It's hugely disappointing to read the recent analysis written by Mr. Ian Black in the Guardian newspaper this morning (The Guardian, 20/05/11, Page 2).
He wrote, I quote “Strikingly, Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive countries in the Arab world and a key US ally and oil supplier got not a single mention in the 5400-words speech of President Obama".
To me, his inaccurate comment about Obama’s speech makes up for his repulsive and aggressive views towards Saudi Arabia. His personal views have been and will be tacit support to anarchists and extremists against stability and prosperity in the North Africa in general and Arabian Peninsular in particular. I feel that Mr. Black has treated Saudi Arabia rather unfairly to say the least. Mr. Black could have blamed Mr. Obama for the turmoil that has engulfed the Middle East during his presidency. Mr. Black would have known that Mr. Obama is at fault for doing too little to support the revolution of secular forces in Iran in 2009, while criticizing on daily basis one of the most important US allies (Mubarak) without asking himself whether there is any strategic objectives in such policy. Sadly, according to Mr. Black's own words (see his report on 20/05/2011, page 26, the Guardian newspaper). I quote "Yet Egyptian liberals, leftists and Christians may face a far bigger problem...... with the resurgence of fundamentalist." What is deeply ironic is a comparison he made of pro and anti Mubarak on 19/05/2011. The former refused this excessive freedom, and insisted Egyptians after Mubarak took democracy and flipped into chaos.
Without any hesitation I should say, our friend Ian Black has needlessly criticized Saudi Arabia at this juncture.