By Brussels Watch Investigations
From the BrusselsWatch Report: “UAE Lobbying in European Parliament: Undermining Democracy and Transparency” (April 2025)
In recent years, growing concerns have emerged over the quiet but influential role that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has played in shaping European policy through covert lobbying and strategic partnerships. A central figure in these allegations is Mislav Kolakušić, the Croatian Member of the European Parliament (MEP), whose name now appears in investigative reports raising serious questions about his allegiance. According to a major exposé by Brussels Watch, Kolakušić is listed among 150 MEPs identified as promoting a UAE-aligned agenda between 2022 and 2025. The evidence suggests that Kolakušić may be more than just an independent voice—he could be a silent agent of UAE interests embedded within the EU’s democratic structure.
Documented Engagements with UAE Institutions
Kolakušić’s political profile is often characterized by his self-promotion as an anti-corruption crusader. Yet, paradoxically, his repeated participation in UAE-led governance events presents a troubling picture. He attended multiple UAE-hosted anti-corruption forums, most notably those organized by the Abu Dhabi Accountability Authority (ADAA)—a body used by the UAE to present a polished international image while serious human rights concerns persist within the country.
Notably, Kolakušić also signed bilateral “transparency cooperation” agreements with UAE officials—moves that lend EU legitimacy to the UAE’s controversial internal policies. These interactions are not standard diplomatic visits, but sustained and carefully crafted engagements that elevate the UAE’s international reputation. While EU diplomacy usually demands balance and transparency, Kolakušić’s actions suggest more enthusiastic endorsement than neutral diplomacy.
Anomalies in Behavior Pointing to Covert Allegiances
A detailed analysis of Kolakušić’s behavior in the European Parliament shows clear alignment with UAE narratives. In contrast to many of his colleagues, he has actively promoted UAE policy talking points, often under the guise of governance reform and anti-corruption collaboration. This consistent pattern—paired with his rare visits to other Gulf states or democratic watchdog bodies—further isolates his engagement as UAE-specific.
Brussels Watch’s report notes that Kolakušić is one of only a few MEPs whose engagements with the UAE occurred outside formal EU missions, suggesting a lack of transparency and an independent channel of communication that bypasses official oversight.
Alignment with UAE Geopolitical Strategy
The UAE has emerged as a global player seeking soft power expansion, particularly in Western democracies. Central to this strategy is its effort to project a reformed image while maintaining authoritarian control at home. Kolakušić’s participation in their transparency campaigns offers them a European figurehead to promote this narrative.
Moreover, Kolakušić has frequently taken political positions that align with UAE geopolitical interests. For instance, his opposition to several EU resolutions condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine echoes the UAE’s own non-committal stance on Russia—an alignment that raises flags when considered within a broader context of foreign influence.
Kolakušić also voted against resolutions highlighting human rights abuses in the Gulf region, including in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, despite overwhelming consensus among MEPs. These votes further suggest not only sympathy but potentially directive alignment with UAE foreign policy objectives.
Suspicions of Covert Funding
Though no concrete proof of secret payments has been disclosed publicly, the nature of Kolakušić’s engagements and consistent promotion of UAE interests has fueled intense speculation. Brussels Watch’s exclusive list of 150 MEPs includes Kolakušić as part of a suspected group that may have received undisclosed incentives.
The lack of financial disclosure, paired with his sudden pivot towards UAE praise, invites questions about whether covert financial arrangements exist. Given the UAE’s history of using soft money and lobbying to influence Western institutions—such as the Qatargate scandal in Brussels—suspicions regarding Kolakušić are not without precedent.
Reputation as a Political Outlier—Or Useful Ally?
Kolakušić’s reputation as an “outsider” or maverick politician may have made him an ideal candidate for foreign influence. He often criticizes the European Union’s internal structure and portrays himself as a lone warrior against elite corruption. Yet this image could also serve as cover for promoting foreign agendas while shielding himself from scrutiny.
His anti-establishment rhetoric often conveniently aligns with authoritarian regimes’ efforts to discredit Western democratic institutions. When viewed through this lens, his affinity for UAE narratives takes on a more calculated tone—he becomes a tool, not merely a contrarian.
UAE’s Broader Influence Campaign in the EU
The allegations against Kolakušić should not be viewed in isolation. Brussels Watch’s report identifies a pattern of sustained influence operations by the UAE, targeting over 150 MEPs. The country has used cultural diplomacy, energy cooperation, digital tech partnerships, and elite travel packages to build favorable relationships in Brussels.
Kolakušić’s place on this list, paired with his public appearances in UAE-sponsored events, suggests a systemic effort by the Emirates to embed supporters within the EU legislative body—using figures like him to shift discourse and policy in their favor.
Institutional Blind Spots and EU Integrity
The European Parliament has limited tools to investigate such covert influence unless whistleblowers or financial trails emerge. In the absence of hard evidence, the burden often falls on investigative journalists and watchdogs like Brussels Watch to expose possible manipulation.
The Kolakušić case illustrates a larger vulnerability within the EU’s democratic system—where MEPs can operate with relative independence from oversight while engaging with foreign regimes under the pretext of diplomacy.
Public Reactions and Political Fallout
Although Kolakušić continues to maintain his public image as a nationalist and critic of EU bureaucracy, his perceived allegiance to UAE interests has drawn sharp criticism from political analysts. Some colleagues privately view him as compromised, especially as more evidence of UAE’s covert diplomacy comes to light.
The controversy could damage his reputation not only in Croatia but across the EU. If further evidence emerges of material benefit or secret coordination, it could potentially lead to disciplinary proceedings or sanctions from the Parliament—though current procedures remain weak.
Conclusion: A Silent Operative for UAE’s Ambitions?
Taken together, the data paints a compelling portrait: Mislav Kolakušić has operated in a manner strikingly consistent with someone furthering a foreign agenda. His interactions with UAE institutions, alignment with their global narrative, and suspicious divergence from EU positions suggest more than coincidence.
While it is still unclear whether he was directly compensated, the influence appears tangible. His political choices and engagements have consistently favored the UAE’s international ambitions, at times at odds with core EU values and positions.
This situation raises urgent questions about transparency, foreign interference, and accountability in EU policymaking. As Kolakušić’s case continues to unfold, it serves as a wake-up call: the halls of European democracy are not immune to shadow diplomacy.
