Why UAE is moving to stop non-Emiratis from using dialect and national dress in social media advertising
The Federal National Council - the UAE's consultative parliamentary body - recently heard that a regulatory policy had been issued that would lead to a ban on non-citizens appropriating Emirati attire and vocabulary in online advertisements when brought into law.
Concerns were raised by members at the latest FNC session over non-Emirati content creators misrepresenting local culture and customs for monetary benefit.
The policy would not stop the general use of the Emirati dialect, nor its use in the media in general, and will only apply to social media posts made by content creators and advertisers, an official source told The National.
"The Emirati dialect is a rich vessel of vocabulary and meanings that store within its letters the memory of a nation," Abdulla Al Hamed, chairman of the National Media Office, posted on X.
"It is a mirror of national identity and an echo of the lives of our ancestors who wove the details of their daily lives in this homeland with its words.
"Preserving it is a national duty and a manifestation of loyalty and belonging to our cultural heritage and our pride in our roots that provide us with strength and inspire us to continue on the path of achievement.
"Therefore, the decision referred to in the Federal National Council, which is concerned with regulating advertising content, came to emphasise that anyone wearing the Emirati national dress in advertisements must be an Emirati citizen, as they are the most capable of conveying the true image of authentic Emirati customs and traditions.
"The decision comes at a significant time, when the use of Emirati heritage has increased in advertising contexts that may empty it of its profound connotations by non-Emiratis who are unfamiliar with the Emirati dialect and do not understand the symbolism of the Emirati national dress and its cultural dimensions."
He also said that the decision doesn't aim to limit the use of the dialect or the national dress but to frame their appearance in a manner that preserves its cultural status, especially in an age where the public taste is affected by influencers.
The policy marks a significant move with myriad consequences. Here, The National breaks down its implications.
Why has a dialect directive been introduced?
The measures are set to be introduced to protect national identity and make sure content using the UAE dialect or other national symbols reflects the country's cultural values.
Once the policy is implemented, the regulation would require any advertisements featuring the dialect or cultural symbols to be done by an Emirati citizen.
What is the difference between the dialects?
Across the Gulf and the Arab world, the official language is Arabic, but each country has its own dialect. A dialect is an offshoot of the language developed through the country's history and culture, and its history with its neighbouring countries.
Dialects can be categorised in groups sometimes because of their similarities, such as "Levantine Arabic" or "Gulf Arabic" but there is a palpable difference between Levantine dialects and Gulf ones.
The differences are usually informed by their different histories and cultures. Additionally, even within the countries themselves, there can be differences in the dialects between regions.
What are the key characteristics of the Emirati dialect?
Emirati Arabic is the native dialect of the Emirati people and serves as a key marker of national identity. Known for preserving ancient Arabic words, it reflects the UAE's deep-rooted cultural and linguistic heritage.
Within the country, dialects vary by region, with Bedouin Arabic common in rural areas and more traditional in tone. In contrast, urban centres like Dubai and Abu Dhabi feature modernised dialects influenced by globalisation and multicultural interaction.
Examples of the Emirati dialect include expressions such as " hayyak Allah" (a respectful greeting meaning 'welcome').
What will the ban on non-Emiratis using the dialect achieve?
"The decision to ban the use of the Emirati dialect by non-Emiratis in social media ads has several positive effects. First, it protects cultural identity," said Fahad Alotaiba, an Emirati social media influencer. "It reflects the leaders' commitment to protecting and promoting Emirati cultural identity. Second, it enhances local communication."
"This decision can contribute to strengthening communication between brands and Emirati consumers, as advertisements using the local dialect may be more able to reach the emotions and interests of the Emirati audience," she added. "Third, it can increase awareness of local culture by focusing on the Emirati dialect. The decision can contribute to increasing awareness of Emirati culture among consumers. Overall, this decision has a positive impact on Emirati society by strengthening cultural identity and improving the quality of local advertisements."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
a day ago
- Middle East Eye
US envoy Witkoff GHF's aid site visit denounced as 'PR stunt'
On Friday, US envoy Steve Witkoff and US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee visited an aid site in southern Gaza run by the scandal-plagued Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. At least 859 Palestinians have been gunned down by Israeli soldiers while attempting to receive aid parcels at the distribution points. Witkoff said the purpose of the trip was to give Trump "a clear understanding of the humanitarian situation and help craft a plan to deliver food and medical aid to the people of Gaza". 'Incredible feat!' Huckabee said in a post on X on Friday, after touring GHF's operations and speaking to "folks on the ground". Palestinians denounced the visit as a PR stunt. 'It was a PR stunt, a controlled visit supervised and dictated by the Israeli military,' Ellie Burgos, an American critical care nurse volunteering at Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, told NBC News. 'What they saw was not the reality.' Amer Khayrat, a father of two who lives in Gaza City, told the BBC: "What Gaza needs isn't another envoy with a press team. We need the siege lifted, the bombing stopped and the blind American support for this war brought to an end." Scott Paul, Oxfam's Americas director of peace and security, told the BBC that Witkoff and Huckabee would have been "confronted by scenes of countless Palestinian children and their families on the brink of starvation displaced in flattened communities outside their convoy windows". "This must be what finally spurs the US to use its full influence to put an end to this catastrophe before we pass the point of no return," he added. On Saturday, Witkoff met with families of Israeli captives held in Gaza in Tel Aviv, as hundreds took to the streets to demand a ceasefire deal, the Israeli daily Haaretz is reporting. The visit shortly followed footage of emaciated Israeli captives, Evyatar David and Rom Braslavski published by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Witkoff assured the families that US will push for a single hostage deal. In a recording of the meeting, Witkoff can be heard saying that "Hamas has said that they are prepared to be demilitarised" and that "multiple Arab governments are now demanding Hamas demilitarise". "We are very, very close to a solution to end this war," he said, adding that "we don't believe that Hamas speaks for the people ... We believe that they have very little political support". Hamas responded with a statement saying : "We reiterate that resistance and disarmament are a national and legal right as long as the occupation continues. "This right is recognised in international treaties and norms, and cannot be waived except upon the achievement of all our national rights, foremost among them the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital."
Middle East Eye
a day ago
- Middle East Eye
Hamas says it won't disarm unless independent Palestinian state established
Hamas said on Saturday that it would not lay down arms unless an independent Palestinian state is established. In a statement, the Palestinian movement said its "armed resistance... cannot be relinquished except through the full restoration of our national rights, foremost among them the establishment of an independent, fully sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital". In a statement on Thursday, Hamas said it was ready to "immediately re-engage in negotiations once aid reaches those in need and the humanitarian crisis and famine in Gaza are brought to an end", while Israeli sources indicated that the framework for a partial deal may be abandoned. Last week, the United States and Israel unexpectedly withdrew from ceasefire talks with Hamas, despite what mediators described as significant progress towards an agreement. According to the Times of Israel, both an Arab diplomat and a source involved in the mediation said that Hamas negotiators in Doha had made it clear they would not return to the negotiating table unless the starvation crisis in Gaza was resolved. In Israel, a senior official speaking at a media briefing said that 'there will be no more partial deals', signalling a shift in the country's negotiating stance. Echoing this position, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich told a far-right conference that the complete disarmament and exile of Hamas, along with the return of all captives, is the 'only acceptable deal'. These latest remarks suggest that Israel has abandoned the previously discussed phased ceasefire framework and is now working with the United States to pursue a comprehensive agreement.
Arabian Post
a day ago
- Arabian Post
Trump's Tariff War Creates De Facto Counter-Axis Driven By Common Cause
By K Raveendran Donald Trump's aggressive tariff regime, launched under the guise of bolstering American strength and reclaiming lost economic ground, has triggered a worldwide response that may ultimately defeat the very goal it seeks to achieve. Framed as a nationalist project to assert America's economic primacy, the tariff war has turned out to be a catalyst for an accelerating global shift away from unipolar US dominance toward a truly multipolar world order. What was once largely speculative—the idea of a global economic architecture not centred on Washington—is now becoming tangible as Trump's trade brinkmanship compels other nations to rethink, regroup, and realign. The essential flaw in Trump's strategy lies in its assumption that the rest of the world would blink first, caving in to American demands under the weight of economic pressure. But the world hasn't blinked. Instead, countries are finding common cause in resisting what they perceive as economic coercion masquerading as negotiation. The result is a fluid yet increasingly coherent realignment of powers—chief among them China, Russia, and India—that is beginning to operate as a de facto counter-axis to the United States. Driven by shared grievances and the common objective of shielding their strategic autonomy, these nations are cooperating more closely in trade, investment, and energy. The irony is that Trump's pursuit of economic supremacy is hastening the erosion of the very system that enabled US dominance for decades. Beijing, long a prime target of Trump's tariffs, has responded with both retaliation and redirection. Rather than capitulating to Washington's demands, China has expanded its outreach to other major economies, particularly in Asia and Africa, while deepening its engagement with Russia and India. The Belt and Road Initiative, initially conceived as a means of global infrastructure connectivity, is now also a tool for economic realignment. As Trump builds tariff walls, China builds roads, ports, and financial networks that bypass the United States. Moscow, for its part, has welcomed this pivot. Isolated by US and European sanctions, Russia sees opportunity in closer ties with China and India, both of which have shown increasing willingness to defy Western pressure. India, though traditionally more aligned with the West and an enthusiastic participant in global liberal markets, has found itself inching toward the emerging non-Western axis. Trump's tariffs on Indian goods, coupled with his administration's threats of secondary sanctions on countries trading with Russia or buying Iranian oil, have forced New Delhi to draw red lines. India's stance on Russian oil, for instance, has been unambiguous: it is a matter of national interest and energy security. Any effort by Washington to curtail these purchases is seen not just as economic interference but as a direct challenge to sovereign decision-making. In retaliation, India has dangled the cancellation of key defence deals, including the proposed purchase of the F-35 fighter jets—a symbolic snub that indicates a broader reassessment of strategic alignment. What makes this realignment especially potent is the breadth of its scope. It is not merely a matter of retaliatory tariffs or diplomatic rhetoric; it includes infrastructure cooperation, technological integration, and long-term investment planning. China and India, despite historic differences, have increased dialogue in recent months on trade facilitation and regional connectivity. Russia's role as a common energy partner and military supplier to both nations gives it leverage in the triangle. And with US credibility as a dependable trade partner being questioned, many smaller nations are also hedging their bets, diversifying their economic relations away from a US-centric model. Even traditional US allies in Europe are uneasy. Germany and France have voiced concerns about the destabilizing effects of Trump's tariffs on global trade norms. The EU is pursuing its own trade treaties with countries like Japan and Vietnam, carving out autonomous space in global commerce that doesn't necessarily involve Washington. At the heart of this geopolitical churn is a growing skepticism toward the idea that the United States can or should dictate the terms of global trade. The Trump administration's belief that economic might translates automatically into negotiating power has ignored the subtle but critical fact that globalisation has made nations more interconnected and interdependent. Trying to weaponise trade may yield short-term leverage, but it also creates lasting rifts and compels partners to seek alternatives. The economic structures of the 21st century no longer afford any single nation the luxury of acting as an economic autocrat without consequences. Furthermore, the economic impact within the United States is more complex and less flattering than the populist rhetoric suggests. While certain domestic industries may benefit from tariff protections, others are suffering from rising input costs and retaliatory measures. American farmers have been hit particularly hard by Chinese tariffs on agricultural imports, prompting the Trump administration to introduce multi-billion dollar bailout packages that, in effect, cancel out the supposed gains of the trade war. Manufacturing, far from being resurgent, is experiencing uncertainty and disruption due to volatility in global supply chains. The idea that tariff wars are 'easy to win' has proven to be one of the most misguided statements of Trump's presidency. Even American multinationals, once eager advocates of 'America First' policies, are quietly relocating parts of their supply chains to countries not caught in the tariff crossfire. This shift not only diminishes the US's leverage but also accelerates the decentralization of economic power. No longer is the American market an irresistible magnet for global commerce; it is increasingly seen as a zone of instability and risk. For many countries, the trade war has been a wake-up call—an impetus to invest in regional blocs, alternative trade corridors, and new financial instruments insulated from US influence. In the broader scheme, what Trump has unwittingly triggered is a reimagination of how global power is structured. The post-Cold War illusion of US-led globalisation is being replaced by a more pluralistic, competitive, and fragmented order. Emerging powers are no longer content to play by rules written in Washington. They are building parallel systems: China's digital yuan aims to reduce dependency on the dollar; India and Russia have revived rupee-rouble trade mechanisms; and regional trade agreements like RCEP are functioning without US participation. What's being born is a new kind of globalization—less hierarchical, more balanced, and far less dependent on any single country. (IPA Service)
