It Is the Right of States to Possess the Bomb

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

From a moral standpoint, developing, possessing, and using weapons of mass destruction is unacceptable, because it carries within it a principle both hidden and explicit at once: the threat to kill people indiscriminately. It is a principle that departs from the logic of war, which normally features a killer and a killed on the field of battle, and from which non-combatants and non-supporters are, in principle, supposed to be exempt. Because of this principle, these weapons remain held back in strategic reserve, yet within reach the moment a commander decides to use them. These weapons do not exist for nothing, or merely to demonstrate a state’s scientific and technical advancement; they exist to be used, once the state that possesses them judges that the time has come.

War as a whole may well be immoral, but it is a historical reality that cannot simply be leapt over, at least not in this historical stage we are living through. Human society may become more advanced in the future and be able to solve its problems without wars. When that time comes, we can imagine humanity giving up its selfish impulses, and the world becoming free of lethal weapons. We are now very far from such an ideal state, and the world may never pass through a stage of true idealism at all, particularly if selfish impulses are innate to human nature. In the Noble Qur’an, it is clear that self-interest is innate, not acquired. God, glory be to Him, says, for instance, that people love wealth intensely, and says that man was created anxious, fretful, and withholding.

At this historical stage, it appears that whoever plays the role of the Messiah is bound to lose, because power remains the most important factor governing international relations. It is the strong states that impose their dominance, and that impose their decisions on the weak states. Weak states may argue and debate, and the strong states raise no objection to that, but in the end the weak states must fall in line. The strong states appear to be democratic, making room for debate, conferences, and dialogue, but the logic of the strong inevitably prevails, and this is an objective fact. Democracy exists in form, but the valves of power always remain present, and every party to the dialogue is aware of this fact. Kindness for whoever listens in the end, and the stick for whoever wants to rebel.

…-wayn — the Israeli case and the Iranian case — and there are many examples from our own experience as Arabs.

It is the strong states that drafted the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, yet it is they who continue to carry out their own nuclear weapons research and develop their own nuclear arsenals. They did not draft the treaty out of some upright morality that had suddenly overtaken them, but rather in order to monopolize nuclear capability, keep the countries of the world under an implicit threat, and guarantee their good behavior. If these states were serious, we would find them gradually ridding themselves of their nuclear capabilities and other capabilities of mass destruction, so that the world would become free of these lethal weapons. But what actually happened is that the former Soviet Union, and later Russia, were never able, together with the United States, to devise a formula immune to mutual deception. The two sides sit down to discuss their good intentions toward nuclear disarmament, and then each side maneuvers to strengthen its own nuclear capabilities.

The great nuclear powers certainly aim at achieving global stability, but they do not necessarily seek to achieve global peace. Stability means the balance of power remaining as it is, which means the continuation of their dominance over the world. This is clearly reflected in permanent membership of the Security Council, which expresses a global authoritarianism headed by the United States. Global peace requires participation and mutual respect, while dominance and authoritarianism require stability. This is the way of the strong in every time and place: he is content with his own strength, and allows no one to compete with him. The strength of others represents a breach of the monopoly, and a challenge to monopolistic interests accumulated over time. Israel’s nuclear power did not constitute a challenge, but rather a reinforcement of colonial dominance, and there was never any necessity to confront it.

Here the moral question comes forcefully to the fore: which should states choose — possessing nuclear power, which is itself an immoral act, or remaining in a state of weakness, which is likewise an immoral state? Should I possess a weapon that goes beyond the logic of war, or should I remain suffering under the injustice of an oppressor and the exploitation of the greedy? Morally speaking, the answer lies in the fact that it is possible for the strong to establish justice, while the weak lacks the power to lift injustice from himself. The strong is not necessarily aggressive, and may well confront another strong party practicing injustice unchecked; the weak, on the other hand, finds no help from his own principles in achieving the desired global peace. The Western states have not hesitated to inflict injustice upon Arabs and Muslims, and it is no wonder that they fly into a rage over Iran’s nuclear activities.

From a moral standpoint, if there is even a single state in this world that possesses a weapon of mass destruction, and the other states have no capacity to strip it of that weapon, then it is the right of the rest of the states to possess it too, precisely in order to free themselves from a state of weakness and to be able to confront whatever injustice may arise.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “من حق الدول امتلاك القنبلة” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.