How UAE, an ally of West moved away?

How UK Pushed Away UAE.

UAE is best known for Dubai, which is a hub of global trade in the East. Dubai obscured Abu Dhabi, the capital of UAE by reputation.

Dubai was transformed from a trading port and fishing village into a first-world metropolis within roughly one generation. It was the result of aggressive diversification by visionary leadership financed by oil discovery. Its prime jewel, the Burj Khalifa remains the world’s tallest building at 828 meters.

Dubai’s GDP reached AED 241 billion (about USD 65.6 billion) in the first half of 2025, growing 4.4% year-on-year, driven by trade (23.8% share), tourism, and finance.

Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum and later Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum drove diversification via free zones like Jebel Ali (1980s).

As promised in the earlier article about sudden visit of Sheikh Mohammad Bin Zayed Al Nahyan or MBZ to New Delhi on 19 January 2026, this is the story which shaped the geopolitical alliance of UAE today.

While two leaders drove the growth of Dubai, two ladies acted as catalyst to shape the global alliance of UAE away from West towards India. These ladies were not leaders yet their actions had profound effect. They are Princess Latifa and Princess Haya. We will discuss the latter in this article.

Biography of Princess Haya Bint Hussain

Princess Haya bint Al Hussein was born May 3, 1974 in Amman, Jordan. King Hussein bin Talal and Queen Alia Al Hussein of Jordan were her parents. She was educated at St Hilda’s College, University of Oxford (PPE B.A.). St. Hilda was last single-sex college in England till 2008. Her half-brother King Abdullah is also the current reigning monarch of Jordan. She lost her mother at the age of three, in 1977, in a helicopter crash.

Haya’s alma mater, Hilda’s motto is: non frustra vixi (I lived not in vain). Haya’s life demonstrates the motto. She graduated from Oxford in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics and developed interest in sports and global affairs. She is an accomplished show jumper, and represented Jordan at the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games and 2002 World Equestrian Games. She was the first Arab woman to do so. She also served as president of the Fédération Équestre Internationale (2006–2014) and later she became a member of International Olympic Committee.

When not on sports field, she was a popular socialite. She was also shuttling between Dubai, Switzerland, London, Lausanne to attend meetings of Institutions relating to equestrian games.

Marriage

In 2004 she was a fully socialized global elite actor, yet she decided to marry Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, an Emir of United Arab Emirate as his junior wife. He was already married at least for five times. With open eyes Princess Haya decided to join an already established polygynous household of Sheikh according to Islamic tradition.

It appears that his marriage with Haya, functioned for a long time because it operated in parallel worlds. She was not required to live the full social reality of an ordinary Islamic household. As a royal wife with her own residences, staff, travel schedule, charities, and international profile, she enjoyed a degree of physical and social separation that masked deeper tensions.

In 2019 when Haya was of 45 years old, she had two children namely Jalila aged 11 and Zayed aged 7. This is the time when modern Islamic household undergoes a tension. How the children would be brought up? What will be the restrictions? Parenting decisions are difficult for the parents of an ordinary young teenager girl and was immense for a royal family. This was not about toddlers. The custody battle was, in essence, a battle for control over the narrative and the children’s allegiances during their formative years. At this moment she decided to leave Dubai and moved to England along with her children.

By fleeing to London and invoking its jurisdiction, Princess Haya not only changed the court rather she changed the entire governing legal and moral universe for her children. Islamic law in UAE is very different from English Law. So how did she flee to UK?

Visa Conundrum

The method of entry into UK, had multiple implications. An entry by a tourist does not give jurisdiction of Court of England. An entry on Diplomatic Passport completely bars the jurisdiction of English Court.

Princess Haya did not use her royal status for entry into UK. She entered on a Tier 1 (Investor) visa, which she held independently. But the children’s immigration status would have been dependent on hers or their father’s. If their entry/status was regularized after fleeing, it would have required discretionary Home Office action. There is nothing in public domain.

This suggests high-level, behind-the-scenes facilitation by the UK state, aligning with a “set-up” thesis. Their ability to remain and become “habitually resident” was not an accident of law but a political precondition for the entire case.

Islamic Law of Custody

The principle of “Hadhanah” (custody) and “Wilayah” (guardianship) is distinct. The mother traditionally has the right of custody (Hadhanah) for young children (a boy until ~7-9, a girl until puberty), but this is primarily for care and upbringing.

She moved to London and sued the Sheikh in English Family Court as mother of two children seeking their protection against forcible removal from jurisdiction and custody etc. She did what any Muslim mother would like to do to escape strict Islamic upbringing.

However, it became a sensational family dispute. It was a defining geopolitical and civilizational rupture that exposes the profound divergence between two models of world order. The Western “Rule of Law” model and what can be termed the Eastern “Strategic Sovereignty” model.

Forum Shopping

At its legal core, the UK case was a collision of jurisdictions. Princess Haya’s move to London was the ultimate act of strategic forum-shopping. She transposed her children from a legal universe governed by Islamic principles of paternal guardianship (Wilayah) into a jurisdiction where the sole, paramount principle is the secular “welfare of the child.”

In Wilayah the father’s authority is divinely and culturally ordained. Mother has no role to play after the puberty of girl child and five years of age in case of boy.

The English High Court, led by Sir Andrew McFarlane, did not adjudicate a dispute under UAE law. It applied English law to children physically present in England. In doing so, it inevitably and utterly nullified Sheikh Mohammed’s automatic rights under Sharia.

This was experienced in the Arab world not as neutral justice, but as legal imperialism in which a powerful Western court casually dismantled a foundational pillar of a rival civilization’s social order.

Media Circus

The court did not conduct the proceedings in private or in camera as it is called. The publicly held proceedings appeared as a weaponized judicial theatre. It transformed a private family matter into a globally publicized spectacle. The court’s findings of prior abduction and state-sponsored hacking by Al Maktoum family, served to inflict maximum reputational damage.

Sir Andrew McFarlane’s decision to publish detailed, sensational findings (while legally justified for “open justice”) was, from a sovereign dignity perspective, a betrayal of that discretion. It turned a private family crisis into a global media circus and a political weapon.

This aligned perfectly with the geopolitical interests of Jordan, Princess Haya’s home country and a long-standing UK ally. It also fueled perceptions of a politically orchestrated “set-up” rather than a purely humanitarian intervention.

At the same time the media narrative in UK was about giving justice to a helpless woman. A courageous woman and her children, facing grave danger, sought refuge in a country with a robust, independent judiciary. The courts, applying neutral principles of child welfare and evidence, protected them and delivered justice, proving no one is above the law. But it was a circus of hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy of Justice System

The same state that mobilized its entire legal arsenal to protect two foreign royal children had catastrophically and systemically failed for decades to protect thousands of its own vulnerable girls from serial rape and exploitation by “grooming gangs.”

This failure, rooted in political cowardice and institutional paralysis, reveals the “paramountcy principle” to be selectively and inconsistently applied. The message perceived abroad is damning: the welfare of a foreign elite’s child triggers relentless intervention, while the welfare of Britain’s own marginalized citizens is sacrificed at the altar of political convenience. This hypocrisy fatally undermines the claim to be a disinterested champion of universal justice.

Divorce and Custody Settlement

While the custody and wardship rulings were final court orders, the financial settlement for Princess Haya and the children’s future security was agreed upon privately to avoid a public trial.

In December 2021, a confidential consent order was approved by the court. While the exact figure is sealed, it is widely reported by credible media (like the BBC and The Guardian) to be in the region of £550 million (approximately $700 million at the time). This is believed to be the largest-ever award ordered by an English court.

The Settlement covered lump sum payments for Princess Haya. Funds for the children’s future security to be held in trust until their maturity. It also provided for lifetime security costs for Princess Haya and the children, estimated at millions per year. Princess was also given compensation for the jewelry and fashion items, she claimed to have left behind in Dubai.

The settlement also provided for ongoing contact between the children and their father or visitation rights, albeit under the conditions set by the court.

Perception of Racism

The UK judiciary’s willingness to dissect the private life of Sheikh Mohammed, publish findings on abduction and hacking, and enforce a monumental financial settlement is seen through the lens of racism.

Would a court have done the same to a senior, white, Christian European monarch? The perception is no. The treatment is viewed as a form of post-colonial judicial overreach, where the norms of the “civilized” West are weaponized against the “oriental” ruler.

Flipped Relationships with West

For Gulf monarchies, the lesson was stark. London, and by extension the Western liberal legal order, is no longer a “safe harbor.” Its courts are not neutral arbiters but potential instruments of sovereign humiliation, its principles a cloak for adversarial geopolitical games. The response has been rational and clear: liquidation of exposure. The UAE’s strategic divestment from UK assets and its pivot toward jurisdictions like India’s GIFT City in Gujarat represent a vote for a different paradigm

This has driven a pivotal shift. Gulf capital and trust are now flowing toward partners who prioritize sovereign discretion over judicial disclosure, and strategic comity over adversarial litigation.

The battle in Court 42 of the Royal Courts of Justice was more than a custody fight. It was the trial of an entire system of international order, one whose perceived hypocrisy and selective enforcement have prompted its most powerful ally to seek a new, more predictable refuge.

The verdict, written in multi-billion-dollar settlement shifted the diplomatic alliances forever.

Thus, the former British Empire may have gained a rich socialite citizen, it lost another ally from Gulf.

Notes and References:

1. As of now, Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum has married for about eleven times.
2. Princess Haya applied for court order: https://abcnews.go.com/International/princess-haya-applies-order-london-court-protect-child/story?id=64675260
3. Princess Haya Official Statement: https://hrhprincesshaya.net/un-foundation-virtual-speech-wednesday-13th-september-2023/
4. In regard of the other lady, Princess Latifa read here on BBC website