Nevertheless, there have been notable examples of effective censorship in all of the Gulf monarchies in the past few years. This has not gone unnoticed, with all six states having slipped further down the World Press Freedom Index, as compiled by Reporters without Borders. As of early 2012, the highest ranked Gulf monarchy was Kuwait — in 78th position — with the UAE, Qatar, and Oman ranked firmly below dozens of African dictatorships — in 112th, 114th, and 117th positions respectively — and with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain ranking among the very worst countries in the world.[618] Although superficially successful in the short term in limiting opposition voices, the various censorship strategies employed have been leading to heightened fears and widespread criticism and condemnation of the regimes responsible, not only from the international community, but also from resident national and expatriate populations. In a summer 2011 YouGov poll commissioned by the BBC’s Doha Debates, which collected the responses of 1000 participants from the region, it was revealed that more than half of the Gulf respondents were ‘too afraid to speak out against their rulers’. This contrasted sharply with a similar poll amongst nationals of North African Arab Spring states, where respondents reportedly expressed optimism about their freedoms.[619]
Bahrain unsurprisingly provides some of the most extreme examples of censorship and attacks on free speech, with a large number of recent assaults and arrests involving opinion-makers and commentators. In August 2010, for example, it was reported by the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights that the editor in chief of Bahrain’s Alwatan newspaper[620] was attacked by several masked men outside the newspaper’s headquarters in the early hours of the morning. He claimed that they asked him if he worked for the newspaper, to which he said ‘yes’, and then they began to beat him and set fire to his car.[621] Although Alwatan is believed to be funded by a member of the ruling family, has close links to the regime, and has been accused of promoting sectarianism in Bahrain, its pro-government stance is thought to have wavered in recent years. The following month another disturbing incident happened when the founder of Bahrain’s most popular internet forum[622]—Bahrainonline.org — was arrested by security services and his website blocked on the grounds that it was ‘spreading false news’. Thought to be one of more than 200 bloggers and internet activists seized that summer, he was increasingly seen as a threat to the government as his forum allowed opposition voices to discuss matters freely with other Bahrainis. Visited by thousands every day, the forum was particularly well known for having helped break news of the Bandargate scandal, along with ‘highlighting cases of sectarian discrimination, police brutality, state corruption, and political naturalisation’. According to one user, the forum was so active that ‘…if [she] heard a bang at night [she] would be able check on the internet [forum] and, sure enough, someone would have posted about it within minutes. Some users even posted photos of government security agents who show up at protests, prompting the agents to start covering their faces when appearing in public’. Hundreds of other websites have since been blocked, with all surviving websites in Bahrain now having to register their details with the Ministry for Information. Even Google Earth has been blocked, after activists began using satellite images from the software to demonstrate how vast and lavish the ruling family’s palaces were in comparison to the poor suburbs that most Bahrainis have to live in.[623]
Other incidents in 2010 included the fining of journalists who had attempted to report on money-laundering scandals involving ministers, despite their cases having shifted from the mandate of the prosecution to the law courts and thus no longer being subjected to gag orders.[624] That year was notable also for a statement from the Ministry for information that BlackBerry mobile devices were no longer to be used for ‘circulating any form of news’. This was a government reaction, much like that to the internet fora, based on a growing concern that BlackBerrys were being used by Bahrainis to pass on information about government corruption and abuses. The statement went on to explain that: ‘…mobile phones have been relaying news of incidents and topics in Bahrain. In view of the impact of such news in causing disarray and confusion to the public… those individuals and agencies were summoned by the Ministry, and legal and judicial procedures will be filed against violators of laws…’ Although it is unclear how successful the ministry has been in controlling the use of BlackBerrys, it seems that the Blackberry World application feature has been blocked in Bahrain, thus preventing the installation of messenger and discussion applications.
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] 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] 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] 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] 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]
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] 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]
618
157. Reporters without Borders January 2012. Citing the ‘World Press Freedom Index 2012’.