The coalition government has grown ever closer to the UAE

UK voters will go to the polls very soon to decide on the next government that will steer Britain’s foreign policy for the next five years. The influence of foreign policy on voters’ decisions hasn’t taken much priority in the numerous polls and surveys that have appeared in the national press since the election campaign launched. Yet anecdotal evidence suggests that voters want a government that will bring about a fair foreign policy based on respect for human rights.

Yet the last five years of coalition government have not necessarily reflected these principles. When the cries of revolution during the Arab Spring filled Twitter timelines, British politicians were quick to support the calls for democracy. It seemed that the Arab Spring was heralding a new era of openness and fairness which would bring about elections, representative democracy and respect for citizens’ rights and freedoms across the Middle East.

These calls for democracy spread across the Middle East and were not just limited to North Africa and the Levant. Whilst Egypt and Tunisia caught a lot of attention, other groups were also searching for democracy – in the United Arab Emirates a number of activists presented the Emirati rulers with a petition that called for elections for a parliamentary body and for greater legislative powers for the Federal National Council. This petition not only fell on deaf ears, it also led to the arrest of a number of activists and human rights defenders.

The UAE 94 trial, which was criticised by a vast number of international parties including the United Nations, led to activists being harassed, tortured and imprisoned, their families being harassed and their freedom repressed. Yet, despite these worrying developments, the relationship between the UK and the UAE could not be stronger.

In the last five years of the coalition government, the UAE has grown ever closer to the UK. The number of deals between the UK and the UAE are estimated to be worth millions of pounds to each economy. The significance of these deals to the British government is evident in their announcements of UK companies securing deals with the UAE on the main government website. The plethora of deals in the last five years has covered a number of areas, from science companies, to technological deals, transport and perhaps most worrying arms deals. One particular arms deal to a number of Gulf States, including the Emirates, was estimated to be worth £6 billion. The UK-UAE defence relationship is not just limited to arms; former British servicemen have played an active role in training the Emirati Army and supporting their development.

When Prime Minister David Cameron addressed Zayed University in Abu Dhabi, he said: “Countries that put in place the building blocks of democracy and open societies will be most successful.” It seems that the irony was lost on Prime Minister Cameron; the Emirati quest for democracy had led to imprisonment and repression, hardly the marks of the open society that he is praising. During this speech, David Cameron was directly questioned about the UAE’s human right’s record – he replied: “Standing up for human rights and standing up for the right of people to have a job and a voice around the world is important, and I think this is a discussion that our countries can have. Nothing is off-limits in the relationship that we have.” Yet the UK has been far from forthcoming in challenging the UAE’s human rights record.

In the British Parliament there has been some questioning of the UAE – a number of MPs and Peers including Katy Clark, Mary Creagh and Greg Mulholland asked the government a range of questions about the UAE’s actions. Yet the government did not seem to take much of an interest in the UAE when it came to such thorny issues. Whilst the UAE was an attractive place for British business, the government did not seem to find the same allure when it came to raising concerns about the authorities’ attitudes towards political freedom and freedom of expression. It seemed that whilst conducting business with the UAE their conversations covered a “wide range of bilateral issues” which as one senior politician said anecdotally was nothing more than lip service to the issues.

When the European Parliament raised concerns about the UAE’s human rights record there was some support from British Labour and Liberal politicians supported the EU’s resolution to condemn human rights abuses in the UAE, the Conservative MEPs took a collective decision to vote against the resolution. Richard Howitt MEP said it was “disappointing that British Conservatives seem to want to put the trade agenda before any consideration of human rights when clearly they should go together.”

Herein lies the major problem with the foreign policy agenda of the last five years. Whilst the government should have put principles before pounds, in the case of the UAE the UK has gone down a path where economic interests have taken the lead. On the first anniversary of the Arab Spring, Foreign Secretary William Hague said the UK must uphold “our own principles of human rights and freedom and urging the highest standards” and stand up for “the right of peoples to choose their own representatives at the ballot box.” Whilst Hague and the British government paid lip service to these ideals of democracy and human rights, in the UK’s relationship with the UAE they have fallen off the agenda.

In this last government, foreign policy seems to have been dictated by economic and defence interests – meaning that where countries such as the UAE promise financial benefits to the UK, transgressions which would come under scrutiny in other countries can be swept under the carpet and ignored. Given this government’s record on foreign policy, observers will be watching keenly to see what direction the next government’s foreign policy takes.

Shazia Arshad is campaigns manager at the International Campaign for Freedom in the UAE. The ICFUAE supports political activism and democratic reform in the UAE.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.