Following their summit in Qatar last week, Arab Gulf states have been congratulating themselves on producing a document known as the “GCC Human Rights Declaration”. Headlines, at least in the Gulf media, have hailed it as a “forward leap for rights” and a sign of the GCC’s commitment to equality and freedom.

In an article on the Saudi-owned Alarabiya website, Abdullah Hamidaddin describes the declaration as “the most significant outcome of this summit, and many summits before”. The contents of the declaration, he claims, are “very similar” to those of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Meanwhile, the Emirati-based Gulf News says the declaration “illustrates the GCC’s commitment to the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Arab Charter on Human Rights, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, and relevant international and regional conventions and charters.”

And in Saudi Arabia the National Society for Human Rights (a body licensed and funded by the government) says the declaration “conforms to international human rights norms”.

Setting aside the fact that it doesn't conform, this raises an important question. If the GCC states – Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE – are so eager to conform to international standards, and if their declaration is very similar to the Universal Declaration, why bother issuing a declaration of their own? Wouldn’t it have saved a lot of time and effort if they just said they accept the Universal Declaration?

The reason, of course, is that they don’t really accept it. The main purpose of the GGC’s declaration, along with other “Arab” and “Islamic” human rights documents issued in the past, is to challenge the Universal Declaration by setting lower standards on the pretext of cultural or religious differences.

Another aim is to dispel any impression that Arabs and/or Muslims are not particularly concerned with human rights. So while relying on Arab/Muslim exceptionalism to justify lower standards, they also adopt the language of international human rights discourse to give the appearance of offering a legitimate alternative to the Universal Declaration.

The new GCC Declaration of Human Rights (Arabic text here) borrows heavily from the Universal Declaration (UDHR), but with numerous alterations.

Article 1, for instance, echoes Article 3 of the UDHR which says: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” The GCC version omits the word “liberty” – which is not a good start – and then goes on to talk about the need to respect the bodies of the dead.

Article 2 of the GCC’s declaration says:

“People are equal in dignity and humanity, in rights and freedoms, and equal before the system (law). There is no distinction between them for reasons of origin, gender, religion, language, colour, or any other form of distinction.”

This merges parts of Articles 1 and 2 in the UDHR, which say:

• “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

• “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”

The UDHR's assertion that people are “endowed with reason and conscience” is omitted from the GCC document. Similarly, while the GCC does seem to agree with the UDHR in ruling out any form of discrimination, it omits specific mention of discrimination based on “political or other opinion”, or “birth” (which might cause people to question hereditary rule in the Gulf).

But it’s on freedom of thought and expression that the GCC document most seriously diverges from the Universal Declaration. Article 18 of the UNDHR says:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

The corresponding article in the GCC document (Article 6) says:

“Freedom of belief and the practice of religious rites is a right of every human according to the system (law) without prejudice to public order and public morals.”

Once again, the GCC has deleted the word “conscience” but, more importantly, it also makes freedom of belief subject to law, public order and morals. This is fundamentally at odds with international standards which regard freedom of “thought, conscience and religion” as an absolute and unconditional right which cannot be modified by individual states. The UN has previously made very clear that the the UNDHR “does not permit any limitations whatsoever on the freedom of thought and conscience or on the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one’s choice”.

The GCC document fails to distinguish between this and the right to express thoughts and beliefs which can sometimes be restricted in order to strike a balance between competing rights. According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), though, such limitations should be kept to a minimum. For example, it says that any restrictions on freedom of expression must not only be specified by law but must also be necessary in order to respect the rights or reputations of others or to protect national security, public order, public health or morals. 

The GCC document makes no attempt to minimise these restrictions, but among the six GGC states only Bahrain and Kuwait are bound by the terms of the ICCPR. Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have not signed it.

This part of the GCC document has several key omissions in comparison with the UDHR. 

By not mentioning freedom to change religion, it allows the GCC states to continue criminalising apostasy – which in theory is still a capital offence in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Another omission in the GCC document is the freedom to “manifest” religion or belief individually or collectively, in private or in public. This freedom is restricted in Saudi Arabia, for example, where religions other than Islam cannot be practised in public.

By omitting to mention freedom to “teach” religion, the GCC also appears to endorse current practice where proselytising on behalf of religions other than Islam is forbidden (while proselytising on behalf of Islam is encouraged).

Besides these omissions, the GCC has added an article (Article 7) which has no equivalent in the UNDHR. It says:

“Respect for the heavenly religions [Islam, Judaism, Christianity only], absence of contempt for them or insulting their prophets or symbols, and respect for the cultural diversity of other nations is guaranteed according to the system (law).”

This revives an old bone of contention between the UN and predominantly Muslim countries which have been seeking to protect monotheistic religions from “defamation”. The basic idea behind this is that because of their connection with God these religions should not be scrutinised or criticised in the same way as other kinds of ideology. Its supporters also see this as a way of dealing with the problem of Islamophobia.

Apart from the fact that defaming religions is a bizarre legal concept, the UN has argued that Islamophobia should be dealt with in terms of hate speech rather than through general restrictions on critical debate about religion.

Article 19 of the UNDHR says:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

The GCC’s version (Article 9) says:

“Freedom of opinion and the expression of it are a right of every human, and exercising it is guaranteed insofar as it accords with sharia, public order and the systems (laws) regulating this matter.”

Most noticeably, this introduces the idea that freedom of opinion and expression can be limited by sharia (altogether, the word “sharia” appears in five of the declaration’s 47 articles). 

Not surprisingly in view of Gulf states’ efforts to regulate and censor the internet, the section in the UNDHR about seeking, receiving and imparting information and ideas “through any media and regardless of frontiers” has been omitted from the GCC document.

Following on from Articles 18 and 19 in the UNDHR, Article 20 says:

“(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.”

The three articles appear in the UNDHR consecutively because they are related: freedom of assembly and association is one of the requirements for expressing thoughts and beliefs. The GCC document, however, treats this separately and it appears in modified form as Article 31:

“Freedom to form associations, unions and organisations is guaranteed according to the system (law), and no person may be forced to join.”

The important deletion here is the reference to freedom of peaceful assembly – which the Gulf states tend to regard as a problem. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, all demonstrations are officially banned.

By removing this and separating the article from the earlier ones, the GCC is narrowing the concept of “freedom of association”, making it apply to organised bodies such as trade unions and associations – which of course in the Gulf states are also regulated by law and usually require a government licence to operate.

There’s a lot more that could be said about the GCC declaration, but the points above illustrate some of its main weaknesses. It’s also an example of loose and perhaps deliberately ambiguous drafting. One notable example is its repeated reference to “the system” (nidham in Arabic) followed by “the law” (qanun) in brackets. Exactly what this means is anybody’s guess but it looks like some kind of fudge in the drafting process – possibly to allow for rights to be restricted on the basis of local customs and practices, or perhaps sharia itself.

That said, the declaration could signal an improvement on the current situation in Gulf countries – if they took it seriously and tried to implement it. For example, any sensible interpretation of the article about non-discrimination would mean that women in Saudi Arabia must be allowed to drive. The declaration also appears to outlaw cancellation of people’s citizenship, which is a problem for dissidents in some of the Gulf states.

But there’s also a convenient get-out clause. Article 44 says:

“Without prejudice to the provisions of sharia and the system (the law), the exercise and enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set out in this declaration are the right of every human being.”

In other words, Gulf states can interpret it as they choose. Once again, sharia comes to the rescue of these autocratic regimes.