Grassroots movements and civil society organizations in the Arab world overwhelmingly perceive Europe as an opportunist and, in many critical areas, a neo-colonial force, rather than a genuine partner.

While activists initially held hope for a principled European partnership following the 2011 Arab Uprisings, this optimism quickly gave way to disillusionment. Their primary criticism is that European policy consistently prioritizes short-term security and migration control over its loudly proclaimed values of democracy and human rights.

The Perception of Europe as an Opportunist

The view of Europe as an opportunist stems from a perceived hypocrisy and inconsistency in European foreign policy, where security interests always trump normative commitments.

The Great Betrayal: Post-2011 Uprisings

For pro-democracy and human rights activists, the period following the 2011 Arab Uprisings was the definitive moment of European failure.

• Prioritizing Stability over Democracy: After an initial phase of tentative support for the "Arab Spring" movements, Europe quickly pivoted back to supporting entrenched authoritarian regimes—a move activist groups often label the return to the "Mubarak model" of engagement. European leaders effectively demonstrated that they prefer short-term, managed stability (even if repressive) in the MENA region to the unpredictable process of democratic transition.

• The Silence on Repression: As military and political establishments in countries like Egypt, Bahrain, and Sudan systematically crushed protest movements and jailed thousands of activists, European governments were largely passive or silent. Activists noted a stark difference between Europe's rhetoric on human rights and its practical willingness to leverage its significant trade and aid relationships to demand democratic progress.

• Conditionalities that Go Unenforced: European policy formally includes "political conditionalities," offering deeper engagement in exchange for democratic reforms. From the perspective of grassroots groups, these incentives are often seen as too meager to compel change, and European powers rarely follow through on threats of sanction or withdrawal when regimes fail to reform. This inconsistency reinforces the perception that the value-based policy is merely a cynical façade.

Migration and Security: The Defining Transaction

The most severe criticism of European opportunism revolves around migration and border control. This issue is seen as a clear case of European self-interest leading to the abandonment of its own values.

• Externalizing the Border: Grassroots movements widely condemn the EU's strategy of externalizing its borders by striking deals with North African and Middle Eastern governments (e.g., in Libya and Tunisia). These deals provide substantial financial and technical support to partner governments in exchange for stopping irregular migration towards Europe.

• Complicity in Abuse: Arab civil society groups point out that these deals effectively make Europe complicit in human rights abuses. By financing and cooperating with security services and even non-state actors (like militias in Libya) that are known to abuse migrants, Europe is seen as outsourcing its dirty work to protect its own domestic stability. The European focus on migration is perceived as a cold, transactional policy that treats the human suffering of migrants as a solvable security problem for Europe, rather than a shared humanitarian issue.

The Perception of Europe as a Neo-Colonial Force

Beyond mere opportunism, certain aspects of European engagement evoke the deeper historical resentment associated with neo-colonialism.

The Economic Policies and Social Justice Gap

The Arab Uprisings were largely driven by demands for social justice and an end to corruption, not just procedural democracy. In the eyes of many activists, Europe's economic prescriptions do not address these root causes:

• Liberal Development Blind Spot: The EU is criticized for continuing to promote a model of liberal development and trade agreements that do not fundamentally challenge the economic structures of crony capitalism and elite enrichment that fueled the protests. In many cases, European trade policies are viewed as favoring European commercial interests and perpetuating economic dependency rather than fostering truly inclusive development for Arab populations.

• Ignoring Economic Grievances: Surveys show that Arab citizens are often less concerned with formal democracy and more focused on corruption, the rule of law, and social justice. By continuing to push a narrow, Western-defined model of democracy promotion while neglecting the deep-seated economic grievances, Europe is perceived as missing the point—or, worse, deliberately avoiding changes that would disrupt the established elite that Europe prefers to deal with.

The Arrogance of "Democracy Promotion"

The concept of "democracy promotion," central to European external action, is often viewed with suspicion by independent Arab civil society, echoing colonial-era civilizing missions:

• Imposed Solutions: Activists argue that the European approach is often top-down, prescriptive, and culturally insensitive. It presumes that Europe has the exclusive model for governance and development, rather than genuinely partnering with local movements to find context-specific, organic solutions.

• Controlling the Narrative: Funding from Western governments and NGOs, while vital for survival, comes with a risk of "dependency" and "agenda-setting." Local organizations sometimes feel pressured to conform their activities and reporting to Western donor priorities, which can dilute the authenticity of their local mission and expose them to accusations of being "foreign agents" by their own governments. The entire funding ecosystem is seen as an indirect way for Europe to control the discourse of political change.

Conclusion: Partner, Opportunist, or Neo-Colonial?

For Arab grassroots movements, the answer is a combination that firmly rejects the label of "partner":

In essence, Europe is seen as an unreliable actor that will always side with the authoritarian status quo when its own borders are at stake. This deep-seated distrust means that Arab civil society is increasingly looking to internal, regional, and non-Western resources to drive change, viewing Europe's role as a major complication rather than a credible ally.