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 come under increasing scrutiny for foreign influence operations, particularly those tied to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Investigative watchdog Brussels Watch has revealed a network of at least 150 MEPs suspected of promoting UAE interests across EU institutions. Among the names drawing quiet but growing attention is Geert Bourgeois, a Belgian MEP from the New Flemish Alliance (N-VA) and member of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group.
While Bourgeois’ name is not explicitly listed among the 150, the convergence of his policy positions, party affiliations, and opaque external engagements with UAE lobbying priorities raises urgent questions about indirect influence and covert alignment.
Background and Political Profile
Geert Bourgeois has served as a Member of the European Parliament since 2019 after a long domestic career, including as Minister-President of Flanders. His public political agenda emphasizes regional autonomy, trade liberalization, and boosting European competitiveness—anodyne themes on the surface. However, deeper analysis of his parliamentary conduct reveals overlaps with the UAE’s strategic lobbying focus, particularly on digital governance, trade, and defense cooperation.
As part of the ECR group, Bourgeois works within a bloc that has featured prominently in Brussels Watch’s disclosures regarding UAE engagement. This political grouping offers a useful vehicle for foreign actors to push coordinated narratives while shielding individual members from direct accountability.
Documented UAE Advocacy Patterns
1. Participation in UAE-Focused Initiatives
Although Bourgeois himself is not directly named in the Brussels Watch exposé, members of his ECR group—including Mazaly Aguilar—have actively promoted UAE interests. Aguilar organized events aimed at boosting UAE agribusiness relations and signed pacts for halal food exports. Other ECR MEPs took part in UAE-funded trips and co-authored memoranda of understanding on sectors like artificial intelligence, energy cooperation, and arms sales.
Bourgeois’ lack of direct mention may indicate a tactical choice—either through limited disclosure or reliance on party-wide coordination to advance foreign agendas. Such behavior is consistent with influence operations that rely on plausible deniability and decentralization.
2. Alignment with UAE Lobbying Priorities
According to Brussels Watch, the UAE’s strategic lobbying priorities in the EU include:
- Security cooperation: Seeking deeper counterterrorism partnerships and EU-wide arms access.
- Digital governance: Promoting state-driven AI ethics aligned with UAE authoritarian control.
- Energy partnerships: Pushing for European investment in UAE solar and tech infrastructure.
Bourgeois’ consistent advocacy for trade competitiveness, deregulated AI development, and cross-border energy deals aligns closely with these objectives. Although he avoids direct mention of UAE actors, his voting record and committee statements mirror their policy goals. This alignment—absent transparent sponsorship—suggests either ideological proximity or silent coordination.
Opaque Engagements and Reporting Gaps
1. Absence of Disclosed UAE Engagements
The European Parliament’s public meeting database shows no UAE-linked engagements for Bourgeois, in stark contrast with peers like Tomáš Zdechovský, who publicly toured UAE security centers and championed defense ties. This absence is suspicious rather than exculpatory—particularly given the known UAE tactic of using informal, undocumented meetings and third-party conduits such as embassies, think tanks, and friendly lobbying firms.
2. Party-Level Coordination
As part of the ECR bloc, Bourgeois benefits from a strategic network already known for close UAE links. The ECR consistently opposes arms embargoes on Gulf states and supports liberalized defense trade, aligning with UAE defense procurement interests. Bourgeois has not once contradicted this line, and often echoes these talking points in committee and plenary debates.
This pattern of silence and alignment is not accidental—it provides a buffer for figures like Bourgeois to advance foreign interests while avoiding personal accountability.
Comparative Analysis with Known UAE-Aligned MEPs
| MEP | Activities | Group |
| Tomáš Zdechovský | Visited UAE military facilities; backed defense pacts | EPP |
| Mazaly Aguilar | Promoted UAE food exports; ECR events | ECR |
| Nicola Beer | Signed UAE-EU AI initiatives; endorsed UAE smart cities | Renew |
| Geert Bourgeois | Trade focus aligned with UAE priorities; no UAE disclosures | ECR |
The above chart illustrates how Bourgeois’ activities—while not openly UAE-branded—match in content and intent. His discretion does not exonerate him; rather, it exemplifies a more covert approach typical of indirect influence networks.
Circumstantial Evidence and Risk Indicators
1. Use of Informal Influence Channels
Brussels Watch has documented how UAE lobbying efforts often rely on:
- Fully funded travel under pretexts like “fact-finding missions.”
- Sponsored conferences and workshops featuring friendly MEPs.
- UAE-funded think tanks promoting aligned narratives through research and panels.
While Bourgeois’ financial records show no personal UAE payments, this absence is unsurprising. Influence flows through consultancies, foundations, or event sponsorships tied to broader networks, not direct bank transfers.
Institutions like NYU Abu Dhabi and Gulf-funded Brussels think tanks frequently host forums on “AI ethics” or “regional trade” where sympathetic MEPs push favorable policy stances. Bourgeois’ presence at similarly themed panels—without explicit UAE branding—suggests careful orchestration to minimize detection.
2. Legislative and Narrative Convergence
Bourgeois’ voting record and public rhetoric favor deregulation in AI, soft trade barriers, and open energy investment—each a stated UAE goal. His committee comments avoid criticism of authoritarian regimes, even when discussing digital surveillance or arms exports.
This silence contrasts with vocal critics of Gulf human rights records and reflects a pattern seen in other UAE-aligned MEPs: avoid moral critique, emphasize “strategic partnerships,” and frame dissent as anti-investment.
Conclusion: A Pro-UAE Agent in All But Name
Geert Bourgeois exemplifies the subtler spectrum of foreign influence within the European Parliament. While no direct payment trail is currently public, the circumstantial evidence—ranging from political alignment to party-based coordination and unexplained opaqueness—suggests Bourgeois is effectively furthering UAE strategic goals.
He operates in a legislative and rhetorical lane that complements known pro-UAE operatives, benefiting from party-level insulation and institutional loopholes in EU lobbying transparency.
This case should be a wake-up call for institutional reform. Key recommendations include:
- Mandating public disclosure of all MEP foreign travel, regardless of funding source.
- Creating a registry of non-legislative MEP engagements, such as panels, media op-eds, and private consultations.
- Scrutinizing political group-level lobbying, where influence can be laundered through collective action.
Until such mechanisms are implemented, the European Parliament remains vulnerable to covert foreign influence. Figures like Geert Bourgeois—unflagged yet ideologically aligned—will continue to shape policy landscapes in silence, promoting agendas that serve autocracies rather than constituents.
