European initiatives like the EU–Arab summits (e.g., the 2019 Sharm El-Sheikh summit) represent a complex mix of both equal partnership rhetoric and veiled power plays—primarily the latter, masked by the language of multilateralism.

While these summits are formally structured as inter-regional dialogues between the European Union and the League of Arab States (LAS), the underlying power dynamics are unequal, driven by the EU's urgent, often transactional security interests and the Arab League's internal fragmentation and limited institutional power.

I. The "Veiled Power Play" Thesis

The summits function primarily as a vehicle for the EU to exercise leveraged influence on issues of immediate European security, often forcing the Arab partners to accept an agenda defined by European anxieties.

1. The Migration & Security Imperatives (The Core European Agenda)

The most prominent "veiled power play" is the EU's use of these forums to externalize its border control and security concerns onto its Arab neighbors.

• Border Management and Containment: The European side’s most tangible interest is securing cooperation to stem migration flows, fight organized crime, and counter-terrorism. This translates into a transactional relationship where the EU offers financial aid, technical assistance, and political legitimacy in exchange for the Arab states acting as a "buffer zone." This is perceived by Arab critics as "convenience over trust," where the relationship is sustained by the EU's fear of instability rather than a shared vision for prosperity.

• The Power of Funding: The EU's status as the world's largest development and humanitarian aid donor gives it significant leverage. Arab states, particularly those facing economic crises, rely on this funding. The money is often condition-based, subtly steering the domestic policies and security operations of recipient states toward European priorities, effectively paying for the containment of instability.

2. Normative Power vs. Realpolitik

The EU often uses its status as a "normative power" to cloak its realpolitik goals, creating an inherent imbalance.

• Selective Norms: The EU champions universal norms like democracy, human rights, and good governance, but its leaders frequently choose to downplay or ignore serious human rights abuses when engaging with strategically important, often authoritarian, Arab regimes (e.g., Egypt, Saudi Arabia). The partnership is therefore transactional and selective in its application of values.

• Controlling the Narrative: By hosting or co-hosting a high-level summit, the EU frames the relationship as a grand strategic partnership. This symbolism is critical for European elites seeking to demonstrate their global relevance in a region where the U.S. influence is waning, and where China and Russia are making inroads. It is a power play to secure Europe's seat at the regional table.

3. The Institutional Asymmetry of Power

The League of Arab States (LAS) is fundamentally weaker, institutionally and politically, than the European Union (EU), which ensures the terms of engagement are skewed.

• Arab Fragmentation: The LAS is a notoriously fragmented organization with deep internal rifts (Sunni-Shia, Gulf-Levant, etc.). It struggles to produce a cohesive, unified foreign policy position on core issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or regional crises in Libya and Syria.

• EU's Collective Weight: In contrast, despite its internal differences, the EU comes to the table with the collective economic and institutional weight of 27 nations, speaking (theoretically) with one voice via the European Commission and the European External Action Service. This institutional disparity means the EU sets the agenda, and the Arab side often finds itself reacting or simply seeking bilateral deals with powerful EU member states (like France or Germany) instead of relying on the LAS framework.

II. The Argument for "Equal Partnership" (Rhetoric and Emerging Reality)

Despite the underlying power dynamics, there are genuine, reciprocal interests that lend credence to the "equal partnership" narrative, or at least a path toward greater parity.

1. Mutual Necessity for Regional Stability

The relationship is a co-dependency in which the Arab states also hold vital cards.

• The Energy Card: Arab states, particularly the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, are essential to European energy security (oil and gas). This leverage became more pronounced following the Russia-Ukraine war, forcing Europe to prioritize Gulf stability and market access.

• Geographical Proximity: For the EU, instability in North Africa or the Levant has immediate and direct consequences (refugees, terrorism). This forces Europe to respect Arab interests in maintaining regional equilibrium, even if it means cooperating with regimes it might otherwise critique. The Arab states know Europe cannot afford a breakdown in relations.

2. Reciprocal Economic & Developmental Interests

The partnership extends beyond mere security to include significant mutual gains.

• Trade and Investment: The EU is a vital trading partner for Arab countries, a key market for their goods, and a major source of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Simultaneously, Gulf Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) are increasingly making large-scale, strategic investments in European infrastructure, technology, and industry, creating a reciprocal economic leverage.

• Technological and Climate Cooperation: Arab states actively seek European expertise and technology for their ambitious economic diversification and green transition plans (Vision 2030, etc.). The EU’s Global Gateway initiative is designed to offer a clean, democratic alternative to China's Belt and Road, which appeals to Arab states looking to diversify their external strategic reliance and avoid over-dependence on any single power.

3. The Arab Quest for Legitimacy and Autonomy

For the Arab side, the summit is a strategic win, offering a degree of international recognition and leverage.

• Restoring Arab Voice: The summit gives the LAS a platform to collectively address the world's largest political and economic bloc on issues of core Arab concern, most notably the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It allows them to bypass traditional U.S. dominance and assert a more autonomous regional voice.

• Legitimization of Regimes: For some participating Arab leaders, a high-level summit with the democratic EU offers a powerful legitimizing effect for their regimes on the international stage, bolstering their image both domestically and regionally. This desired political recognition is one of the most valuable, non-monetary "commodities" the EU trades.

Conclusion

The EU–Arab summits are a theatrical stage for a practical relationship that is asymmetrical but essential. They are best described as a "transactional partnership" where the power dynamic is currently in Europe’s favor due to its economic weight and the Arab League's institutional weakness.

The summits serve the European side's veiled power play to achieve short-term security goals (migration control, counter-terrorism). However, they also formalize a genuine, long-term co-dependency driven by shared regional threats, reciprocal economic interests, and the Arab desire for strategic diversification, which slowly pushes the relationship toward greater parity. The rhetoric of "equal partnership" is the diplomatic lubricant necessary to secure the transactional outcomes the EU requires.