‘NUCLEAR PROGRAM FOR PEACE’ – UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF SAUDI ARABIA’S

PROPOSITION

INTRODUCTION

The year is 2023 and in utilizing its partnership with Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Secretary-General,
Antony Blinken in his trip to the Kingdom, hoped to broker peaceful ties between Saudi Arabia
and Israel. But while we are all for world peace (who isn’t???), Saudi Arabia wants one thing
among other things (after all, it is a negotiation) – a chance to pursue its nuclear program.1 While
this would ordinarily be considered an outrageous proposition given the existing international
enactments against nuclear arms proliferation, an assurance from Washington backing up the
Kingdom should they eventually launch the program makes all the difference. As a permanent
member of the UN Security Council, for instance, the U.S. could very much utilize its veto power
to halt any form of a resolution against Saudi Arabia in the wake of the fulfilment of their plans.

In the end, the question remains – what could go wrong if Saudi Arabia is not stopped? This article
would attempt to give a proper answer to that question. It would briefly consider the position of
international law on the subject, highlighting various enactments on the proliferation of nuclear
arms. And finally, it would look at the “what could go wrong” aspect of the issue.

The position of International Law on Nuclear Arms proliferation

Since its inception, the United Nations (UN) has made its intention known on the need to ensure
the eradication of nuclear weapons. The use of the atomic bombs during the Second World War
raised enough concerns over their destructive capabilities and as such the UN, in its first General
Assembly resolution in 1946, established a Commission to look into atomic energy and to make
proposals for the control of atomic energy to the point that it would only be used for peaceful
purposes, among others.2

1 Riyadh wants nuclear programme for 'Israel ties': report

https://www.newarab.com/news/riyadh-wants-nuclear-programme-israel-ties-report accessed on 19 June 2023
2 Disarmament | United Nations

https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/disarmament accessed on 19 June 2023

Since then, various other multilateral treaties have been established to ensure the eradication of
nuclear weapons and nuclear arms testing. There is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (NPT); the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) which aims at
banning nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere, outer space and under water; and the
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). In the end, it is the ‘wish’ of international
law that the pursuit of nuclear arms by any State be discontinued for peace, sustaining the
environment, and maintaining a general international legal order.

Irrespective of its efforts, some States keep pushing for the realization of their goal in owning
nuclear weapons. Since the establishment of the NPT by the U.S, U.K, Russia (then U.S.S.R),
France and China in 1968, some States like India (1974), Pakistan (1998), and North Korea (2006)
have all successfully acquired nuclear weapons; Argentina and Brazil attempted but later
abandoned their nuclear programs respectively; Libya tried and failed to develop nuclear
weapons; South Africa had a running nuclear program though eventually dismantled it voluntarily
in 1991 and joined the NPT; while Israel still maintains an uncertain status over whether or not it
has nuclear weapons.3 Then of course, there is the situation with Iran which led to the Iran-U.S
Nuclear deal. In the end, questions have emerged over the ability of States to adhere to the
intentions of international law on the subject.

‘Nuclear program for peace’ – what could go wrong?

On the face of it, one could wonder what could wrong if the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia succeeds
in its pursuit of a nuclear program. I mean, few countries own nuclear weapons but it has never
been used as a threat, right? Besides, under international law, every State is equal hence, how
true would that be if some States own nuclear weapons and operate active nuclear programs
and other States are not allowed to? While these are valid reasons, here is a raw opinion about
what could actually go wrong with the Kingdom’s proposition:

1. Further undermining of international law. It has already been noted that the adherence
to international law continues to suffer a decline in recent times. From precepts of

3Nuclear proliferation | Military, Arms Control & International Security | Britannica

https://www.britannica.com/topic/nuclear-proliferation accessed on 19 June 2023
 customary international law to enactments of international organizations, treaties and so
on; the lack of adherence knows no bound. In the end, the allowing Saudi Arabia to go
through with its plans would not only reduce the adherence and application of
international law enactments, but would directly affect the existing legal order which
binds States and other entities under international law.
2. State pursuit of nuclear program resulting in nuclear arm proliferation. By allowing Saudi
Arabia pursue its own nuclear program, it would signal the need for other States wanting
to pursue the same program to join the bandwagon. In the end, the particular issue
international law hoped to forestall – nuclear arms proliferation – could be what is
obtainable, thus changing the existing order in the international community from legally
binding to “might is right”.
3. Deepening existing regional and international tension (crisis). Saudi Arabia is already
involved in a number of international crisis in Yemen and Syria; its establishment and
pursuit of nuclear arms program would not only heighten existing tension, but cause a
general atmosphere of uneasiness. Some States could under the guise of the right of Self-
Defense launch preemptive attacks on Saudi Arabia (this could appear far-fetched but
crazier things have happened). Aside from that, other permanent members of the UN
Security Council, for instance, could back up their allies in the region in their respective
pursuit for nuclear arms program.
4. Absence of existing system of command and control. One of the major concerns that
motivated the establishment of the NPT was the concern that the developing countries
striving to run nuclear programs lacked a system of command and control that existed in
the U.S., Russia and other nuclear powers.4 It is the presence of this unique system of
command and control that has ensured that these nuclear powers have never issued
direct threat of its usage no matter how tense the political situation between them may
be. While it can be argued that Saudi Arabia can always develop and maintain such similar

4 Ibid
 system of command, it would be better to err on the side of caution and forestall the
actualization of this proposition.

Conclusion

A lot of commentators have locked horns on the issue of nuclear arms proliferation. Scholars like
Kenneth Waltz had a widely canvassed notion that the proliferation would ensure that no State
could deliberately attack the other since every State would most likely own a nuclear weapon,
hence ushering in a period of peace and stability. Others have argued on the opposite direction,
stating that the proliferation could lead to a nuclear incident, deliberately or accidentally. Also,
with the presence of various non-State actors, there is no telling that some of these nuclear
weapons could fall into the wrong hands which could result to serious international incident(s).

In the end, it is our humble opinion that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia abandon its pursuit of a
nuclear arms program. If it is unsure of the ability to protect itself as a result of normalization of
ties with Israel, it would be advised that they join a military organization like NATO which would
of course afford them the needed protection they want.