Article Analysis on “A letter from Riyadh”
Written on the 26th of January by an anonymous writer in Riyadh. Just days after the death of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the writer, whose identity is protected, voiced his opinion on how the successor would run the country. He realizes that his country is falling behind the west in terms of technology and human rights. This may or may not be a unique opinion in Saudi Arabia, but I have reason to believe this person. I would say this person is credible for being a primary source and living in the story.The writer uses statistics, most likely, from reports from various agencies that write reports on human rights. The writer lives in the country that isn't the most secretive about what bad things are going on these countries. This person is a good source of what it’s like there.
The site or business running the letter I would believe to be credible as they are a ‘nonpartisan’ political journal that covers D.C and politics. The organization runs stories that try it’s best to be neutral and seems to succeed in that but in a very non-threatening way possible.The organization is credible in that it has many people with differing opinions writing on various topics. This is no way to substitute going to different news sources as getting a clearer picture is to get many opinions and formulate the best possible opinion given the facts presented.
This person, through the course of the letter, is very noncommittal on the subject because before and during the writer uses words like ‘loyal’ and ‘subjects.’ This person builds up the last king as a savior for the people, and, if not for the sickness, would've brought Saudi Arabia into the 21st century. Soon after, the writer goes into paragraphs about the next-in-lines possibly being horrible at leadership. The writer doesn't directly criticize the current king. but the successor and seems to plead for the king to change his appointment of second-in-line to his son who “has shown that he has the potential to be a wise and balanced leader.” The writer then proceeds to connect the toppling of Egypt’s and Tunisia’s leaders. Hoping for the king to try and establish a constitutional monarchy that has been talked about from people within over half a century ago. Further, provides a claim of a well-known political activist who says the king would be willing to convert to a constitutional monarchy.
it seems now that the king is in power, the writer hopes the king follows through with this plan.The writer also hopes the next generation of Saudi citizens will not be as complacent as their elders. The writer says “I certainly hope that is true. Otherwise, Saudi Arabia’s next and most educated generation . . . are unlikely to ask as nicely or wait as patiently as their parents and grandparents did.” This is the only thing throughout the whole piece that puts any criticism on the new king. The writer delivers a warning to the king by bringing up the recent events.
In the paragraphs skipped over the writer mentions the many human rights issues Saudi Arabia has. The writer expresses their displeasure with the history of the kings appointed second-in-line and how he handled power in a big position. It clearly shows that the prince let power go to his head. Appealing to emotion, I believe, the writer wants to place no blame on the previous or current monarch. The writer previously states that King Abdullah was a ‘generous’ and ‘forgiving’ king but failed to connect that the prince was able to do all things under the previous king. Though in a period of declining health the king could not completely be at his best but the prince was still like this before then.
Very early into the kings reign so the claims the writer makes will not be proven or disproven for some time. The writer has many damning instances of the Saudi government doing bad things to its’ citizens. The facts presented are the only part of substance throughout. The writer uses emotional and speculation in their argument in the letter. The source is slightly more credible in that the writer is closer to the event than most people.