The United Kingdom is on the verge of completing a £1.6 billion trade deal with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. This decision has sparked tremendous outpouring of concern on the part of human rights advocates. The Agreement contains no specific guarantees on human rights, modern slavery or environmental standards. Opponents say that it would be a blow to the UK’s ongoing pledge to promote ethical trade in all its forms.
Human rights organizations have not held back in their calls. They call on the UK not to sign any free trade agreements that do not include legally binding obligations to improve human rights situations. Critics are quick to point out that this deal fails to address many basic needs. That’s why they are sounding the alarm on what this means for Gulf workers and migrants.
The UK government’s had previously promised us that the deal would protect high standards. They pledged to defend the quality of public health, food safety, animal welfare, and environmental protections. These pro-trade assurances are inadequate for those who are wary of trading with countries that are among the worst per capita carbon emitters. Not only does this issue threaten the UK’s net-zero ambitions, but it reiterates an ongoing stark reality across the pond.
The possible economic returns on this bilateral trade agreement are impressive. According to estimates, it would boost trade between the UK and GCC countries by an average of 16%. The UK wants to increase its annual exports and imports by £8.6 billion by 2035. That growth will be fueled by the innovation spurred by this agreement. The automotive and financial services industries stand to be some of the biggest winners from the new trade deal.
Despite these prospects, the deal may yield less than 0.1% of the UK’s GDP over the next decade, raising questions about its overall significance. At the moment, bilateral trade with the GCC bloc hovers around £59 billion per year, according to government figures.
The agreement covers arrangements for employment and visas for business people from both the UK and Gulf Cooperation Council countries. It highlights technology, innovation, and financial services as essential pillars. Now worries are surfacing about an anti-TPP backlash — this one focused on chicken imports. That has many critics concerned. They are concerned that weaker animal welfare standards would place British farmers at a huge competitive disadvantage in an increasingly sensitive market.
Dr. Thani bin Ahmed al-Zeyoudi, UAE’s trade minister, has indicated that Western nations must “tone down” standard human and workers’ rights provisions if they seek greater market access in trade agreements. Advocates are voicing suspicions about this feeling. It is their deep conviction that human rights should continue to be a core, non-negotiable component of international trade talks.
Nick Thomas-Symonds, a prominent figure in the advocacy for human rights within trade negotiations, emphasized the importance of embedding such rights into these agreements. He stated, “It is crucial that human rights, women’s rights and workers’ rights are embedded in UK trade negotiations.”
Baroness Jones made similar points. She explained that although trade policy may be used to highlight existing issues, free trade agreements are ineffective tools to do so, as they rarely succeed in moving human rights issues to the forefront. She remarked that “leading advocates for human rights around the world… this work takes place separately to negotiations on free trade agreements.”
Joey Shea, from the International Trade Union Confederation, urged caution about proceeding without firm guarantees such as the protection of labor rights. “Finalising a UK-GCC trade agreement without concrete rights protections would be a grave mistake with grim consequences for migrant workers across the Gulf,” Shea stated.
The opposition to the deal focuses on its lack of transparency. Tom Wills, the director of the Trade Justice Movement, pointedly condemned the government’s approach. He noted their failure to do a human rights impact assessment prior to the agreement’s finalization. Consider this unacceptable compromise between us and the government. They achieved this without releasing a human rights impact assessment, without obtaining any binding commitments to uphold labor rights or environmental standards, and without giving parliament any real oversight.
Wills further expressed skepticism regarding the effectiveness of vague assurances within trade agreements, questioning their actual enforceability: “When we see progressive language in a trade deal – around supporting workers or the environment – we always ask the same question: is it binding? Will there be consequences for failing to uphold standards? If not, these warm words aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.”
Anne-Marie Trevelyan, the unfailingly loyal Secretary of State for International Trade, stoutly defends the government’s record. She promises that these actions won’t come at the expense of human rights, in a concentrated response to the critics. Many are still not convinced, worried that business interests will trump basic ethical obligations.
In the wake of these developments, the UK is preparing to negotiate a landmark trade agreement with GCC states. The potential repercussions for local and global actors are just beginning to play out. Human rights advocates are growing frustrated. Her frustration reflects a growing chasm between economic ambition and ethical obligation within today’s global trade environment.