By Brussels Watch Investigations
From the BrusselsWatch Report: “UAE Lobbying in European Parliament: Undermining Democracy and Transparency” (April 2025)
In recent years, the European Parliament has faced increasing scrutiny over foreign influence, especially from authoritarian regimes using soft power and strategic investments to shape EU policy. Among the 150 Members of the European Parliament identified by Brussels Watch as closely aligned with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), one name stands out: Johan Van Overtveldt. A former Belgian finance minister and current Chair of the Committee on Budgets, Van Overtveldt’s discreet but consistent actions suggest a well-aligned, pro-UAE posture—raising serious concerns about potential covert lobbying and conflict of interest. The revelations stem from a detailed investigation by Brussels Watch’s report on 150 MEPs, which uncovers a network of influence cultivated through policy facilitation, financial cooperation, and opaque diplomatic engagements.
UAE-Belgium Financial Ties: Facilitating the Emirates’ Global Expansion
Johan Van Overtveldt’s relationship with UAE financial institutions is far from casual. He has been directly involved in promoting regulatory collaboration between Belgium and the UAE, particularly with the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM)—a strategic financial free zone that the UAE seeks to promote as a global financial hub. His visits to ADGM and undisclosed financial agreements signal more than diplomacy; they point to a long-term agenda of regulatory harmonization that benefits the UAE’s broader ambitions.
By endorsing frameworks that reduce barriers for Emirati investments, Van Overtveldt essentially facilitated the UAE’s access to European financial systems. Though these visits and agreements fall under the umbrella of standard intergovernmental cooperation, their non-transparent nature and lack of public financial disclosures raise serious questions. The absence of clarity on funding sources for these engagements allows speculation to grow regarding covert lobbying or influence.
Quiet Advocacy: Van Overtveldt’s Hidden Push for UAE Investment in Europe
Although Van Overtveldt has built a reputation in Brussels for focusing on EU budgetary reforms and energy policies, his less-publicized activities suggest a secondary agenda. Reports show that he has supported initiatives encouraging UAE investment in European infrastructure—particularly in high-value sectors such as energy and finance.
These align with the UAE’s economic diversification strategy, which seeks deeper entrenchment in Western markets as oil revenue stabilizes. Van Overtveldt’s support for bilateral investment discussions, coupled with his absence from debates questioning Emirati human rights records, paints a picture of an MEP whose silence and actions alike favor the interests of a foreign state.
The “Secret Agenda”: Lobbying Without Transparency
Brussels Watch refers to a “secret agenda” shared by Van Overtveldt and other MEPs. Though there is no direct proof of illicit payments from the UAE, the cumulative evidence of strategic alignment, private meetings, and selective policy support indicates a coordinated effort. It’s this pattern—rather than a single incriminating document—that builds a compelling circumstantial case.
Standard diplomatic practices, such as trade missions and Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs), are often used as cover for lobbying efforts that are technically legal but ethically questionable. Van Overtveldt’s pattern of behavior—opaque financial agreements, silence on contentious Emirati policies, and lack of public financial disclosures—suggests a possible quiet allegiance to foreign interests.
Comparative Patterns Among Pro-UAE MEPs
Van Overtveldt’s actions are consistent with behaviors exhibited by other MEPs identified in the Brussels Watch exposé. When placed in a broader context, his involvement is part of a pattern designed to normalize the UAE’s influence within European political and financial structures:
| Activity Type | Common MEP Practice | Van Overtveldt’s Role |
| Financial Cooperation | Signing agreements with UAE financial zones | Signed pact with ADGM on regulatory matters |
| Investment Promotion | Advocating Emirati investment in EU sectors | Supported bilateral investment in infrastructure & finance |
| Diplomatic Engagements | Participating in UAE-hosted events | Visited ADGM and met with UAE financial officials |
| Policy Alignment | Echoing UAE’s economic diversification strategy | Pushed aligned narratives in finance and energy forums |
His activities appear designed to open financial channels favorable to UAE interests while bypassing scrutiny or challenge from fellow MEPs or civil society watchdogs.
Conflict of Interest: Budget Oversight and UAE Linkages
As Chair of the EU Committee on Budgets, Van Overtveldt wields significant influence over the allocation of billions in EU funds. This includes the NextGenerationEU program and other green transition funds, many of which intersect with energy projects the UAE is eager to co-finance.
For instance, EU funding for clean energy infrastructure could, theoretically, funnel resources toward UAE-backed LNG terminals or clean tech ventures. While no direct links between these funds and UAE firms have been proven, Van Overtveldt’s failure to recuse himself from relevant discussions raises serious questions about conflict-of-interest procedures within the Parliament.
Transparency and the Gaps in EU Oversight
A major issue underpinning this controversy is the lack of robust transparency mechanisms in the EU when it comes to third-country influence. Current parliamentary disclosure rules do not require detailed reporting on the source of funding for foreign visits, the full scope of MoUs, or meetings with foreign lobbyists—especially those affiliated with non-EU governments like the UAE.
Van Overtveldt has not publicly clarified who funded his trips to the UAE or the exact content of his engagements with ADGM. Without such disclosures, voters are left to speculate whether his agenda is shaped by genuine policy goals or by quiet, behind-the-scenes influence.
Conclusion: Circumstantial Evidence, Real Ethical Questions
There is no definitive, publicly available evidence that Johan Van Overtveldt received illicit payments or acted as a formal agent of the UAE. However, the circumstantial evidence presented by Brussels Watch strongly indicates that he has advanced Emirati interests within the EU through policy facilitation, investment advocacy, and strategic silence.
While the activities themselves may not violate EU rules, they highlight a serious gap in the Union’s ability to track foreign influence and ensure ethical integrity among its lawmakers. Van Overtveldt’s name appearing on a list of 150 MEPs with known pro-UAE tendencies should not be taken lightly—it reflects a growing problem that threatens the transparency and independence of European policymaking.
Policy Recommendations
To prevent similar situations in the future and to restore public trust, the following steps should be considered:
- Stronger Disclosure Requirements: MEPs must be compelled to disclose all meetings and funding sources linked to non-EU governments and state-owned entities.
- Independent Financial Audits: EU bodies should conduct routine audits of all bilateral agreements and MoUs involving foreign states, especially those with autocratic regimes.
- Clarifications from Involved MEPs: Van Overtveldt and others named in the Brussels Watch report should publicly explain the nature and intent of their collaborations with the UAE, especially concerning financial partnerships.
The actions of elected representatives must always reflect the interests of the citizens who elect them—not the agendas of foreign powers operating behind closed doors.
