Christopher Davidson - After the Sheikhs - The Coming Collapse of the Gulf Monarchies

The UAE has also seen a varied and forceful response to channels of free expression in recent years. Unlike Bahrain, where the government does little to disguise its practices, the UAE has been more cautious in its methods, not least because its non-oil economic sectors rely increasingly on a sound international reputation. Moreover, a deeper sense of irony pervades these debates in the UAE compared to Bahrain, as its rulers have on occasion tried to position themselves as champions of free speech and take credit for it. Notably, in 2004 the minister for higher education and scientific research [625] 164. Nahyan bin Mubarak Al-Nahyan. stated at a book fair held in Abu Dhabi that ‘…the UAE now lives in an age in which people should be supplied with all kinds of information… all people have the right to choose and select information and are wise enough to make that choice. No information should be withheld from the public in this day and age’. [626] 165. The author’s personal account. Later that year the crown prince of Dubai — Muhammad bin Rashid Al-Maktoum — repeated an earlier freedom of speech statement he had first made during the opening of Dubai Media City in 2000, [627] 166. The author’s personal account. by urging media representatives to ‘maintain objectivity in their pursuance of truth… and by promising to iron out difficulties hindering them as they carry out their duties’, before stating that ‘all authorities must render all facilities and moral support to media corporations operating in Dubai… which must remain an oasis of responsible freedom and democracy of opinion and expression’. [628] 167. Gulf News , 21 October 2004. In 2008 Abu Dhabi even set up a new English language newspaper— The National —with the aim of promoting transparency and hard-hitting coverage of both domestic and regional issues. Launched by a highly paid team of experienced western journalists and editors, the newspaper began with great fanfare, before the realities of being a state-backed newspaper set in and staff began to leave. In 2010 Muhammad bin Rashid was back to the subject, this time as ruler of Dubai, with a Ramadan speech to journalists and editors replete with clichés and truisms on the nature of free speech: ‘…my directives are clear and beyond any questioning, as we rely on candour and transparency. We strongly believe that media is the mirror of the nation. It has a noble message to disseminate and to enlighten the public, away from exaggeration, bias and distortion of facts. Media is the nation’s voice. The sun cannot be blocked by a sieve’. [629] 168. Emirates 24/7 , 15 August 2010.

After the onset of the 2008 credit crunch and the dramatic effect it had on the UAE’s economy, especially Dubai’s real estate sector, the UAE finally clarified its well-known restrictions on the media — most of which had previously relied on informal threats and self-censorship — by introducing new legislation. In particular, a draft law began to circulate that introduced massive new financial penalties for journalists who crossed red lines such as ‘disparaging senior government officials or the royal family’ or ‘misleading the public and harming the economy’. While jail sentences were withdrawn, the huge fines were viewed by most critics as a highly effective way of stifling free speech, as newspaper editors would be unwilling to allow journalists to tackle risky topics. In a comprehensive report on the new law, Human Rights Watch concluded that ‘[it would] regulate the news media unlawfully by restricting free expression and would unduly interfere with the media’s ability to report on sensitive subjects’. Furthermore, the report also observed that ‘…the pending law includes provisions that would grant the government virtually complete control in deciding who is allowed to work as a journalist and which media organisations are allowed to operate in the country’. [630] 169. Human Rights Watch, 13 April 2009. In April 2009 the law was finally passed, with a government official claiming that it was ‘consistent with the UAE’s pioneering regional role in promoting freedom of the press’. [631] 170. WAM , 28 April 2009.

As with Bahrain, the internet has become a key battleground for the UAE, with the authorities paying great attention to the information viewed by its citizens and resident expatriates. In 2009 a report on internet filtering in the UAE was published by the OpenNet Initiative — a partnership of the University of Toronto, Harvard University, and the SecDev Group of Ottawa. It claimed that the UAE government ‘pervasively filters websites that contain pornography or content relating to alcohol and drug use, gay and lesbian issues, or online dating or gambling’ while concluding that the UAE ‘…continues to prevent its citizens from accessing a significant amount of internet content spanning a variety of topics…’ Interestingly, the report also concluded that the filtering scheme is now being applied to Dubai’s aforementioned free zones, including Dubai Media City, which previously enjoyed unfettered internet access. In 2010, another report claimed that the UAE was going even further than filtering, with its state-owned telecommunications company having been provided by the US-based firm CyberTrust since 2005 with the ability to fake secure connections, [632] 171. Electronic Frontier Foundation , 13 August 2010; New York Times , 13 August 2010. despite it being an arm of an authoritarian state. This, it has been argued, allows it to position itself potentially as a ‘man in the middle’ during web transactions between users. [633] 172. Slate Magazine , 27 August 2010.

In practice, a wide range of websites and internet activities are now blocked in the UAE, including all of the categories identified by the OpenNet Initiative and those listed in a leaked memorandum from the UAE’s telecommunications regulatory authority. [634] 173. UAE Telecommunications Regulatory Authority, 24 September 2006. The document was entitled ‘Internet Content Filtering Policy and Procedure’. In addition, every website in Arabic or English that contains criticism of the UAE’s ruling families, or indeed other Gulf monarchies’ ruling families, is also blocked, as are websites or sections of websites that focus on human rights, prison conditions, and civil liberties in the region. On occasion even the websites of leading international non-governmental organisations are barred if they feature negative headlines or articles relating to the UAE. Sometimes the websites of major international news organisations will also be temporarily inaccessible if they are carrying a specific headline. A more recent and popular strategy has been to block access to specific articles on the websites of foreign newspapers. In 2009, for example, a lengthy essay about Dubai appearing on The Independent ’s website was blocked, [635] 174. The Independent , 7 April 2009. The article was entitled ‘The Dark Side of Dubai’. while in 2011 a similar article in Vanity Fair was also barred without explanation. In parallel to internet censorship, the UAE’s National Media Council still sometimes requires shops and newsagents to either remove pages or blackout offending articles in the hardcopy versions of these publications. Vanity Fair was reportedly tampered with in this way, [636] 175. 7 Days , 10 April 2009. while in late 2009 an entire edition of The Sunday Times [637] 176. The Sunday Times , 29 November 2009. was removed from the UAE’s shelves and pulped, given that it featured negative reporting on Dubai’s economic problems and a cartoon depicting Dubai’s ruler drowning in a sea of debt.