Commentary by Jackie Cheng
This is a commentary written by law student Jackie Cheng (University of Texas) in response to Professor Vanja Hamzić's paper, "An 'Islamic Bomb' and the Politics of Scientific Dissent: Pakistan's Feminist and Peace Disquietudes amidst an Unending Cold War.” Cheng wrote this commentary as a member of the Working Paper Series Editorial Committee. Professor Hamzić provided a response to Cheng's commentary that can be read at the bottom of this post.
The paper “An ‘Islamic Bomb’ and the Politics of Scientific Dissent: Pakistan’s Feminist and Peace Disquietudes amidst an Unending Cold War” by Vanja Hamzić, examines Pakistan’s nuclear program through the lens of scientific dissent, feminist and peace movements, and the lingering effects of Cold War politics. It critiques the notion of an “Islamic bomb,” tracing its origins in nationalist and opportunistic rhetoric while highlighting the ways patriarchal, militaristic, and Cold War-era logic shape nuclear nationalism. The paper explores how Pakistan’s nuclearization was justified through an entanglement of security concerns, religious symbolism, and geopolitical maneuvering, while simultaneously suppressing counter-narratives from scientists, feminists, and peace activists.
The paper’s central intervention reframes Pakistan’s nuclear history through the perspectives of scientific dissent and feminist-queer critique. Rather than viewing nuclear development solely as a geopolitical or security matter, the author situates it within broader structures of power—highlighting how nuclear nationalism has been deeply intertwined with patriarchal geopolitics and militarized masculinity. In doing so, the paper challenges dominant narratives that glorify nuclear weapons as symbols of national strength, revealing instead the suppression of alternative voices that advocate for peace and disarmament. The author critiques the prevailing Cold War logic that continues to shape South Asian and global politics, arguing that the region’s “frozen peace” is an extension of an unending Cold War rather than a genuine path to stability.
Hamzić argues against the personification of Pakistan’s nuclear program as a necessary or inevitable development and critiques the sidelining of dissenting voices, particularly from feminist-queer and peace movements. The paper brings in debates on nuclear politics, gender, and postcolonial statecraft by demonstrating how nuclear nationalism serves as both a militaristic and gendered project that sustains elite power structures from the colonial era.
From a legal perspective, Hamzić’s paper raises important questions about nuclear governance, international law, and the role of legal frameworks in enabling nuclear nationalism and upholding gendered discourse regarding the role and rule of law. Pakistan’s decision to not sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and its intention not to sign as long as India has nuclear weapons offer a unique case study of the limitations of international legal regimes in preventing nuclear proliferation in an increasingly security-oriented world. This legal positioning reflects broader debates in international law about the effectiveness of treaties and international statutes in shaping state behavior when geopolitical realities demand alternative strategies and often take a securitized and militarized approach.
Feminist legal scholars have examined how nuclear policy is interwoven with gendered legal and diplomatic discourses. For instance, Carol Cohn’s work demonstrates that discussions on nuclear deterrence and conflict often reinforce masculinist notions of power and control. The discourse surrounding security issues frequently employs sexualized language to refer to war and conflict. Hamzić’s engagement with feminist and queer perspectives aligns with these critiques, emphasizing that nuclear nationalism is not just a security matter but also a product of patriarchal statecraft. This intersection of international law and gendered legal analysis offers valuable insights into the social and political forces shaping both nuclear policies and the discourse surrounding conflict and security in the legal and policy spheres.
Additionally, the paper discusses how scientific dissent raises important legal questions regarding state secrecy and the rights of scientists to challenge national security policies. Many states, including Pakistan, enforce strict secrecy laws that limit open debate on nuclear policy. Examining Pakistan’s legal framework in comparison to other nuclear states could shed light on the balance between national security concerns and the rights of scientists and activists to advocate for disarmament and speak out without fear of retribution.
By considering these legal dimensions, the paper contributes to a broader interdisciplinary conversation about nuclear governance and the role of international law in upholding these gendered and masculinist ideas of power and control.
Professor Hamzić provided the following reply to Cheng’s commentary:
Thank you so much for this thoughtful and deeply engaged comment. I agree entirely with what you’ve conveyed—it captures the core concerns and analytical ambitions of my working paper with clarity and care.
As you’ve rightly noted, the piece aims to complicate dominant narratives of nuclear nationalism by foregrounding feminist-queer and dissident-scientific perspectives, and by situating Pakistan’s nuclearisation within broader patriarchal and Cold War-inflected structures of power. It’s particularly affirming to see these dimensions so carefully unpacked in your response.
Sadly, as you also suggest, the research paper remains all too relevant. It was written before the latest round of Indo-Pakistani military skirmishes, which, whilst not addressed directly in the text (written prior to them taking place), continue to operate within the same nuclear logic I critique—one marked by deterrence posturing, hypermasculine nationalism, and the systematic marginalisation of peace-oriented voices. These developments further underscore how enduring—and dangerous—this unending Cold War paradigm remains.
Thank you again for your generous engagement. It’s contributions like yours that keep this conversation vital and evolving in these troubled times!