The UN Human Rights Council recently issued a resolution condemning Iran’s attacks on the Gulf states and Jordan, and called for an immediate halt to the attacks and full compensation for the victims. For this resolution to be meaningful and ensure our right to full material and moral compensation, we must engage with human rights organizations in our countries.
Extensive discussions should follow, with follow-up sessions of the Human Rights Council addressing the matter further. Humanity has never produced a more remarkable human rights document than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Perhaps its earliest predecessor, though in a rudimentary form, was the Cyrus Charter, written more than 2,550 years ago.
These principles were inscribed on what is known as the Cyrus Cylinder, a collection of decrees recorded on a clay cylinder following the conquest of Babylon. The Cyrus Cylinder included provisions for respecting religions and customs, the return of displaced persons, and the easing of slavery.
The greatest beneficiaries were the Jews of Babylon and other vulnerable or enslaved people, whom Cyrus the Great granted protection. At its 2025 conference, UNESCO endorsed the inclusion of the “Cyrus Charter” as one of the oldest human rights charters in the world. Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not legally binding on any state, it laid the foundation for binding international agreements that protect the rights of minorities, children, and women, and combat the slave trade.
These agreements include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and conventions against discrimination, racial discrimination, and discrimination against women. However, most, if not all, Islamic countries have expressed reservations regarding several of their provisions.
In this context, a draft of the new Nationality Law was recently issued. It will be reviewed by the Cabinet, approved, and subsequently submitted to the high political leadership. The draft includes several important and significant provisions, addressing many shortcomings of previous laws. Its most notable proposal is the division of Kuwaiti citizens into two permanent categories - the first includes the founders who resided in Kuwait before 1920, along with their children and grandchildren, and the second includes those who acquired Kuwaiti citizenship through naturalization, and their children and grandchildren. The first category, which I believe constitutes approximately 80 percent or more of citizens, has been granted full political and administrative rights.
However, naturalized citizens, along with their children and grandchildren, representing roughly 20 percent, would be denied the right to run for office, vote, or participate in the political process, and consequently barred from holding certain senior positions. While a few countries do discriminate between citizens regarding the right to political participation, both in terms of candidacy and voting, such practices are limited and well-known.
Preventing certain categories of citizens from holding specific positions is practiced in some countries for known reasons.
However, in Kuwait, if the current amendment is approved, it may be considered unconstitutional, and this could be addressed. What is difficult to address is the expectation of complete and sincere loyalty from this group. They are citizens, yet in practice, they are not fully regarded as such. How can their absolute loyalty to the homeland be assumed? Is preventing them from holding sensitive positions sufficient to ensure the required loyalty? When does a Kuwaiti citizen truly become a full citizen?
Therefore, I hope to see this clause amended so that the prohibition is lifted after a specified period. It is unwise for this article to remain in effect indefinitely, especially since the draft law already allows for the revocation of citizenship of a naturalized citizen if they violate certain conditions, including proving loyalty to another country, committing a crime involving moral turpitude, being dismissed from their job for breach of trust, or joining any organization hostile to the state.
Footnote: I have recently received requests from a friend and from a reader to acknowledge and commend the efforts of Sheikh Turki Mishal Al- Sabah, who is known for keeping his office door always open, thanks to his affable nature and his role in facilitating matters for citizens.
By Ahmad alsarraf
email: [email protected]
email: [email protected]
