On March 17, 2024, talks between Egypt and the European Union Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen concluded with an announcement of an eight billion dollar aid package intended to aid Egypt. With leaders from Belgium, Italy, Austria, Cyprus, and Greece in attendance, this event initially demonstrates a combined effort to combat issues that weaken Egypt as a country, but it also draws criticism of inadvertently supporting Egypt’s human rights violations. This financial assistance comes during a complicated time, as concerns grow over the possibility of increased immigration into the European Union (E.U.) as Egypt and its neighboring countries are battling instability and conflicts at home. Signed and promoted as renewed cooperation between Egypt and the E.U., this aid package holds contradictions as it is unclear what the European Union’s motive is in helping Egypt strengthen its borders. Hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers are expected to break into Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, and the E.U.’s perspective on helping refugees and asylum seekers in general is unclear. This aid package seems to be masking the E.U.’s real motive of preventing immigration into their own countries by giving Egypt the financial burden instead. The response to Egypt’s escalating problem of immigration is routine, demonstrating a reaction in the E.U.’s national interests, not in the international interest.

According to the Associated Press, the European Union claimed in a rather confident statement that “the deal, known as the Joint Declaration, aims among other things to promote ‘democracy, fundamental freedoms, human rights, and gender equality.'” There is no doubt as to why human rights groups would criticize the E.U. for moving forward with this eight billion dollar aid package: it will permit Egypt to continue doing what they have been doing in secret or away from the international radar. According to the Human Rights Watch, the Egyptian government is guilty of inhumane detention and prison conditions where detainees await unfair trials and sentences. The government has also been known to subdue or “disappear” the political opposition so President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi stays in power. Likewise, civil activists and peaceful protesters are harmed and brutally attacked for their freedom of expression. Nothing is protected in Egypt, as the government violates the human rights of its own civilians. This is why the E.U.’s failure to discuss Egypt’s human rights violations must be addressed, and the issue must be resolved instead of continuing to boost cooperation with a country in “dire” need of help. Instead, global powers should be focusing on ending the history of crime and abuses in Egypt.

As leaders of each European country expressed their belief of the aid package being monumental in improving relations as well as mitigating problems that deteriorate Egypt’s capability to function as a country, it is evident that these leaders are thinking of their own national interests in supporting this financial package. Giving Egypt the financial means to deal with the influx of migrants will steer migrants away from Europe. If Egypt is able to financially support migrants, it will be more desirable to escape to Egypt then travel father to Europe. Because the E.U. “will provide assistance to Egypt’s government to fortify its borders,” what does that mean for migrants that have thought of Europe as a place to escape to but now cannot because the E.U. is helping Egypt keep migrants out? With the war in Gaza still ongoing, asylum seekers need help more than ever and if they are being denied entrance, these countries are no better than the perpetrators that started the invasion in Gaza. The E.U.’s decision to help Egypt contradict the democracy and human equality that they claim to be their goal does little to actually help human rights in such an abusive environment.

More could have been done prior to giving a generous aid package to a country that clearly violates human rights and has demonstrated no desire to stop. Egypt has every reason to act opportunistically and for the government’s own personal gains rather than comply with the European Union. An E.U. spokesperson defended the E.U.’s decision to ignore these human right violations by saying, “Yes, we know the criticism related to human rights in those countries and it is obvious that this is an issue…does that mean we should break off all relations?” This statement set the tone for how the E.U. avoids direct involvement and protects their national interest. The E.U. seems to neither condemn Egypt or punish them for committing abuses. In the eyes of human right groups, the E.U. is funding Egypt to commit more violations in the amount of eight billion dollars.

The European Union and United Nations should be more proactive in their mission statement of preserving peace and human equality. Egypt is currently breaching the record for human rights violations, so it can be said that nothing substantial has been done by the E.U. to mitigate the crisis at hand. The E.U. should have negotiated conditions with Egypt for them to receive aid, or made the package conditional in the event that Egypt’s human right abuses have not ceased. When countries prioritize policy over human rights for something that they think is the “greater” cause, it often is not. Because countries respond and react based on their own national interest, their actions can often be seen as contradictory and avoidant of the greater issue at hand. The E.U. believes it has done its best in shaping Egypt’s future with concerns to the E.U. but it has only helped Egypt realize that it can take advantage of the E.U. for its own means.