How Should Countries Treat Each Other? A Primer on How to Bring About Peace 

©Shutterstock

Tariq Mahmood, Toronto, Canada 

War robs children of futures, families of security, countries of peace. People are starving in Sudan and gunned down in Gaza. The risk of nuclear war is ever-increasing, with the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists stating that the Doomsday Clock (which illustrates how close we potentially are to a nuclear war) is ninety seconds to midnight (or apocalypse). 

In such a highly charged environment, what responsibilities do countries have to one another, and to the people of other nations? Islam, in the Holy Qur’an, has laid down clear guidelines on the responsibilities rulers have, not only to their own people, but to people beyond their borders. 

These principles are applicable today, and are vital to restoring peace between nations. 

Restricting Arms and Military Training 

While many governments claim that they want peace, at the same time, they will often provide arms and military training to countries, instead of working with local governments. Indeed, this feeds a vicious cycle that further fuels terrorism and destroys peace. As His Holiness Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad (aba), Worldwide Head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, points out, ‘We have already seen the dangers and folly of this policy. Some time ago, certain major powers gave military training to members of the Syrian Opposition and it was later widely reported that many of those same rebels had taken their newly acquired arms and training and joined terrorist groups.’ [1] And in fact, this has happened before: when the United States armed mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union in the early 1980s, they planted the seeds for the future Taliban. Thus, the provision of arms and military training, far from supporting peace efforts, creates a cycle that prolongs fighting, sometimes for generations. 

One obstacle is that the sale of arms is a thriving business. Oxfam reported that between 2018 and 2022, arms imports accounted for 112 billion dollars spent each year. [2] As His Holiness (aba) has explained, ‘Many analysts and experts have proven beyond doubt that the weapons being used by the terrorist group ‘Daesh’ and by other rebel or extremist groups were originally produced in the West or in Eastern Europe. Consequently, instead of bringing an end to the wars plaguing the Muslim world, the major powers are actually further igniting them. Rather than prioritising peace, they have continually sought to influence and even profit from warfare.’ [3]

And yet it is often argued that the arms race can lead to deterrence. This theory argues that a country will be less likely to attack another country if the second country is capable (and has the weaponry) of launching a similar attack on the first country. Yet the reality is exactly the opposite: ‘Furthermore, it is sometimes argued that the sale of weapons may actually “encourage” peace, as weapons can act as a “deterrent.” In my opinion, this view is completely senseless and only encourages the further production and sale of extremely dangerous weapons. Indeed, it is such justifications that have caused the world to become embroiled in a never-ending arms race. For the sake of the good of mankind, governments should disregard fears that their economies will suffer if the arms trade is curbed. Instead, they should think about the type of world they wish to bequeath to those that follow them.’ [4]

In short, the large-scale of arms is both a cause of world unrest but also a symptom: ‘The very fact that the tools and artillery used in wars, such as nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, are being developed proves that these hatreds have spread to an international level. Otherwise, why is there a need to develop such long-range weapons, whose principal aim is to target lands as far away as possible?’ [5]

The Flawed Justice of the United Nations 

While the United Nations was created to prevent the circumstances that would lead to a world war and to foster cooperation and peace, it was established with a fatal flaw: the veto powers of the five countries of the UN Security Council. The United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and China each have the right to unilaterally veto any policy of the Security Council, but no other country has this sort of power and influence. Indeed, this gave the lie to the ostensible intentions of the United Nations: ‘The United Nations (UNO), a body whose ill-intentions became obvious from its outset when it allocated a veto power to certain superpowers. The superpowers adopted certain principles for themselves and different ones for other weaker countries.’ [6]

Yet justice cannot be established while there is such an unequal balance: ‘All forms of veto powers should be removed and the finer points of justice need to be identified…The Holy Qur’an has taught us how to fulfil the requirements of justice; it says that even if you have to testify against yourself or your relative then you must do so. How many matters are there that are presented in such an institution that was constituted after the Second World War so that the world could be saved from the horrors war in future, where the major powers accept criticism against themselves and where they admit their own mistakes? The decision of not admitting one’s own error was taken at that time when the United Nations was formed and a provision for veto power was granted to the five major powers. The fundamental requirement for justice of even giving evidence against oneself was denied. How can this institute establish justice?’ [7]

Indeed, continued use of the veto power is actually anti-democratic, as His Holiness (aba) so aptly pointed out, referring to the current conflict in Gaza, 

‘Though both the Israelis and the Palestinians have their supporters, the veto power has only been used in Israel’s favour since the current war ignited several months ago. For example, in February [2023], 13 out of 15 members of the UN Security Council voted in favour of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, but the United States utilised its veto power and the resolution was defeated. How can peace be established when the majority view is so easily discarded? That is not justice; instead, it is a rejection of democracy and the principle of equality.’ [8]

An international body that promotes peace and cooperation among nations cannot build on such a shaky and inherently unjust foundation. For there to be a truly effective international order, smaller and poorer countries must also have an equal voice. 

What, then, should foreign policy objectives be? As His Holiness (aba) states, ‘My request to you, and indeed to all world leaders, is that instead of using force to suppress other nations, use diplomacy, dialogue and wisdom. The major powers of the world, such as the United States, should play their role towards establishing peace. They should not use the acts of smaller countries as a pretext to disturb world harmony.’ [9]

In addition to diplomacy, there should be no favouritism in foreign policy. ‘Remember also not to be cruel to a nation merely because an ally or a friendly government of yours is against the people who neither caused you any harm nor caused any harm to any ally of yours. Or if it caused you some harm, it does not mean that instead of fighting with its government, regime or its force, you begin to show your enmity even against its citizens, children and its women.’ [10]

But perhaps the most important element in foreign policy is to consider the interests of all people: ‘Political leaders and those who have access to policymakers must take a long-term view of what is in the best interest of mankind rather than being blinded by a selfish desire to assert their superiority over others. We must all come together, setting aside national, political, and other vested interests for the greater good of humanity and to ensure that we leave behind a prosperous world for our future generations.’ [11]

In 2024 alone, too many children, too many women, too many people suffered in conflicts, dying from bombardment, from starvation, from disease. Only a just foreign policy that emphasises cooperation and mutual aid can release the world from this misery. 

About the Author: Tariq Mahmood is an Imam of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in Canada and serves in the editorial board of The Review of Religions. 

ENDNOTES

1. 12th National Peace Symposium, 14th March 2015, https://www.reviewofreli- gions.org/11693/the-golden-principles- for-world-peace-2/ 

2. https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/ top-five-arms-exporters-hit-yearly-sales- 85-billion-9000-people-die-conflict-driven

3. Address at the Calgary Peace Sympo- sium, 11th November 2016, https://www. reviewofreligions.org/12813/ways-to-es- tablish-world-peace/

4. 14th National Peace Symposium UK, 25th March 2017, https://www.reviewof-religions.org/13082/global-conflicts-the- need-for-justice/ 

5. ‘The Natural System of Justice and Balance’, https://www.reviewofreligions. org/4221/the-natural-system-of-justice- and-balance/ 

6. ‘Means of Peace’, https://www.reviewof- religions.org/2466/means-of-peace/ 

7. 7th Annual Peace Symposium UK, 20th March 2010, https://www.reviewofreli- gions.org/2289/7th-annual-peace-sympo- sium/ 

8. ‘The Critical State of the World – What is the Blueprint for Peace?’ https://www. reviewofreligions.org/45046/the-critical- state-of-the-world-what-is-the-blueprint- for-peace/ 

9. Letter to President Barack Obama, 8th March, 2012, World Crisis and the Pathway to Peace, p. 218. 

10. ‘Promoting Peace’, https://www.re- viewofreligions.org/1053/promoting-peace/ amp/ 

11. ‘The Critical State of the World – What is the Blueprint for Peace?’ https:// www.reviewofreligions.org/45046/the-crit- ical-state-of-the-world-what-is-the-blue- print-for-peace/