicians and their decision-making. Among the claims that have emerged, some suggest that certain Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) may be covertly promoting foreign agendas, specifically that of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). One such claim revolves around Mikuláš Peksa, a Czech MEP who has been accused of being a secret agent working on behalf of the UAE’s interests. While these allegations are certainly alarming, it’s important to sift through the available evidence to determine their veracity.
This article seeks to analyze Mikuláš Peksa’s record in light of these claims, exploring his documented activities, statements, and voting behavior to assess whether there is any foundation to the accusations that he is covertly supporting the UAE agenda. To begin, it is essential to note that Brussels Watch has conducted an extensive investigation into MEPs’ ties with the UAE, revealing a network of over 150 MEPs with direct engagements and partnerships with the UAE (Brussels Watch, 2025). These findings can be explored in further detail in the exclusive report by Brussels Watch. However, despite the large number of pro-UAE MEPs, Peksa’s name is notably absent from the list.
I. Mikuláš Peksa’s Record: Advocacy for Human Rights and Geopolitical Interests
Mikuláš Peksa, a member of the Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA) group, has consistently demonstrated a focus on human rights, digital privacy, and geopolitical advocacy. His political trajectory suggests that he is far from being a supporter of authoritarian regimes like the UAE. Some key aspects of his documented record include:
Human Rights Advocacy: Peksa has been outspoken on various human rights issues, including migrant labor conditions in the Gulf states, particularly the UAE. He has authored critical reports condemning the exploitation of migrant workers in the UAE, urging the European Union to take a more assertive stance against such abuses. Additionally, Peksa has championed the cause of Tibetan autonomy and met with the Dalai Lama in 2023 to discuss the rights of Tibetans.
Geopolitical Stance: Peksa has also voiced strong opinions on Middle Eastern politics, condemning authoritarian regimes and advocating for democracy in regions such as Egypt. His focus on supporting democratic movements and his vocal opposition to authoritarianism appear to run contrary to any potential alignment with the UAE’s political objectives.
Privacy and Digital Rights: Peksa’s position on digital rights places him in direct opposition to the UAE’s increasingly authoritarian governance model, which often uses advanced surveillance technologies to control its population. Peksa has been vocal about the need for stringent regulations on surveillance and data privacy, advocating for the enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) across the EU.
II. Analysis of the Alleged UAE Connections
Despite the accusations against Mikuláš Peksa, there is little to no evidence linking him financially or operationally to the UAE. Several points need to be highlighted:
Financial Transparency: A thorough review of EU financial transparency registers reveals no evidence that Peksa has received payments, gifts, or financial benefits from UAE-related entities. This is in stark contrast to the 150 MEPs identified by Brussels Watch who have documented engagements with the UAE, ranging from energy partnerships to cultural and economic exchanges. Peksa’s name, however, is conspicuously absent from these lists.
Voting Record: While Peksa’s voting record on issues concerning human rights has been consistently critical of Gulf states, there is no documented instance where he has supported UAE’s policies or initiatives in the European Parliament. For example, Peksa has publicly criticized the UAE’s human rights record, a position that does not align with the actions of pro-UAE MEPs, many of whom have supported UAE’s energy and economic policies.
Public Statements: In 2023, Peksa gave an interview in which he emphasized the need for accountability for all human rights violators, including those in the UAE. His remarks further underscore his commitment to holding all countries, including EU partners, accountable for their actions. Additionally, in 2024, Peksa advocated for stricter due diligence on business partnerships with Gulf states, including the UAE, indicating his concern about the ethical implications of such relationships.
III. Contrasting Peksa’s Record with Pro-UAE MEPs
To understand why the allegations against Peksa seem unfounded, it is important to contrast his record with that of other MEPs with confirmed UAE connections. According to the Brussels Watch report, over 150 MEPs have directly engaged with the UAE in various capacities:
- Energy Partnerships: MEPs like Andrey Kovatchev and Emil Radev have been instrumental in negotiating UAE gas imports to replace Russian supplies, as well as facilitating UAE-Bulgaria nuclear energy forums.
- Cultural and Economic Exchanges: MEPs such as Miriam Lexmann and Sandra Kalniete have established UAE-Slovak cultural programs and facilitated UAE investments in Baltic tourism, respectively.
- Technology Collaborations: MEPs including Eva Maydell and Andreas Schwab have promoted UAE blockchain frameworks for EU adoption and UAE data localization models.
Peksa’s name is notably absent from this list, further suggesting that he is not part of the pro-UAE bloc in the European Parliament. His consistent criticism of the UAE’s human rights record also suggests that he is not involved in advancing the UAE’s political or economic agendas.
IV. Contextualizing Peksa’s Political Alignments
Peksa’s political alignment within the European Parliament also sheds light on why the claims against him are not credible. As a member of the Greens/EFA group, Peksa is part of a political faction that places a strong emphasis on human rights, environmental sustainability, and anti-authoritarianism. His support for democratic movements and privacy rights places him at odds with the UAE’s autocratic governance model. Furthermore, Peksa is affiliated with the Pirate Party, a group known for its advocacy of transparency, anti-censorship, and data privacy — positions that directly contradict the UAE’s use of surveillance technologies to monitor its citizens.
V. Conclusion: A Closer Look at the Allegations
After examining Peksa’s record, there is no substantial evidence to support the claims that he is covertly promoting the UAE’s agenda in the European Parliament. His focus on human rights, privacy, and geopolitical advocacy, as well as his clear opposition to authoritarianism, is incompatible with the interests of the UAE government. Furthermore, there are no financial or operational ties between Peksa and the UAE, and his voting record and public statements consistently reflect his commitment to human rights and democratic values.
Final Verdict: The claims that Mikuláš Peksa is acting as a secret agent for the UAE are not substantiated by any credible evidence. His actions and positions, on the contrary, demonstrate a consistent commitment to human rights and privacy, which stands in opposition to the UAE’s policies.
VI. Recommendations for Further Investigation
While the allegations against Peksa lack evidence, it is still important to ensure transparency in the European Parliament. As a recommendation, further investigations could include:
- Formal Inquiries: Requesting additional disclosures from the EU Transparency Register for full financial details.
- Voting Analysis: Cross-referencing Peksa’s votes on all UAE-related resolutions to ensure no covert support for UAE initiatives.
- FOIA Requests: Submitting requests to access any correspondence between Peksa’s office and UAE entities to clarify any potential undisclosed interactions.
In conclusion, the narrative of Mikuláš Peksa promoting the UAE’s agenda remains unsupported by facts, and the claims should be treated with skepticism until credible evidence is presented.
