At the time, the move was taken as another challenge to Moscow and a symbol of the Union's disintegration. But as the years passed, it became apparent that this was the start of a well-considered policy of a newborn independent state. Within a short space of time, Kazakhstan (followed by Ukraine) rid itself of its inherited nuclear arsenal, and declared itself a nuclear-free state.
Let us reflect on what would have happened if Almaty (plus Kiev and Minsk) had decided that an independent state would be better off by having a nuclear capability large enough to make others respect and fear it. The scenario is easy to imagine: Kazakhstan would have had 1,040 one megaton nuclear warheads, 104 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and 40 Tu-95 Bear heavy bombers equipped with Kh-55 long-range cruise missiles carrying 370 tactical nuclear devices.
It would have been the fourth largest nuclear arsenal in the world. What a temptation to be ahead of, say, China in weapons! Almaty's decision to renounce the military atom is all the more impressive in this light, and hence all the more respected.
In the years since independence, Kazakhstan has become one of the most economically successful and prosperous countries in the world - and lack of nuclear weapons has been no handicap. Pakistan, on the other hand, now has an arsenal of its own, and what of it? It still lags a long way behind Kazakhstan (not to mention India and China).
Significantly, the rejection of the military atom has not prevented Kazakhstan from cultivating the peaceful atom. Kazakhstan not only has a sizeable proportion of the world's natural uranium reserves, which is a major factor in Russian-Kazakh cooperation. In 2002-2006, Kazakhstan took the unprecedented step of diluting about three tons of highly enriched uranium from an Ulbinsky nuclear reactor BN-350 to produce low-enriched fuel for peaceful reactors - rather than manufacture two dozen bombs. In the process it used new technologies developed by Kazakh nuclear scientists.
Kazakhstan is also a contributor to an international thermonuclear reactor project.
Recently, Kazakhstan's nuclear agency has purchased 10% of the American Westinghouse corporation, which builds nuclear power plants.
What other country springs to mind when you review Kazakhstan's 16 non-nuclear years? Naturally, Iran. Or rather the looming threat of a crisis over whether or not Iran is carrying out a secret nuclear program and whether it has the right to the peaceful atom.
What is the difference between the Kazakhstan of 16 years ago and the Iran of today? That they follow different policies? Perhaps, but the world has changed a lot since then, and unfortunately not for the better. The U.S. and Europe may well be blamed for many blunders in relation to Russia and other former Soviet republics in the post-Soviet era. Suffice it to recall the ABM Treaty, which the Americans destroyed. But blunders aside, there was also the Nunn-Lugar program (Cooperative Threat Reduction), which among other things helped to stop the spread of nuclear weapons across the world. It also provided economic support and security guarantees for Kazakhstan when it gave up its Soviet-era arsenal.
Remarkably, Senators Richard Lugar and Sam Nunn themselves arrived in Moscow ahead of Wednesday's meeting in Astana marking the 16th anniversary of the Semipalatinsk closure. But they came to another conference - dealing with Russian-American relations in arms control and nuclear partnership.
Could things have been different? If Iran had not been included in the "axis of evil", and if the provisions of Nunn-Lugar had been applied there as they were in Kazakhstan, would we now have an Iran maintaining equally acceptable relations with the U.S., China, Russia and the Arabs, an Iran with a well-developed nuclear industry and non-nuclear status?
Such an outcome may seem improbable. But if nothing else, the experience of Kazakhstan proves that it is far from impossible.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
