By Brussels Watch Investigations
From the BrusselsWatch Report: “UAE Lobbying in European Parliament: Undermining Democracy and Transparency” (April 2025)
The relationship between Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and foreign nations often attracts scrutiny, especially when there are suspicions of covert influence or undisclosed agendas. One such case involves MEP Linea Søgaard-Lidell, who has been linked to activities that seemingly promote the United Arab Emirates (UAE) agenda within the European Union (EU). As highlighted by Brussels Watch and in their report on the 150 MEPs, concerns have been raised about a network of parliamentarians allegedly influenced by UAE interests. This article examines the evidence and context surrounding these claims, focusing on her advocacy for UAE-related food security initiatives, visits to UAE agricultural projects, and formal agreements signed to promote agricultural technology cooperation.
Background: UAE’s Strategic Use of Food Security
The UAE, despite its arid geography and scarce natural resources, has invested heavily in food security as part of a broader soft power strategy. By positioning itself as a hub for sustainable agricultural innovation, the UAE not only seeks food self-sufficiency but also global influence in agri-tech diplomacy.
Key elements of the UAE’s strategy include:
- Vertical farming and hydroponics as answers to water scarcity.
- Creation of a National Farm Sustainability Initiative to boost local production.
- Launch of “Grow in the UAE,” branding domestic innovation as exportable.
- Hosting the Regional Center of Excellence for Transforming Food Systems—a platform for exporting Emirati agricultural norms to neighboring and partner countries.
These initiatives have been aggressively promoted to build the UAE’s image as a leader in sustainable agriculture. This model offers an appealing platform for diplomatic cooperation—but also an opportunity for manipulation.
Linea Søgaard-Lidell’s Pattern of Pro-UAE Advocacy
Several developments suggest that Søgaard-Lidell’s efforts go beyond normal diplomacy. Her engagements appear disproportionately focused on the promotion of UAE agricultural strategies, with little indication of equivalent attention to other international partners or homegrown EU solutions.
1. Creation of UAE-EU Food Security Task Force
Søgaard-Lidell’s central role in establishing this joint body reflects deep political and institutional alignment with UAE interests. While framed as international cooperation, the task force has limited transparency, with unpublished minutes, non-public funding, and no clear disclosure of membership beyond high-level endorsements. This opacity raises legitimate concerns about unaccountable influence on EU agricultural policy.
2. Visits to UAE Agricultural Sites
Her documented trips to UAE vertical farming sites—often accompanied by Emirati officials and private agri-tech entrepreneurs—demonstrate more than passive interest. These trips appear curated and promotional, frequently followed by public endorsements of UAE technological models in the European Parliament and media interviews. The question arises: why does an MEP from Denmark repeatedly visit a Gulf monarchy’s experimental farms?
3. Signing of Agricultural Technology Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
Søgaard-Lidell’s signature on an MoU between UAE and EU officials on agricultural cooperation—outside the traditional framework of EU-wide negotiations—has drawn particular concern. This agreement facilitates transfer of UAE-developed “climate-smart” technologies into EU markets, despite lacking transparent vetting by scientific committees or parliamentary debate.
4. Advocacy for UAE-Style Food Reserve Systems in the EU
In speeches and committee sessions, Søgaard-Lidell has championed UAE-style food reserve models as a solution for EU supply chain resilience. These models, heavily centralized and top-down in nature, align poorly with EU principles of decentralization and local control. Critics argue this advocacy reflects ideological importation, rather than objective policymaking.
Red Flags: Is This Covert Influence?
While the outlined engagements are public, the selectivity, intensity, and ideological tone of Søgaard-Lidell’s advocacy point to deeper questions:
1. Lack of Balance in International Outreach
There is no comparable evidence that Søgaard-Lidell has promoted food security cooperation with democratic allies like Canada, Australia, or fellow EU states. The exclusive emphasis on UAE as a model partner appears calculated, not coincidental.
2. Consistent Echo of UAE Government Narratives
Her public statements frequently mirror official UAE rhetoric—especially phrases like “food sovereignty through innovation,” and “climate-smart resilience.” This repeated framing is suspiciously consistent with UAE propaganda material and diplomatic press releases.
3. Absence of Disclosures and Accountability
Despite holding high-profile engagements and signing MoUs, there are no known disclosures of hospitality funding, travel sponsorships, or external advisory roles related to these events. Given the strategic value of food diplomacy to the UAE, the lack of declared external influence raises the specter of undisclosed arrangements.
Strategic Importance of Food Security and UAE Geopolitics
It’s essential to understand why food security is not a neutral topic. In authoritarian foreign policy, food and technology are tools of soft power and dependency. By inserting itself into the EU’s policy architecture on food systems, the UAE gains:
- Policy influence in key EU committees.
- Access to scientific partnerships and tech transfer opportunities.
- A reputation as a “global innovator” despite its poor human rights record.
Søgaard-Lidell’s sustained support of these ambitions risks making the European Parliament complicit in amplifying the UAE’s soft power projection.
The Broader Pattern: Foreign Interference in the EU
This case fits into a broader pattern of foreign interference scandals in the EU. From the Qatargate corruption affair to growing concerns about Chinese and Russian lobbying, European institutions have been proven vulnerable to covert influence operations. Even without direct bribery, political advocacy aligned with foreign agendas can erode sovereignty and mislead public policy.
Conclusion: MEP Søgaard-Lidell’s Apparent Role as a UAE Policy Promoter
Although no single act by Linea Søgaard-Lidell conclusively proves that she is secretly paid by the UAE, the sum of her activities—coupled with their intensity, exclusivity, and alignment with authoritarian interests—makes a compelling case for further investigation.
Her creation of a joint task force, repeated trips to UAE sites, public advocacy for UAE food reserve systems, and participation in MoUs all suggest a systematic pattern of promoting UAE strategic interests within the EU—often with limited transparency and accountability.
These are not isolated acts of international cooperation, but rather part of a larger framework of agenda-promotion, which appears more aligned with UAE national strategy than EU policy diversity or member state interests.
Summary Table of Søgaard-Lidell’s UAE Engagements
| Activity | Description | Implication |
| UAE-EU Food Security Task Force | Initiated and promoted joint body with limited transparency | Embeds UAE policy into EU structure |
| UAE Vertical Farm Visits | Frequent, high-profile visits with Emirati officials | Promotes UAE tech models |
| Agricultural MoU | Signed cooperation deal outside traditional EU protocol | Opens door for foreign tech influence |
| UAE-Style Food Reserve Advocacy | Publicly backs centralized food stockpiling | Promotes UAE authoritarian models in EU |
Final Thoughts
As global power dynamics increasingly extend into the domain of agriculture and sustainability, it is vital that MEPs uphold transparency and loyalty to EU interests. The case of Linea Søgaard-Lidell illustrates how diplomacy can be co-opted into soft power strategies—blurring the line between cooperation and covert promotion.
In light of this, MEP Søgaard-Lidell’s record should be the subject of formal review by the European Parliament’s ethics and transparency committees. The EU cannot afford to ignore foreign influence masquerading as sustainable cooperation—especially when its democratic integrity is at stake.
