Tit-for-tat: nuclear insanity in the Middle East

Arab foreign ministers, meeting in preparation for a forthcoming Arab summit, called for the building of an Arab nuclear programme. The final declaration of the Arab summit itself in March 2006 contained an unprecedented number of references to nuclear issues, although it stopped short of calling for an Arab nuclear programme1. However, leaders of Gulf Arab states, meeting in Saudi Arabia in September 2007, proceeded further and agreed to launch a formal study on establishing a Gulf nuclear programme2. All this comes in response to Iran's ongoing efforts to develop its own nuclear programme. Both Iran and the Arab States claim that their programmes are for peaceful purposes; Egypt and Morocco have also stated their interest in developing civil nuclear power3. Everyone suspects that Iran is building up towards nuclear weapon capability; everyone knows that the response of the Arab States would be towards the same goal if the current situation escalates. Iran, in turn, refers to Israel's nuclear weapons programme and the conspiracy of silence of the international powers. The despicable failures of both regional and international parties to resolve the various Middle East conflicts are at the heart of the current impasse. The presence of the nuclear weapons club continues to inspire more nations to join. Nuclear deterrence is unlikely to be effective. The escalating regional conflicts, which are turning into quagmires in several countries – Iraq, Palestine/Israel, Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia – raise the probability that nuclear weapons will find their way into use.

Nuclear escalation in the Middle East promises a disaster for everyone. Regional wars and conflicts already exact a tremendous toll on human life in death, disability and suffering. A nuclear conflict using modern technologies will have unimaginable consequences. In the hands of terrorists, a nuclear strike can hit anyone on this planet. No health systems, let alone our feeble ones, can handle the short or long term consequences of nuclear war. The nuclear medical rescue teams, established in Israel and Turkey, cannot seriously make any difference in the case of nuclear conflict and do not present a useful model. The region already has the highest world rates of conventional arms sales, consuming substantial resources. Attempts to acquire nuclear technology will divert more precious resources from health and development and turn attention away from the region's major ills.

This insanity must stop. But how do we exit the current path? The case of India and Pakistan is illustrative. Both nations raced to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent; today, both nations emphasize dialogue and co-operation as the best way to deal with their ongoing conflict. Dialogue across the Middle East divides would also be helpful in easing regional tensions but is unlikely to address the root causes of the conflicts. The structural failures of the modern Middle East, which were created by the colonial powers in the twentieth century, must be acknowledged and treated. Realistically, this is unlikely to happen soon with the continued hegemony of global powers over regional destinies, the corruption of compliant national leaderships, and our willing engagement, as locals, in wasteful wars. The empowerment of the peoples in the region to contribute to building a more just and more equal world is needed for us to live peacefully in the region. This is a long term process, one my generation may not witness, which involves very small steps originating from all aspects of civil society: the home, school, clinic, hospital, neighbourhood and community. Any peace and justice action is a health action.

This is where health professionals can make a difference. International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which was founded in 1980 and grew to 140,000 physicians by the time it received the Nobel peace prize in 1985, did just that. It galvanized physicians in many countries and contributed to the strength of the anti-nuclear weapons movement. However, the effort was not sustained and we must learn the lessons. Engaging like-minded groups on specific issues can succeed in immediate mobilization, but having a long term impact requires addressing the broader and complex issues which underlie current conflicts. Physicians of the region are not collectively organized and, with their privileges and the erosion of their image in the eyes of the public, may not be the natural leaders for the demands of the needed change. Organizations with a broad representation of the spectrum of health professionals working on various health issues or, alternatively, engagement of health professionals in public initiatives and organizations that are making a difference, would be more effective. This is how health professionals will be able to incorporate anti-nuclear activities into ongoing initiatives and agitate towards nuclear shame and disarmament. Considering that current Middle East conflicts are, historically and operationally, global in nature, we need the engagement of the global health movements. This is especially true for those based in the United States and Europe which have traditionally had the most leverage over parties to the conflict.

The nuclear issue, which promises to escalate in future months and years, adds to the intractable problems of the region. In the light of their historical failures, we do not expect the regional and international leaderships on all sides of the conflicts to propose visionary solutions; it is, however, within their capacity to refrain from promoting public sentiments towards nuclear pride or fear and away from decisions leading to a regional nuclear race. Can we hope for this?

Notes on contributor

Samer Jabbour is cardiologist and Consultant in the Faculty of Health Sciences at the American University of Beirut.