Because basic (negative*) and Universal Human Rights, i.e. the very foundation of the charter is "islamophobic", i.e. not accepted by islam's main representative body, the Saudi based and steered OIC and its Human Rights violating sharia declaration (aka "islamic human rights") which, for example, doesn't accept women's equality with muslim men.
Without oil it would have been unthinkable that such a monster ideology would have ever been let in.
* Rights without content, i.e. you as an individual's right to not be imposed "positive rights", "duties" etc. that could alter your rights status because of sex etc.
John P Humphrey has been influential in the writing of a number of national constitutions since 1948. It has been and is still used to exert moral pressure on governments when rights abuses are claimed and has been the basis for several additional UN international rights covenants. UK would have much gained from his advise.
The anti-fascist Human Rights Declaration is applicable across all cultures, political systems, and religious traditions throughout the world. Unless, of course, those cultures, political systems, and religious traditions are racist, sexist or fascist.
A western construct?
"At the beginning of my career, there was much resistance to my work abroad," says Asma Uddin, a human rights lawyer and senior scholar at the Freedom Forum Institute's Religious Freedom Center. "The common discourse I heard was that I was somehow an agent for western colonialism."
On its anniversary, however, the Universal Declaration is getting a robust defense.
"The idea that [the Declaration] is some western construct that is unjustly imposed on the rest of the world ... is idiotic," says Robert George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and former chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. "The Declaration sets forth at the very beginning that the foundation of all of our rights is the profound and equal dignity of each and every member of the human family. It is not the gift of kings or potentates or presidents or parliaments, but one that is inherent."
The most agressive objections to the Declaration have been in the islamic world Umma and focus mainly on the articles concerning marriage, family, and religious freedom. Saudi Arabia's decision in 1948 to abstain from the final vote on the Universal Declaration stemmed primarily from its disagreement with the Declaration's affirmation of a right to change religion (apostasy). Similarly, most muslims insist that freedom of expression (blasphemy) cannot be taken so far as to justify insulting the Medieval war lord Mohammed - who according to historians didn't even exist in official muslim writings before many decades after his death.
In 1990, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), comprising more than 50 muslim-majority states, answered the Universal Declaration with a version of its own, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. The Cairo Declaration affirmed Islamic law (sharia) as its sole source and notably omitted any reference to a right to change religion or freedom and equality for women etc..