Debate in the United States over safeguards in the nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia
Democratic lawmakers are urging Marco Rubio to push for any agreement with Saudi Arabia to include voluntary guarantees in line with the nuclear nonproliferation “gold standard.”
A letter sent by the United States Department of State to a senator revealed that a proposed agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia regarding the development of nuclear energy in the kingdom lacks the strict safeguards advocated by Democratic lawmakers.
Last year, the administration of Republican President Donald Trump stated that it was seeking to conclude a civil nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia to support American industry and strengthen diplomatic relations.
Nuclear nonproliferation advocates have raised concerns after Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said that Saudi Arabia would seek to develop nuclear weapons if its regional rival Iran did so, remarks made in response to ongoing Iranian violations at the time.
Dozens of Democratic lawmakers wrote to Secretary Rubio in March urging him to press for a United Nations protocol — long supported by Washington — that grants the International Atomic Energy Agency broad oversight authority over countries’ civilian nuclear activities, including the power to conduct surprise inspections at undeclared sites.
However, a May 18 letter from the State Department to Democratic Senator Edward Markey states that the agreement would only require a less stringent “bilateral safeguards agreement” between Washington and Riyadh.
Lawmakers also urged Rubio to press for any agreement with Saudi Arabia to include voluntary guarantees in line with the nuclear nonproliferation “gold standard.” Rubio had previously supported applying this standard to Saudi Arabia when he served in the Senate.
This standard, accepted by the United Arab Emirates in 2009 before building its first nuclear power plant, prohibits uranium enrichment and the reprocessing of nuclear waste, both of which can provide pathways to producing fissile material for nuclear weapons. The letter, however, made no mention of this standard.
Paul Gualianoni, a senior legislative affairs official at the State Department, wrote to Markey that the agreement is under “final review” ahead of Trump’s signature.
He stated that the agreement “establishes the legal foundation for a decades-long, multi-billion-dollar civilian nuclear partnership between our two countries and advances several priority economic and strategic objectives.” The White House did not respond to questions about when the president would sign the agreement or how safety would be ensured, but referred to a statement by Energy Secretary Chris Wright in November saying the agreement includes “a firm commitment to nuclear nonproliferation.”
The State Department said it could not discuss the details of the proposed agreement because it is under final review before signature, but a spokesperson stated that the draft includes all conditions required by law and reflects “a shared commitment by the United States and Saudi Arabia to strong safety, security, and nonproliferation standards.”
Once Trump signs the agreement and submits it to Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives will have 90 days to pass resolutions of disapproval. If they do not, the agreement will enter into force and allow the United States to share civilian nuclear technology with Saudi Arabia.
Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Center for Nonproliferation Policy Education, said Washington should insist on stricter standards, including those related to uranium enrichment, given that reactors can operate for decades.
He said, “If you allow a country to make nuclear fuel, you had better hope it remains your friend forever.”
