If the face of Helen of Troy has launched a thousand ships into the sea, then Barack Obama's speech, which he delivered this day last week, has sent a thousand commentaries sailing across the international media. I was particularly interested by a commentary written by William Dobson for the Washington Post, under the title of “The two words Obama didn't mention”. The title is a reference to the two words ‘Saudi Arabia', since the words ‘the Kingdom of” does not appear in the country's official name in English. Dobson is not an extremist Likudnik. I have read him in the past, and found him to be at times reasonable and at others simply ignorant about our countries. In his recent article, he protests the fact that President Obama overlooked Saudi Arabia in his 5600 word speech. In a paragraph I reproduce here, Dobson said, “It isn't merely that Saudi Arabia maintains the type of repressive regime that Obama publicly decries. During this season of revolution, the Saudis sent their security forces into Bahrain to help squash the protesters, in essence sharing their repressive state tools to help stabilize Bahrain - the very country to which Obama offered a stern message of rebuke. So Bahrain should not engage in "mass arrests and brute force," but the Saudis, who show it how, earn no mention at all?” I am not writing today to defend Saudi Arabia at all, but only to rectify some of the glaring errors that I would have taken to be deliberate had the writer had a different reputation. First of all, the Saudi system is not an Athenian-style democracy. For this reason, it is difficult for the ‘gentlemen' to accept it or understand it. It is a system based on the Quran and Sunnah. If any referendum is to be held in Saudi Arabia, an absolute majority would choose to uphold the system that we know. Further, King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz is very popular among the Saudis, and I do not believe that this is because of repression, but is instead a result of his efforts for reform. Secondly, the Saudis did not send security forces, but sent regular troops as part of the old and established treaty named the Peninsula Shield, which comprises all six GCC countries. Thirdly, Saudi troops did not go to crackdown on the protesters, but to defend an ally in the face of a coup orchestrated by dissidents who made the issue of reform a cover for implementing their agenda. I personally heard them with my own ears in Lulu Square calling for the downfall of the regime, and the same was explicitly stated by one of their leaders, Hassan Mushaima. Fourthly, and further to all of the above, the Saudi government is not engaged in repression. If it did, we would have seen a revolution of rage in the streets of Riyadh and Jeddah, as we have seen in other Arab cities. Once again, I am not defending Saudi Arabia, and there are a thousand ways to reform its security system, and to meet legitimate calls for reform (I have always maintained that the protesters in Bahrain have legitimate demands and objected only to the attempted coup d'état). Personally, I prefer Western-style democracy over any other system. However, I am not talking here about my own preferences, but those of the Saudis. A majority of them is content with the current regime, and the opposition abroad is either opportunistic or one that seeks a hard-line religious regime. Perhaps I would not have commented on William Dobson's piece, were it not for the fact that I read it against the background of an ongoing tumult, involving the arrest of the young Saudi woman Manal Sharif on ‘charges' of driving a car. I don't see a Saudi woman driving here as a ‘charge', but as a right for her. There are many rights for Saudi women and Arab women that we want to see them enjoy. Personally, I find that the rights enjoyed by Arab women are incomplete, and I have maintained this position in my column whenever any pertinent topic was raised. Since I read while others oppress women, or attempt to, I believe that there is news and many news on Saudi Arabia each day. And instead of taking interest in what is most important, we find some caring for no other issue than women driving cars. If these people would visit me in my office, I would show them the issues that they must endorse to defend their countries, in the face of false information and deliberate lies. As I write, I am looking at a cartoon with the same bottom line as Dobson's article, published by the Christian Science Monitor, a moderate newspaper. The cartoon shows Obama giving a speech and saying: We support the people of Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain & Yemen, as they rebel against their oppressive rulers. But along with the president, there is a huge elephant in the room wearing a sign that says: Saudi Arabia, the huge oil producing elephant in the room, standing above a screaming man. They do not want to believe that the Saudi King is very popular, and that the absence of protests of any size is proof that there are limited demands. Moreover, the Saudi government is probably more liberal than its conservative people, and often enacts reforms that are opposed by many. It is not then a matter of a people demanding reforms that the government rejects. [email protected]
