There are several examples of the closed mind in real life and in literature. Two literary examples are especially powerful. One is that of Luther in John Osborne’s play of that name. Luther is fully convinced that he is right and issues a challenge to Catholicism. There is a war and in the end he justifies all the killing in the name of his interpretation. The other is that of the Grand Inquisitor in Fydor Dostoevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov. The grand old man imprisons Christ himself and justifies his decision to burn him as a heretic with fiery zeal and the conviction of complete faith in his interpretation of what would be better for humanity. But both are complex characters who show signs of self-conflict too. Who knows how much conflict there is among those who have closed minds and are in positions of power in the world. The closed minds believe so much in their being right and are so overridden by dogma (religious, nationalistic or some other) that they are ready to take great risks. They are oblivious to death and destruction because they do not value life; either their own or that of other people. They may be irrational sadists, necrophilians (lovers of death) or so filled with hatred, pride or ambition as to lose contact with reality albeit only in some aspects of their decision-making. However, such leaders are prone to taking decisions which, if one minces no words, can be called ‘suicide’ and ‘murder’.
The terrorists who destroyed the WTC on 11 September committed suicide of this criminal kind because their anger or hatred became so irrational that they killed themselves and caused untold suffering to so many people of all nationalities and ideologies. Osama bin Laden, who created a terrorist group Al-Qaeda to force the Americans to withdraw from their bases in Saudi Arabia too committed both murder and suicide when he caused death anywhere in the world. The Taliban who refused to hand him over to the Americans also committed suicide of the kind which kills other people. In the Gulf War Saddam Hussain of Iraq had done the same by not withdrawing from Kuwait. But, the use of overwhelmingly superior air forces to attack Afghanistan is also ‘murder’ in the context of this article. The continuation of sanctions on Iraq knowing that they cause suffering and death among Iraqi children is also ‘murder’. We know that the Taliban have closed minds because of their lack of exposure to ideas. But if the U.S decision-makers believe so much in their being right that they continue to wage a war in which ordinary people, and eventually their own citizens too, risk being hurt or killed, then they too have closed minds. Resort to violence without humanitarian considerations and without weighing the long term effects and incidental fallout of ones’ actions is a sign of the closed mind---the fanatical mind. Religion has its fanatics but so does nationalism; so does jingoism; so does the feeling that one belongs to a superior civilization. There are the factors which have closed the minds of the U.S decision-makers. So, if the Taliban committed suicide and are guilty of the blood of their citizens; the U.S decision-makers committed murder and are even more guilty of the blood of the same people.
Even on the twenty second day of the carnage---it can hardly be called a ‘war’ in the conventional sense of the term so far---the U.S has not found Osama. Indeed, now we are told that Osama might never be found. The aim now is to remove the Taliban regime. This makes one wonder what the U.S might have done if the Taliban had handed over Osama in the first place and dismantled the Al-Qaeda camps or, at least, made the terrorists abandon them for the time being. Would the U.S have installed guards to inspect these camps permanently? If so, the terrorists could have moved to new camps and there would have been another grievance against the U.S---namely that of grabbing yet more military bases in the Muslim world. In short, there was no way the Americans could have made America a safer place to live in. Still more to the point, the toppling of the Taliban regime will not make America safer either. First, the Taliban might disappear in the mountains and continue with guerrilla operations on any regime which is established in Kabul. Second, the Taliban might move into Pakistan, Iran and Central Asia destabilizing the governments in these countries. Third, the Taliban might become part of secret organizations full of hatred for America and bent upon taking revenge. As they are connected with Pakistan, having been educated in the religious seminaries in this country, this would increase the pressure on the ruling elite (both military and civil) of Pakistan. What will make America safer is to operate with an open mind; a mind full of real humanitarian concern for all human beings; an informed mind. Such a mind will look to the sources of conflict. For instance, the U.S.A can start by first pulling out its troops from Saudi Arabia. This, after all, is Osama’s initial and major grievance. Instead, the United Nations can be requested to send in troops from Muslim countries---Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Egypt etc---to protect the external borders of Saudi Arabia and, of course, the oil wealth there. Secondly, America, once again through the U.N.O, should first make Israel pull out of the West Bank and then address other Palestinian grievances. Maybe, if the borders of Israel are agreed upon and then fenced permanently, the Hamas and Hizbollah will have few adherents left to commit suicide and murder. Third, if the U.S, once again through the U.N.O, brings about a solution of the Kashmir issue, the pro-Taliban and Jihadi groups in Pakistan will be rendered ineffective. In short if the U.S. wants security it should not only stop the present war in Afghanistan but also remove causes of the grievances against it in the Muslim world. It should also change certain policies elsewhere in the world but just now let us focus only on the Muslim world.
In short, I am talking about the strengthening of the United Nations at the expense of the United States---not in order to compromise the security of America but, indeed, to make America a safer place to live in. After all, the League of Nations and the United Nations were both meant to prevent war. But both failed to do so because war is inherent in the theory of nationalism which insists on sovereignty. This insistence made the U.N a poor relative as far as the forces were concerned. The U.N had to borrow armed forces from members which remained powerful and sovereign. If the U.N is to keep peace it should have the strongest forces in the world and all, repeat all, nations should be its voting and vetoing members with equal powers. The present structure of some members having special powers must be abolished. Only then can the U.N prevent any one country, such as the U.S.A, from starting a war without a U.N verdict endorsed by all equal members (i.e all countries of the world) after a fair and transparent trial. This will make the U.S more secure than it is. If the aim of keeping armed forces is to be secure it is best served by a U.N army than one’s own army. If nation-states understand this there will be peace in the world. But the old concept of sovereignty and nationalism have closed our minds to the extent that we have become incapable of understanding that the security and happiness of our children depend upon our abolishing both murder and suicide at the international level---that is, abolishing acts of war and terrorism.
Dr. Tariq Rahman