Prof. Dr. Daniel S. Lev: Bush is not a “Sophisticated” Man

George W. Bush’s rhetoric on invasion upon Iraq is to liberate Iraqi people from the Saddam Hussein’s tyranny. American aggression upon that one thousand and one night country is called as “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” But why Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Arab Emirate Union and their allies in the Middle East, which were authoritarian, tyrant and despotic are not touched by America? What is Bush’s main problem in persisting to attack Iraq? Here is the “witness” of Prof. Dr. Daniel S. Lev, the prominent Indonesianist from the Washington University, Seattle, America and Ifdhal Kasim, SH, executive director of ELSAM (Institute of society’s advocate studies). Ulil Abshar-Abdalla at Jakarta interviews both on 20/3/2003. Here is the interview:

Mr. Dan, what is your reaction toward President George W. Bush command to attack Iraq recently?

Daniel S. Lev (DL): my reaction is mixed up. I am very sad as the citizen of US; furthermore I am sad as the humankind. It is a pointless war at all. It is a war where the behind imagination is harming the whole world. It is an enormously bad war. But on the other hand, it is the war that is hopefully –I search for optimism in this case- alert the people in the whole world that the world’s structure should be constructed from now on.

The world’s structure that recognizes only a single superpower state should be altered?

DL: yes, a single superpower is always dangerous, especially when that superpower’s views regarding the world’s matters are not so much sophisticated. This matter is obviously observed within George W. Bush (the current American President). Bush is not someone sophisticated; even he is not educated well. As everybody know that this man does not master the English language at all. It indicates something.

America is a very big state, but most of its people are unaware about the world, and the notion regarding the world out of America is not taught in the schools. Afterward there’s such naivety within American people. American government should have been paying attention toward it. Otherwise, the whole world should be better observing it (quoting Gunawan Mohammad’s terms, “narrow-minded, American’s view of the outer world,” Jawa Pos, 3/2/2002).

Brother Ifdhal, what is your view upon the America’s attack?

Ifdhal Kasim (IK): I am highly surprised since indeed Bush has a very dangerous imagination regarding the world’s structure. That’s why he dares to attack without any support of the UN. It means that Bush disparages the UN. It indicates as well that UN as the institution that is built to keep the world’s peace have no more strength to stop the action of taking the law into any state’s own hands, as showed by Bush and his ally Tony Blair (the British prime Minister). Therefore that attack has no justification from the international law side.

What Bush has done could be called as an aggression. Therefore the UN’s members that have the veto rights and significant political strength in the current world’s structure should demand the Security Council of the UN to convene and formulate a specific resolution to face this war. The UN should also assert its position toward what has been done by Bush.

Mr. Dan, this American unilateralianism action actually has been going on the long time. It’s observed trough its denial upon the Kyoto Protocol, denial upon ICC (International Criminal Court) and so on. Why does it happen?

DL: in this case (the guilty) is not only the Republican Party. We should remember that Vietnam War is also unilateral and irrational. And intervention upon other country that is incessant toward Ronald Reagan, ironically he is from the Republican Party as well, similar to Bush. This unilateral base grows more extraordinary, since the fall of Soviet Union at 1990. It means that America has won in the cold war, and could take the law into its own hands.

Since the fall of Soviet Union, we recognize George Bush Senior, Bill Clinton, and Bush Junior. Clinton paid more attention toward America itself, and more open toward other countries. But we should remember that America in that time also forced its policies that do not always benefit other states. They always think how to be number one. It’s like a football game.

What do you mean?

DL: It means that if we are strong, we could do anything we please. That’s what happened. If the Americans vote the President with the vote minority, someone unsophisticated, so the chosen president eventually would emphasize upon the American power only. That could be used everywhere: for economy, politic and so on.

UN’s existence as the multilateral institute is threatened. What about the prospect of the international law’s upholding with the current condition of the UN?

IK: It is truly contemptible. This global political structure leads America to not having anymore match opponent. It leads the prospect of international law’s endorsement to weaken, because the state such America could arbitrarily step over the UN’s policy. Therefore, there should be power structural reformation in the UN’s body that reflects the balance of power present in international structure. Meanwhile, the states having the veto rights were five only, and in the West. One presented in Asia, China.

From the five of them, it’s only British who support the invasion. France, China and Russia reject it. It means there is a majority rejection; even though it doesn’t change America’s position. The world’s strength seems uni-polar. What is your response?

DL: Actually, it is not the matter of West-East. It indicates something vigorous. There is a difference as well among the westerns countries. For instance, France and America are too much different in this Iraqi case. The hardest thing between the non-America countries is the non-existence of logical approach to limit the American power. Actually the UN is responsible upon the solution. But what if the America does not desire it?

You have mentioned that Bush is uneducated man. How could the educated American people vote for that sort of President? It may be a form of democracy’s paradox: it might not the best that is chosen by people.

DL: it is a complex problem. In America, as the majority modern countries, there is no democracy. We are better not being naïve regarding that. In American system, there is something that to me is a little bit dangerous; presidential system based on two parties. If both parties were not being responsible, we would certainly get an irresponsible president. Those politicians could be voted to some extent because of their money, for instance the Republican Party’s politician.  It should be admitted.

So, it is the result of the non-ideal process in democracy?

This is a very bad process, because if there were only two parties, there would be tendency to move toward the center. In Democratic Party, some group of people called as democratic leadership. They tend to consider that to win the national election, they should show their intimacy to the Republican Party. It is rather absurd. For instance people like Al Gore, Clinton, Lieberman and so on. Consequently, eventually they start thinking like a Republicans. Then what is the difference between people of the Republican and Democratic Party?

Then, there should be one, two or three more new parties in America. Ironically, there is one thing that always agreed by the Republican and Democratic Party as well, that there should not be any new party.

The urgency of the UN’s reformation is suggested a long time before. But America is too strong to be balanced.

IK: We expected there is a transformation of the global political constellation, for instance on the development and growth of European-Union. We know that Europe union has been progressing and its membership is more increasing. I think the growth of the Europe Union’s political power would balance the America’s power. It is enabled when Europe truly revive as a political power which could substitute the Soviet Union’s role in the past. So, the world’s political structure would be more balance.

China’s possibility to be the power of balance becomes another alternative. But in the closer moment, we are not hoping so much because the China’s growth still requires a long time. There is a hope for the new power deliverance as the balance of power.

Mr. Dan, you said that there are many protests in America. But, why doesn’t it listen by Bush?

DL: yes, there are many protests. It’s about democracy. Since the beginning Bush has determined the plan of that attack. He had decided about the UN, about the opposition in America or in the congress. Almost everyday there are a very big demonstrations.  I believe that today there are many demonstrations, from the East to West. This Bush phenomenon is being one more problem in the presidential system. He required not thinking over this and that; he is president, and considers himself to be capable in deciding many problems. He could not be overthrown, except he did something bad in the form of scandal. He could not be overthrown, except in the next election. So, even though there are many protests, he do not feel worry at all.

So the strong Bush position is supported as well by the presidential system. That’s very dangerous. Is a parliamentary system such as in England, Tony Blair now is in the hard position, and might be thrown by the Labor party itself. It could not be happen at America.

Many people say about the oil motive behind this war. Is that right?

DL: to me it is not merely about the oil. That’s not the only matter thought by Bush and his government. To analyze what is supporting Bush’s policy seems not clear enough. But obviously there are several motives: war could emerge patriotic feeling and win Bush in the next year election. It observed in Bush’s argument that Iraq is involved with the terrorism. This argument is totally irrational. There is no history of Saddam Hussein’s closeness to Al-Qaeda. Bush might not be understood about it, but his advisors really understand about it.

Why do they press that? It’s hard to be understood, a president has a weird brain. I don’t know myself. If I read the journalists’ comments that were very close to Bush, they admit that they do not exactly know what Bush thinks. Bush himself is not so much articulative to explain something. When he explains something, the people would be more confuse. There are many possibilities; I think it’s not only the matter of oil and not the matter of Islam although there is an element of that. There’s a religious element. Bush is a president with a simple view toward the world, God and etcetera.

Bush rhetoric such as the call of axis of evils seems to say that Saddam and Khomeini are devils. It seems that there is a religious terms element in Bush rhetoric. What’s your view?

DL: the religious element is not few. To me, Bush joins the popular religious view in America. That view could be called as fundamentalist-Protestant, despite of the fact that I don’t like the fundamentalist terms. They simply divide the world into two parts: the good and the bad or evil part: who go the heaven or hell. And to kill others in the name of God is allowed; God agree. That kind of simplistic view, for a president of United States, would be very dangerous.

According to brother Ifdhal, what is the motive behind this attack?

IK: from Bush’s rhetoric, we know that the motive is to maintain the national interest of America, especially the interest to anticipate the annoyance of the terrorists and the mass destruction weapon of Iraq. The both motives are frequently conveyed in the public. The motive said by Mr. Dan does not appear in the public.

Bush imagines pressing the reformation in the entire Middle East. Is that realistic enough, Mr. Dan?

DL: On one side, one of the basics of this war’s policy actually has existed ten years ago. In that time, people like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and so on surround Bush senior. They were called as neo-conservative group. They planned many things so that America being more aggressive, especially in the Middle East, to press the reformation in that region. Nevertheless, what the meant with reformation is binding them with the American interests. This is a very complex problem.

To their opinions, America is not only the superpower state, but also the best; so it could teach the world. It is a very dangerous view. They were dangerous themselves, because they were intellect enough. It’s a narrow-minded intellectual group, which do not afraid to commit a mistake like murdering many people.

In Middle East, objectively, they led by despotic leaders who could not overthrown through the election. America considers that they need an outside force. Is that view acceptable?

IK: that kind of argument is unacceptable. The overthrowing process of a regime from the outside by the motive to start a democracy process could not be justified in the international law. Since the international law do not recognize intervention, which is obviously written in the UN’s charter. The intervention motive is used only when the real humanitarian crisis were occurred in a certain region. For instance, when there is a massacre in Rwanda and Serbia. In this condition, there is a justification for intervention. But on the argument of upholding the democracy, overthrowing a regime by violence is not justified.