Ethnic Equality, National Identity and Selective Cultural ...

Ethnic Equality, National Identity and Selective Cultural Representation in Tourism Promotion: Kyrgyzstan, Central Asia Nicola Palmer Sheffield Hallam University – CITouR, UK This paper considers ethnic equality and stakeholder involvement in relation to tourism as a tool to build national identity in post-Soviet, post-communist Central Asia. Both issues are integral to the development of sustainable tourism. The discussion reviews national identity issues and inter-ethnic challenges facing post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan, and focuses on the responses of Kyrgyz tour operators to the emphasis of tourism promotion on ethnic Kyrgyz cultural heritage, excluding other ethnic groups and heritage. Despite a high degree of tour operator freedom from the State, a surprising degree of operator support for this promotional bias is noted, in contrast to the reported ethnic conflict over affirmative discrimination towards the ethnic Kyrgyz population.

doi: 10.2167/jost826.0 Keywords: ethnic equality, Kyrgyzstan, nationalism, tourism promotion, tour operators

Introduction The potential for tourism to assist nation-building efforts through the promotion of national identity to global audiences is well recognised (Henderson, 2003). In the Central Asian republics, nation-building is a major challenge, closely linked to the history of the region, the loss of all-Union structures and the impacts of the loss of central government subsidies from the USSR (Akiner, 2003). Within the context of post-Soviet reform, the development of international tourism also represents one of the few viable developmental paths for many parts of the region. International tourism offers potential economic opportunities and a way of raising international awareness of these countries. It has therefore generated a general state interest, and the inclusion of tourism within the state planning of post-Soviet Central Asian republics is notable. The development of international tourism in a multi-ethnic, post-Soviet Central Asian destination, the Republic of Kyrgyzstan, is the focus of this paper. It considers how far the selective representation of cultural heritage for tourism promotion purposes acknowledges and reflects the ethnic situation within postSoviet national culture, and what degree of stakeholder involvement is involved in deciding on promotional policy. This land-locked state, with borders to China, C 2007 N. Palmer Vol. 15, No. 6, 2007

0966-9582/07/06 645-18 $20.00/0 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

645

646

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, has been repeatedly described as the most democratic of all post-Soviet Central Asian independent states. However, the destination is largely unknown internationally and this necessitates a review of the Soviet and post-Soviet contexts, the multi-ethnic situation and inter-ethnic relations alongside an examination of the issues of ethnic equality, national identity and selective cultural representation in tourism promotion.

Kyrgyzstan: The Destination Marketing Context Creating destination awareness is a key challenge for Kyrgyzstan – arguably the least known of the Central Asian states from a western perspective. In an attempt to communicate its attributes in relation to a known concept or brand, the destination has been positioned in the international tourism marketplace as the ‘Switzerland in Central Asia’ (Glavtour, 2000) or ‘Asia’s Switzerland’ (Haberstroh, 2000). Like other relatively ‘new’ international destinations entering an overcrowded marketplace, Kyrgyzstan needs to project a distinctive identity and position for its place brand. To do this, those involved in the destination marketing of Kyrgyzstan must identify the country’s unique selling point (USP) and differentiate the destination, most notably from the neighbouring competitor destinations, such as Mongolia, to avoid substitutability. The identity-building process for Kyrgyzstan is challenged further by the ongoing neoliberalisation of the country. The role of the state in the economic sphere is ambiguous, as private sector growth and free enterprise are encouraged (Hathaway, 2004; The Heritage Foundation & The Wall Street Journal, 2006). The role of Kyrgyz tour operators in the international tourism destination marketing and promotion of Kyrgyzstan must be considered, along with the influences of those tour operators, upon nation-building in the state.

National Identity and Nation-building The need for acceptance of communicated national identity within a nation is vital. However, many academics argue that national identity is contested because of social and cultural differences such as gender, class, language and ethnicity. National identity building in post-communist contexts highlights, in ¨ (2004) argues that ethnic nationalism has particular, ethnic differences. Bingol now succeeded communism. Horowitz (1993) remarks that in ethnically divided societies the determination of social, economic and political inclusion and exclusion is dependent upon clear identification of ethnic identity. For Central Asia, Soviet national delimitation simplistically positioned ethnic identity in terms of titular (i.e. core group or native ethnic group) versus non-titular ethnic ¨ 2002). groupings. (Aydingun, With respect to post-Soviet nation-building activities, Kolossov (1999) argues that the state has to simultaneously glue together the titular people and a nation consisting of many other ethnic groups. Thus, it has to identify its priorities and strategy and decide whether it will primarily support the nation as a whole or concentrate on the titular people (its ‘core group’). Gachechiladze (1997) observes the division of Soviet nationalities into the ‘native’ (titular population) and the ‘non-native’ (non-titular population) and claims that non-native citizens rarely possessed a patriotic feeling towards their Union Republic of residence.

Ethnic Equality in Tourism Promotion

647

Elebayeva et al. (2000) have argued that the legacy of the Soviet past still strongly affects the perception of ethnic policy and the concept of the nation state held by post-Soviet Central Asian citizens but they acknowledge a personal dimension in that everyone possesses their own interpretation of the past. Kolossov (1999), however, claims that state-building decisions overwhelmingly result in the privileging of titular populations, their language and the imposition of old and new national myths.

Touristic Representation and Selectivity The idea of selectivity and a lack of value-neutral representations in tourism promotion have been acknowledged by tourism researchers (Del Casino & Hanna, 2000; Hall, 1994). Tourism relies upon imagery as a marketing tool to differentiate between destinations; imagery plays a key role in the construction of images of cultural heritage and identity. In post-communist nations, previously imposed national narratives appear to encourage the creation of cultural identities linked to pre-communist ‘ethnic’ heritage. The identities projected for tourism promotion purposes are a potentially powerful means by which outsiders comprehend the way in which a nation wishes to be seen. Light (2000) asserts that former socialist states recognise the ideological significance of tourism as a means to present or display a specific self-image to the wider international community, and tourism is, thus, a means of projecting and affirming post-socialist identities. Leong (1997) notes how tourism and nationalist policies are often complementary, especially in promoting a sense of historical past and reviving cultural heritage. The processes by which the projected identities are selected for tourism promotion have received little academic attention to date. However, the location of power within the process of the selection of constructions for tourism promotion is an important issue (Morgan & Pritchard, 1998). As Horn (1997: 60) remarks, ‘. . . who gets to tell the story is the battle of the day’.

The Politics of Ethnic Tourism Representation The idea that the selectivity involved in destination promotion might further perpetuate power disparities among social groups and, in particular, limit ethnic minority actor roles, is considered by Buzinde et al. (2006). They note how previous researchers (Britton, 1979; Cohen, 1989; Dann, 1996; Echtner, 2000; Echtner & Prasad, 2003) have focused on the marketing of ‘Southern’ or less developed countries, and have identified stereotyping of ethnic hosts. Within a ‘Western’ or developed country context, Callahan (1998) has also demonstrated that there exists an ethnic dimension to the politics of tourism. The employment of ethnic groups as resources within a tourist destination context is an issue that is common in the research of ethnic tourism scholars ¨ (Viken & Muller, 2006). People as resources are particularly important within the context of developing countries where resource challenges exist. Doorne et al. (2003) highlight the active engagement of ethnic actors within the process of touristic image representation. The identification of an ‘aesthetic ethnicity’ is raised, where the quest for marketing differentiation, the promotion of diversity and a need to ‘redefine heterogeneity in the face of homogeneity’ (Doorne et al.,

648


2003: 9) results in the most unique and appealing characteristics and behaviours of the ethnic groups being promoted. The idea of tourism as ‘the new colonialism’ is primarily concerned with how host populations are commodified and employed as spectacles for Western visitors, with host populations as submissive victims within the process. Echtner and Prasad (2003) used the post-colonial theory to interpret the content of ‘third world’ tourism promotion and they argue that multinational tour operator brochure representations of ‘third world’ (or developing) nations perpetuate myths and thus replicate colonial forms of discourse. In her study of the Bahamas, Palmer (1994: 792) argues that the reinforcement of a colonial ideology through tourism imagery ‘prevents local people from defining a national identity of their own’. There is a need to acknowledge the extent to which any reconfiguration of identity for tourism purposes compares with wider state identity-building and ethnic policy issues. Henderson’s (2003) study of Malaysia provides an important insight into how tourism’s representation of and appropriation of ethnic groups is the outcome of broader state structures and processes. She examines the issue of tourism promotion within a multi-ethnic nation, focusing on the case of Malaysia. Her study considers how a country and its people are presented in official destination promotion and considers the dynamics that shape the decisions made by those responsible for tourism promotion. She reports that despite state-level affirmative discrimination (towards the Malay population), tourism promotion recognises and capitalises upon the commercial benefits of promoting Malaysia as a multicultural nation. She makes the important observation that the economic potential (the primary driver of tourism development) results in commercial judgements overriding the effectiveness of tourism as an ideological disseminator. Hall (1999) specifically examined the destination branding and national image projection in post-communist Central and Eastern Europe. He identified the traditional representation of people as being a continuation of state socialist practice and, within his analysis, identified the promotion of ethnic exclusivity and the erasure of minority groups from the cultural landscape. Jamison (1999) observed that tourism has the potential to unite multi-ethnic groups within a destination by offering opportunities to pursue shared goals and to identify the distinctions between ‘them’ (outsiders) and ‘us’ (insiders). He questioned whether the inter-ethnic relationships or linkages between ethnic groups within a society created in reaction to the promotion of ethnic identity for tourism purposes can affect identity and nation-building in longer term.

Post-Soviet Central Asia, Ethnicity and Nation-building At first glance, Central Asia faces similar challenges to other post-Soviet countries with respect to nation-building and the reconstruction of national identity. But Central Asia is very different from the others because of its history, and its relationships with Russia, notably in terms of dependency (Kubicek, 1997). The Central Asian countries were assigned ethno-national identities and had never existed as independent nations prior to Soviet rule.


649

Kolossov (1999) observes that independence, nation-building and the reconstruction of national identities have resulted in an outburst of nationalism since the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, the multi-ethnic composition of post-Soviet countries is a challenge to these nations if inter-ethnic conflict is to be managed. Pretes (2003) identifies a shared identity to be an official goal of countries that are comprised of many different titular and ethnic cultures. Many of the ethnic cultures in the Central Asian Republics are the result of induced settlement during the communist period. However, Askar Akaev, President of Kyrgyzstan from 1991 to 2005, was particularly concerned that Kyrgyzstan’s ethnic diversity was maintained (Wilkinson, 2006). He explicitly promoted the ideology of a shared national identity, often referring to Kyrgyzstan as ‘our common home’ (Saipjanov, 2003), a common rhetoric amongst countries trying to address the ‘nationalities problem’ when faced with multi-ethnic populations.

The Multi-Ethnic Context of Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan gained independence in 1991 and, as a legacy of Stalin’s demographic engineering in the 1930s, the multi-ethnic composition of the population is diverse. While 66% are Kyrgyz, 14% are Uzbeks, 12% are Russians (Sharipov, 2007). In addition there are estimates that Kyrgyzstan contains people from over 80 other different groups (Akmatova, 2004; Omuralieyv, 2004). Post-independence, Kyrgyzstan, like many other former Soviet states, has undergone immense socio-economic and political change, including considerable shifts in the ethnic composition of the Republic. Elebayeva et al. (2000) note that the disintegration of the USSR forced Central Asian citizens to identify themselves with one or the other republic; there was no longer a social space for any supranational identities. Immigration is identified as a politically sensitive issue within Kyrgyzstan especially for the Kyrgyz authorities ‘. . . because of its impact on relations with the Russian Federation’ (Abazov, 1999: 237); this sensitivity precludes the publicising of statistics on migration. The migration of people across Central Asia has been a common outcome of the 1991 post-Soviet independence process.1 Citizenship and nationality emerge, therefore, as key constructs within the context of post-independence restructuring and consolidation of national identity. This paper examines how multi-ethnic cultures are accommodated within nation-building efforts and, in particular, within tourism promotion (as a nationbuilding tool) and the way in which a nation equates to homeland and, thus, includes or excludes non-titular residents of Central Asian republics.

Soviet Legacies for Kyrgyz Identity Under Soviet rule, the ethnic Kyrgyz culture was officially suppressed (along with the ethnic cultures of other Central Asian ethnic groups) and it is claimed that the Soviets erased identity from the collective memory, creating a complex of inferiority amongst the ethnic (native) populations (Bakieva, 1995; Gardaz, 1999) but as Wright (1999) argues there was still scope for the citizens of Kyrgyzstan to see themselves as a national group. Wright (1999) argues that Soviet policy positioned the ethnic groups in Central Asia against the Russians. For the citizens of Kyrgyzstan, and the ethnic Kyrgyz citizens in particular, this ‘othering’

650


encouraged the building of resentment as the identification of a distinct grouping facilitated awareness of outsider exploitation, homeland minority and cultural and economic marginalisation (Wright, 1999). Chinn and Kaiser (1996, as cited in Barfield, 2004) compare the Russian conquest and resettlement of Kyrgyzstan to the European colonisation of South Asia and Africa. Since 1991 it is the ethnic Kyrgyz that have received an unequally large amount of positive political, economic and social attention in Kyrgyzstan, not solely by the Kyrgyz government but also through international development agencies and the focus of their assistance initiatives (Earle, 2005; Palmer, 2006). Connery (2000) highlights how affirmative discrimination of the ethnic Kyrgyz population has limited options not only for the ethnic Russian population but also for the ethnic Uzbek population (the second largest ethnic group in Kyrgyzstan) and even the ethnic Kyrgyz population themselves possess unequal power if they are unconnected to clans in power. The influence of regionalism and clan politics should not be underestimated. Connery (2000) has noted an overall under-representation of southerners within central government in Kyrgyzstan, and flawed parliamentary elections coupled with patronage networks have been identified to be at the root of the 2005 revolutionary events in Kyrgyzstan (Olcott, 2005). Inter-ethnic relations in Kyrgyzstan are complex. Tolkun (2007) reports that because the ethnic Kyrgyz emerged as the republic’s titular ethnic group postindependence, this automatically resulted in inequitable distribution of power and wealth. He suggests that cultural and ethnic assimilation has occurred in Kyrgyzstan rather than ethnic integration. This is in direct contrast to the official state policies of Kyrgyzstan. Faranda and Nolle (2003) identify competition for scarce resources as a key factor in the ethnic violence involving ethnic Kyrgyz citizens and ethnic Uzbeks in areas that encompass shared Kyrgyz and Uzbek territory. They report how this ethnic conflict later focused on language issues, directing the focus of conflict back towards the fundamental perception of Central Asian republics being homelands for titular nationalities (Olcott, 2001). Yet, officially, inter-ethnic tension in Kyrgyzstan is played down by the State. The Secretary of State, Adakhan Madumarov (2005, cited in Wilkinson, 2006), has remarked: ‘We have a unitary state, and it is not the state’s policy to look for problems where there aren’t any . . . . We could raise the same matter in Uzbekistan, there ethnic Kyrgyz do not feel as comfortable as Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan do’.

Methodology The fieldwork for this paper was conducted as part of a wider research study by the author into the promotion of Kyrgyzstan’s cultural heritage for tourism purposes. That study involved a series of 36 in-depth, semi-structured, face-toface interviews with Kyrgyz tour operators, representatives of cultural heritage organisations and NGOs based in Kyrgyzstan and multi-ethnic Kyrgyz citizens between March and April 2004. In this paper, the focus is on the responses from the Kyrgyz tour operators. Twelve face-to-face personal interviews were conducted with Kyrgyz tour operators, representing an approximate sample of


651

31% of all local tour operators.2 The tour operators were identified using the Internet and also by the snowball method; referrals from initial Kyrgyz tour operator interviewees were followed up to generate additional interviewees. The ethnicity of the tour operator interviewees was not explicitly probed, but some interviewees did discuss their own ethnic background during the interviews. The sample was mixed and included ethnic Kyrgyz, ethnic Russians and one British citizen. Each tour operator was provided with an advance written copy of the interview questions. Interviews were conducted in English; in two cases, the tour operator was accompanied by an English-speaking colleague who acted as an interpreter. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and this should be borne in mind with respect to the quotations included in the text. The results and discussion focused on: • Kyrgyz tour operator involvement in the promotion of Kyrgyzstan for tourism purposes; • Kyrgyz tour operator promotion of Kyrgyzstan; and • the involvement of local people. Information obtained from the interviews is referenced as personal communications. Prior to discussing the Kyrgyz tour operator responses, a brief overview of tourism in Kyrgyzstan and a brief discussion of the structure of Kyrgyz tourism is provided. It should be noted that although this contextual background is primarily based on desk research, it has been supplemented with further information provided by the Kyrgyz tour operators. Tourism in Kyrgyzstan is not new, but, like general economic development in the country, it has entered a transformational stage of development. Soviet rule created artificial tourism trading conditions within Kyrgyzstan, and the tourism that did exist in the country pre-1991 was largely in response to Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) social tourism demand. It was dominated by trade union-sponsored health tourism aimed at spas and sanatoria around the IssykKul region in the northeast of the country. As with many developing countries, the natural environment of Kyrgyzstan is one of the country’s most outstanding resources. The country is more mountainous (over 90% of the country lies above 1000 m), greener and less industrialised than its neighbouring counterparts such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan. The remote location of Kyrgyzstan, combined with its mountainous topography, has led to tourism marketing in Kyrgyzstan being focused on adventure, nature and ecotourism. But Claytor (personal communication, 2004) reported that the Kyrgyz government has officially removed its earlier interest in ecological tourism (outlined within the country’s Comprehensive Development Framework of Kyrgyzstan 2002–2010; Kyrgyz Government, 2001) and re-stated its focus as being on four priority areas: • recreational tourism, mainly around Lake Issyk-Kul aimed at the CIS market • adventure tourism, focusing on mountaineering, trekking, rafting, etc. aimed at international markets • Silk Road tourism • business tourism

652


It proved impossible to ascertain why the priorities were changed. Statistical data on tourist arrivals in Kyrgyzstan is not available before 1995 (Thompson & Foster, 2003) and access to tourism statistics and the reliability of those statistics post-independence are problematic. Claytor (2005) reports that official tourism statistics from the State Statistical Committee suggest that, in 2002, there were 139,600 tourists, and in 2003 this figure had increased to 211,300. In 2004, however, 1,527,500 tourists were reported by the Border Authorities (in comparison to 703,700 tourists reported by the State Statistical Committee for the same time period!). What is of interest is the geographical composition of tourist markets. The Kyrgyz Tourism Destination Marketing Association (DMA) (2006) reports that there remains a heavy dependency on tourist markets from the CIS (approximately 80%), domestic Kyrgyz tourists (approximately 20%) and international tourists were estimated to comprise only 2% of the visitor numbers. In terms of international tourism development Kyrgyzstan is an emerging destination, albeit a destination where tourism businesses appear committed to growth. There has been a continued increase in the number of registered tourism businesses since post-Soviet independence (Akmatova, personal communication, 2004). Komissarov (personal communication, 2004) argues the perceived value of, or reliance on, tourism by identifying it as one of the only three development options open to post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan, alongside farming and the mining of gold.

The Structure of Kyrgyz Tourism During Soviet times there were a limited number of tourism companies in Kyrgyzstan. The Moscow-based Soviet tourism operator ‘InTourist’ dominated tourism supply. Many modern Kyrgyz tour operators believe that tourism, as a market sector, started in 1990 in Kyrgyzstan. The end of Communism coincided with dramatically reduced wages across employment sectors in Kyrgyzstan, forcing many individuals to turn their hobbies into businesses (Katanaev & Schetnikov, personal communication, 2004). Many of today’s Kyrgyz tour operators were originally sportsmen (mainly trekking and climbing enthusiasts) who, faced with uncertain economic futures, decided to use their experience of the mountain terrain of Kyrgyzstan to develop commercial tours (Pyshnenko, personal communication, 2004). Generally, Kyrgyz tour operators have focused on two main types of tourism – adventure tourism based on the physical mountain terrain of Kyrgyzstan and the operators’ technical expertise and, to a lesser extent, cultural tourism based on tours visiting sites of ethnic Kyrgyz-built heritage. Tourism products have been spatially restricted due to geography and access (Claytor, personal communication, 2004) and it is claimed that 99% of all tourism revenues are in Issyk-Kul (Pyshnenko, personal communication, 2004). Since the 1991 independence of the country, tourism within Kyrgyzstan has officially shifted under the jurisdiction of the State Committee for Tourism, Sport and Youth Policy of the Kyrgyz Republic (SCTSYP), formerly the Kyrgyz State Agency of Tourism and Sports (KSATS). There are currently three main private sector tourism associations in Kyrgyzstan:


653

• the Kyrgyz Association of Tour Operators (KATO); • the Kyrgyz Association of Tourism Operator Services (KATOS); and • the Great Silk Road Tour Operators’ Association. These associations combine resources, especially in terms of destination promotion, in the absence of state coordination from the SCTSYP (Umataliev, personal communication, 2004). With respect to national tourism policies and consultation, it was claimed that local people have not been involved in the Kyrgyz government’s vision of tourism. There has been no public, private or local discussion, yet the Kyrgyz tour operators believed that ‘. . . everybody needs to know the rules and not just plans but what is actually received from tourism’ (Pyshnenko, personal communication, 2004). Furthermore, the purpose and aims of the SCTSYP were perceived to be in complete contrast to those of the Kyrgyz tour operators (Katanaev & Schetnikov, personal communication, 2004).

Kyrgyz Tour Operator Involvement in the Promotion of Kyrgyzstan for Tourism Purposes Officially, the promotion of Kyrgyzstan for tourism purposes has been led by SCTSYP since post-Soviet independence. During the interviews conducted for this paper, the role of the state as the official actor leading the tourism promotion of Kyrgyzstan was contested by each of the 12 Kyrgyz tour operator interviewees. A typical viewpoint was that ‘. . . the State Committee not promote, only declare’ (Polynsky, personal communication, 2004). Despite the tour operators feeling that the SCTSYP did not provide leadership in the country’s international tourism promotion, most Kyrgyz tour operators felt that it was imperative that the state should, however, possess a leadership role in common with the perceived situation in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan (Asel, personal communication, 2004; Birkov, personal communication, 2004; Katanev & Schetnikov, personal communication, 2004; Polynsky, personal communication, 2004). A lack of funding was identified as one barrier to this happening (Akmatova, personal communication, 2004; Birkov, personal communication, 2004). The actual level of desired state involvement was contentious. Claytor (personal communication, 2004) reported that the Kyrgyz tour operators resist regulation from the State and Pyshnenko (personal communication, 2004) argued that there was suspicion surrounding the state and a perceived lack of accountability that affected tourism. Pyshnenko (personal communication, 2004) also claimed that there exists inequality in terms of state support for tour operator promotional activities, arguing that Kyrgyz tourism promotion should be about Kyrgyzstan as one country. But Akmatova, a former employee of the Kyrgyz State Agency for Tourism and Sport, argued that although most private sector tour operators criticise the SCTSYP, ‘it only works to help but has limited scope to help. . . tour operators only see value of help in monetary terms’ (Akmatova, personal communication, 2004). It is evident that there persist difficulties within the transition to a market economy with respect to agreement and understanding of the respective roles of the state and the private sector. The economic realities of the country mean

654


that there are no large financial resources available for tourism promotion at either a state level or within the independent private sector business community. There also persists a cultural dimension acknowledged by Claytor (personal communication, 2004): ‘Soviet mentality still influences – the lack of taking responsibility, fear of accountability’. Relationships between the state and Kyrgyz tour operators Although the three private sector Kyrgyz tour operator associations exist, in reality there has been a piecemeal approach to the international tourism promotion of the nation with different tour operator companies projecting images reflecting their individual interests and their own corporate identities (Claytor, personal communication, 2004). Within this piecemeal approach there were claims that there is favouritism by the state towards certain tour operators and that some tour operators have played a more visible role than other operators. Novinomad, a tour operator established under the technical expertise of the Swiss Development Co-operation’s implementation agency, Helvetas, argued that the individual tour operators promote Kyrgyzstan as ‘the government does not do enough and it is left to the private sector tour operators to promote the country to gain new tourists’ (Asel, personal communication, 2004). It appeared that in the absence of state leadership, Novinomad had assumed the role of dominant tourism promotion actor. The tour operator produces a brochure providing more generic tourist information on Kyrgyzstan and Asel (personal communication, 2004) claimed that this brochure was given to other Kyrgyz tour operators who were allowed to use it in their individual promotional activities with their own company labels on. Yet, awareness and distribution of this brochure product amongst the Kyrgyz tour operators are questionable. During the fieldwork, at least one tour operator reported that they did not know of the existence of, and had never seen the Novinomad generic Kyrgyzstan brochure (Katanev & Schetnikov, personal communication, 2004). Another tour operator reported that he had regularly been asked by the SCTSYP to proof-read the tourism promotional materials of the state and had been allowed to alter the content as he wished, but time constraints, coupled with the amount of changes he wished to make, meant that he never took advantage of this opportunity (Claytor, personal communication, 2004). This degree of freedom to influence the content of state promotional materials is important. It signals that the state may not tightly control tourism messages, and thus questions the extent to which tourism promotion is influenced by wider state policies. It also suggests that the state is willing to defer to the tourism expertise of the industry, in line with the concept of market liberalisation. Of course, the scope for individual business exploitation of this situation must be recognised and, within the case of ethnic promotion, the affirmation of certain ethnic groups is possible. In this example the tour operator in question was a British citizen living in Kyrgyzstan. It was reported that despite accusations of negligence by the state with respect to tourism leadership, there was state influence on tourism and there were issues of attempted control, particularly around licensing (Claytor, personal communication, 2004). Attempts at regulation from the state are not well received by


655

the majority of the Kyrgyz tour operators because, after many years of a highly regulated Soviet system, there is a belief that regulation should come from businesses – ‘self-regulation’. The strength of feeling around this issue is such that one Kyrgyz tour operator argued that the country ‘. . . should not have to use western models and their mistakes. . . ’ (Umetaliev, personal communication, 2004). State involvement in terms of regulation was viewed as ‘anti-competitive’ because of the government’s reputation for corruption (Umetaliev, personal communication, 2004). There was a belief amongst the tour operators that they themselves acted as the gatekeepers of tourism knowledge on Kyrgyzstan (Claytor, personal communication, 2004; Kommissarov, personal communication, 2004), suggesting that the power and control over information and the international message sits firmly within the hands of the private sector rather than the state. At the time of the interviews, a new public–private sector Destination Marketing Association (DMA) was being planned, supported by Helvetas, and it was envisaged by the Kyrgyz tour operators that the DMA would become the new gatekeeper of tourism knowledge. The influence of the state on the tourism promotional activities of the tour operators has been revealed to be limited to economic (funding for international travel trade fair attendance) and legal bases (licensing of businesses). Although tourism has been identified as a state Comprehensive Development Framework theme and, thus, is of national strategic importance, the seemingly ad hoc manner in which the Kyrgyz tour operators have been allowed to develop promotional themes and communicate these to international audiences suggests there to be considerable freedom with respect to the content of promoted messages. No tour operators mentioned any state ‘signing off’ or authorisation procedures for their promotional materials.

Kyrgyz Tour Operator Promotion of Kyrgyzstan A wide selection of Kyrgyz tour operator brochures was used to illustrate the promotional focus of the tour operators with respect to the selective representation of Kyrgyz citizens for international tourist audiences. The multi-ethnic composition of Kyrgyzstan was poorly represented, with an overwhelming focus on ethnic Kyrgyz citizens in traditional dress, performing ethnic Kyrgyz cultural traditions (hunting with eagles, making felt carpets – shyrdaks, demonstrating horsemanship, erecting yurta – the traditional nomad’s dwelling) and displaying clear traditional gender role divisions within rural yurt camp settings. These images do not even accurately represent the regular lives of the ethnic Kyrgyz population – it is not restricted to rural areas (many senior government and academic posts are held by ethnic Kyrgyz citizens based in the capital of Bishkek and these citizens dress in western clothing and use modern technology). The Kyrgyz tour operator brochures often made reference to ‘ethnography’, but this was focused upon traditional ethnic Kyrgyz culture and greatly influenced by the country’s nomadic heritage (Central Asia Tourism Corporation, 2003; Kyrgyz Concept, 2003). The representations corroborated the observations of social commentators and researchers referred to earlier, in that supranational

656


Soviet symbols and myths have largely been replaced by ethnic Kyrgyz national constructions of a pre-communist past (Elebayeva et al., 2000; Kolossov, 1999). The selection of themes: Kyrgyz tour operator explanations The Kyrgyz tour operators were asked to talk through the emphasis of their tourism promotion and to explain how they selected their promotional themes. Their emphasis both in visual imagery and tour itinerary content was on the ethnic Kyrgyz population and their pre-Soviet cultural heritage. Tour operators explained and defended this emphasis on the basis of commercialism and market appeal. A lack of Soviet-built heritage was also offered as a partial explanation for a focus on pre-Soviet ethnic Kyrgyz heritage (Birkov, personal communication, 2004; Claytor, personal communication, 2004; Komissarov, personal communication, 2004). However, Pyshnenko (personal communication, 2004) argued that there was built heritage relating to other cultures, citing examples of Russian Orthodox heritage at accessible sites. Pyshnenko (personal communication, 2004), who did not reveal the promotional material of his own tour operating company, identified unequal bias towards ethnic Kyrgyz in tourism promotion as an extension of the ethnic inequalities that he perceived to exist in all spheres of economic, social and political life in Kyrgyzstan. Of ethnic Russian nationality, Pyshnenko (personal communication, 2004) lamented how: everything orientated for Kyrgyz culture but only 60% Kyrgyz, 40% other cultures. . . More than 60% Parliament as ethnic Kyrgyz. There is a problem of the protection of minority interest. Commercial influence Claytor (personal communication, 2004) argued that he adopted a marketoriented approach to the selection of promotional themes. His decisions on what it is worth people seeing depended on the availability of products (linked to probing market interests and expectations) and tour length. He reported that his tour selections were mainly geography-based and limited by access (by the state of Kyrgyz infrastructure) and distance (by tourists’ time availability). Umataliev (personal communication, 2004) reported that he had tried to repeat what developed countries used in their tours, hoping to capitalise on their expertise in reflecting tourist interests. He also tried to gauge potential future product interest by observing what photographs his tourists took. In addition, he considered the products offered by his competitors and tried to replicate the promotion of other Central Asian tour operators. Birkov (personal communication, 2004) felt that ethnic Kyrgyz heritage and nomadic life provided more touristic interest, as the nomads ‘didn’t stay in same place one time’ and ‘for foreign people interesting to see national clothes and dress’. Umataliev (personal communication, 2004) reported how as a tour operator it was necessary to consider the USP of Kyrgyzstan in comparison to similar destinations such as Mongolia and Kazakhstan (where there is a similar nomadic lifestyle). Claytor (personal communication, 2004) argued that ethnic Kyrgyz identity is an easily identifiable image and his company knew that they


657

can ‘sell’ ethnic Kyrgyz people and their related culture. Umataliev (personal communication, 2004) promotes the ‘. . . Asian/Kyrgyz people to show specific unique not seen in other countries’. Akmatova (personal communication, 2004) argued that her company used mixed pictures of ethnic Kyrgyz clans, but she claimed that the influence of tribalism and clanship is not present and ‘discrimination does not enter into tourism’. Representation of wider ethnic issues in Kyrgyzstan In terms of the use of ethnic Kyrgyz citizens in tour operator photos, Claytor (personal communication, 2004) asserted that, if the audience knew Kyrgyz tribal cultures well enough, then they would be able to recognise what region (and clan) the costumes, styles and colours relate to. This was supported by Asel (personal communication, 2004) and Komissarov (personal communication, 2004). In reality, personal investigations revealed that most local people were unable to do this (even amongst the ethnic Kyrgyz population); for international tourist audiences it would prove well-nigh impossible. Overall, the multi-ethnic composition of Kyrgyzstan was poorly reflected within the tour operator promotional themes and the official Kyrgyz state rhetoric of an inclusive ethnic state was not represented. However, this was not seen to be an issue by the Kyrgyz tour operators nor the other social and cultural agency representatives or even the multi-ethnic Kyrgyz citizens who were interviewed. It would appear that international tourism promotion was seen as an activity for economic gain and, in the commercialism of culture, selling the novel or exotic was regarded to be of greater importance. This supports the findings of other scholars of ethnic tourism and the marketing of ‘third world’ destinations (Bandyopadhyay & Morais, 2005; Echtner & Prasad, 2003). Further research is required to ascertain whether or not the focus on ethnic Kyrgyz cultural heritage signifies ‘colonial discourse’ (Bandyopadhyay & Morais, 2005) or ‘aesthetic ethnicity’ (Doorne et al., 2003).

The Involvement of Local People With respect to the involvement of local people, Katanev and Schetnikov (personal communication, 2004) reported that this involvement does not surround the process of promotional design but rather product delivery. For example, the ethnic Kyrgyz population receives money for the rental of yurts as part of tour operator yurt camp products. Claytor (personal communication, 2004) argued that it was not solely the ethnic Kyrgyz population that were being ‘pushed’ or promoted through the development of Kyrgyz tourism products. He cited the example of homestay accommodation initiatives in which ethnic Russian, ethnic Uzbek and ethnic Tajik peoples were involved, but maintained that: it is important to push Kyrgyz identity... [With respect to] fourth World Travel Mongolia has similarities so there is not an obvious identifiable image. . . [It is] very difficult to identify an obvious Kyrgyz USP. Birkov (personal communication, 2004) claimed that with respect to the involvement of local people in the delivery of tourism products, it ‘doesn’t depend

658


what nationality’. A spokesperson for Muza Travel (personal communication, 2004) reports how the involvement of local people in the company’s ‘Ethnographic Tours’ was based on the company asking ethnic Kyrgyz people if they wanted to be involved. She reported that ‘usually the Kyrgyz are okay and friendly to participate’. One of the most interesting remarks came from Umataliev (personal communication, 2004) who argued that ’. . . they are involved because mainly we promote Kyrgyz national culture’. This remark, combined with the visual imagery from the brochure of Umataliev’s company suggested ethnic Kyrgyz culture to be perceived to be the culture of the nation. It suggests agreement with the cultural and ethnic assimilation that has been observed by Tolkun (2007). Claytor (personal communication, 2004) argued that the ethnic Russians appreciate what Kyrgyz tour operators are selling to attract overseas markets. He further claimed that ‘. . if we are selling to the CIS then the ethnic Kyrgyz and kymys are part of a shared history’. Rayeva (personal communication, 2004), of ethnic Kyrgyz nationality, further argued that there is ‘no discrimination from Russian point of view – the second person, the Prime Minister, is Russian and the official language is Russian’. She claimed that her organisation promoted geography rather than cultures.

Tour operator perceptions of inter-ethnic relations Inter-ethnic relations were not identified as being a serious issue affecting the tourism sphere. Akmatova (personal communication, 2004) reported that her company had employees from four different nationalities working together with respect and understanding as ‘they were bred in the Soviet period’. Katanaev and Schetnikov (personal communication, 2004) argued that the relations between ethnicity, tribalism and tourism were not strong. Tourists were welcomed in all regions of Kyrgyzstan and, indeed, local people were also welcome everywhere. But they did acknowledge that people from different regions of Kyrgyzstan ‘do not like each other’. Claytor (personal communication, 2004) recited an interesting incident that provided an insight into identity crises within multi-ethnic Kyrgyzstan. He adopted the Kyrgyz waistcoat – jilet – as part of the official staff uniform for his company, but his ethnic Russian employees objected to wearing it because they did not perceive the costume to be part of their identity. Umataliev (personal communication, 2004) argued that the concept of national identity was of less relevance to the citizens of Kyrgyzstan than ethnic identity and, he claims, ‘there is no problem surrounding ethnic identity – this idea very new for us’. This raises questions over the extent to which tourism promotion is actually regarded as a tool for promoting the national identity of Kyrgyzstan or rather seen as a means of promoting ethnic identity. It takes us back to the issue of homeland, nationality and the extent to which the artificially created territories of Central Asia have generated a sense of place amongst their inhabitants. Asel (personal communication, 2004) argues that it is the ethnic Kyrgyz who identify with the land of Kyrgyzstan, ‘for others it is their Motherland’.


659

Although issues of ethnicity appear to permeate economic, social and political activities within Kyrgyzstan, as acknowledged earlier in this paper, and these issues present some significant challenges for nation-building and the construction of national identity, the Kyrgyz tour operators did not acknowledge ethnicity as a relevant challenge to their work. They actually identified limitations or restrictions on tourism promotional themes to be related to external events such as terrorism in Afghanistan, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and ‘inaccurate Western media’ (Katanaev & Schetnikov, personal communication, 2004) rather than internal conflicts. There also remains a question mark over the extent to which ethnic actors in Kyrgyzstan seek to be involved or actively engaged in tourism promotion and the full extent of their satisfaction or congruence with the promotional content of tour operator representations of Kyrgyzstan.

Conclusions This paper has explored selective cultural representation in the tourism promotion of Kyrgyzstan by Kyrgyz tour operators. Although there are limitations in this paper, notably with respect to the sample size of the Kyrgyz tour operators interviewed and the brief nature of the discussion of the promotional focus, there are some interesting observations that could be developed via further research. It may be that in the absence of major inter-ethnic strife, the perhaps academic perception of tension between groups is actually reduced by the effective development of tourism, so long as it is economically successful. This paper contributes to the literature on the use of tourism as a nation-building tool in post-communist destinations by highlighting how commercial forces and an impetus to achieve economic growth can override the ideological significance of tourism, the decisions that underpin selectivity in tourism promotion and the employment of ethnic groups as resources within a multi-ethnic tourist destination context. The geographical context is very different to Henderson’s (2003) study of Malaysia, but Henderson’s research remains one of the closest pieces of literature to this study. Henderson found multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism to be recognised by the tourism industry as a positive promotional theme. In Kyrgyzstan this was not the case. In fact, there is a need to question whether the promotional emphasis on the ethnic Kyrgyz population represents further affirmative discrimination towards this ethnic group (and, thus, is in line with observed state practice if not state rhetoric). Or does the emphasis on the touristic representation of the ethnic Kyrgyz culture actually signal exploitation of the ethnic Kyrgyz group? Have the ethnic Kyrgyz become ‘objects of development’ (Mitchell & Reid, 2001) or are we witnessing the promotion of ethnic exclusivity (Hall, 1999)? And was the lack of stakeholder involvement a result of the need for rapid growth, or a reflection of the perceived irrelevance of the concept in a former command economy ? Some of the key concepts of the sustainable tourism lexicon may – at this stage – be of questionable importance outside developed western economies.

660


Correspondence Any correspondence should be directed to Nicola J. Palmer, Sheffield Hallam University – CITouR, City Campus, Howard Street, Sheffield S11WB, UK ([email protected]). Notes 1. It has been claimed by the National Statistic Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic that 25,000 ethnic Russians emigrated from Kyrgyzstan in 2006 and a further 55,000 ethnic Russians are applying for Russian citizenship or refugee status in Russia (Yulia, 2007). Barfield (2004) argues that 207,900 ethnic Russians had already emigrated to Russia from Kyrgyzstan between 1990 and 1997. 2. BISNIS (1998) estimates that there are currently 39 private Kyrgyz tour operators in Kyrgyzstan, with the majority of these based in Bishkek, the capital of the country. This was further corroborated by Claytor (personal communication, 2004), Pyshnenko, (personal communication, 2004) and Umetaliev (personal communication, 2004) during the tour operator field work.

References Abazov, R. (1999) Economic migration in post-Soviet Central Asia: The case of Kyrgyzstan. Post-Communist Economies 11 (2), 237–252. Akiner, S. (2003) IV. Political processes in post-Soviet Central Asia. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 2 (3 & 4), 431–458. ¨ Aydingun, A. (2002) Creating, recreating and redefining ethnic identity: Ahiska/ Meskhetian Turks in Soviet and post-Soviet contexts. Central Asian Survey 21 (2), 185– 197. Bakieva, G. (1995) Political memory and forming of new identity and citizenship in post-Soviet Central Asia. Unpublished manuscript. Bandyopadhyay, R. and Morais, D. (2005) Representative dissonance. India’s self and western image. Annals of Tourism Research 32 (4), 1006–1021. Barfield, A. (2004) Sculpting the nation: A comparative look at the impact of past legacies on the emerging national identities in Central Asia. Unpublished BA thesis, Princeton University. ¨ Y. (2004) Nationalism and democracy in post-communist Central Asia. Asian Bingol, Ethnicity 5 (1), 43–60. BISNIS (1998) Economic and trade overview: Best prospects for investments. Business Information Service for the Newly Independent States (BISNIS), June. Britton, R. (1979) The image of the third world in tourism marketing. Annals of Tourism Research 6, 318–329. Buzinde, C.N., Santos, C.A. and Smith, S.L.J. (2006) Ethnic representations destination imagery. Annals of Tourism Research 33 (3), 707–728. Callahan, R. (1998) Ethnic politics and tourism. A British case study. Annals of Tourism Research 25 (4), 818–836. Central Asia Tourism Corporation (2003) Great Silk Road. Tour Operator Brochure. Claytor, I. (2005) Lies, damned lies and statistics – let the figures speak for themselves! http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:u3FMOCqYJYQJ:www.ianbek.com/ index.php%3Fgo%3Dintro/about me+site:www.ianbek.com+ian+claytor+2005&hl =en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk. Accessed 29.05.07. Cohen, E. (1989) Primitive and remote: Hill tribe trekking in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research 16, 30–61. Connery, J. (2000) Caught between a dictatorship and a democracy: Civil society, religion and development in Kyrgyzstan. Praxis The Fletcher Journal of Development Studies 16, 1–18. Dann, G. (1996) The people of tourist brochures. In T. Selwyn (ed.) The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism (pp. 61–81). New York: Wiley.


661

Del Casino, V.J. and Hanna, S.P. (2000) Representations and identities in tourism map spaces. Progress in Human Geography 24 (1), 23–46. Doorne, S., Ateljevic, I. and Bai, Z. (2003) Representing identities through tourism: Encounters of ethnic minorities in Dali, Yunnan province, People’s Republic of China. International Journal of Tourism Research 5, 1–11. Earle, L. (2005) Community development, ‘tradition’ and the civil society strengthening agenda in Central Asia. Central Asian Survey, 24 (3), 245–260. Echtner, C.M. (2000) The content of third world tourism marketing: A 4A approach. International Journal of Tourism Research 4, 413–434. Echtner, C.M. and Prasad, P. (2003) The context of third world marketing. Annals of Tourism Research 30 (3), 660–682. Elebayeva, A., Omuraliev, N. and Abazov, R. (2000) The shifting identities and loyalties in Kyrgyzstan: The evidence from the field. Nationalities Papers, 28 (2), 343–349. Faranda, R. and Nolle, D.B. (2003) Ethnic social distance in Kyrgyzstan: Evidence from a nationwide opinion survey. Nationalities Papers 31 (2), 177–210. Gachechiladze, R. (1997) National idea, state-building and boundaries in the post-Soviet space (the case of Georgia). Geojournal 43 (1), 51–60. Gardaz, M. (1999) In search of Islam in Kyrgyzstan. Religion 29 (3), 275–286. Glavtour (2000) Kyrgyzstan. Bishkek: Glavtour. Haberstroh, M. (2000) Kyrgyzstan – Asia’s Future Switzerland. http://www.cdf.gov.kg/ en/country/travelarticles.htm. Accessed 29.01.06. Hall, C.M. (1994) Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power And Place. Chichester: Wiley. Hall, D. (1999) Destination branding, niche marketing and national image projection in Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Vacation Marketing 5 (3), 227–237. Hathaway, W.D. (2004) Despite the pain, Kyrgyzstan hold to its Western course. http://www.peacewriter.org/?page id=19. Accessed 09.09.07. Henderson, J. (2003) Tourism promotion and identity in Malaysia. Tourism, Culture and Communication 4, 71–81. Horn, R. (1997) Through a glass darkly. US News and World Report 122 (20), 54–60. Horowitz, D.L. (1993) Democracy in divided societies. Journal of Democracy 4 (4), 18–38. Jamison, D. (1999) Tourism and ethnicity: The brotherhood of coconuts. Annals of Tourism Research 26 (4), 944–967. Kolossov, V. (1999) Ethnic and political identities and territorialities in the post-Soviet space. Geojournal 48 (2), 71–81. Kyrgyz Concept (2003) The Great Silk Road. Tour Operator Brochure. Kyrgyz Government (2001) The Comprehensive Development Framework of Kyrgyzstan until 2010. Bishkek: Kyrgyz Government. Kyrgyz Tourism DMA (2006) Kyrgyz tourism today. Quarterly Newsletter of the Destination Marketing Association Kyrgyz Tourism/DMA 1, February 2007. Kubicek, P. (1997) Regionalism, nationalism and realpolitik in central Asia. Europe-Asia Studies 49 (4), 637–655. Leong, W.T. (1997) Culture and the state: Manufacturing traditions for tourism. In J.T. Ong, C.K. Tong and E.S. Tan (eds) Understanding Singapore Society (pp. 513–534). Singapore: Times Academic Press. Light, D. (2000) Gazing on communism: Heritage tourism and post-communist identities in Germany, Hungary and Romania. Tourism Geographies 2 (2), 157–176. Mitchell, R.E. and Reid, D.G. (2001) Community integration: Island tourism in Peru. Annals of Tourism Research 28 (1), 113–139. Morgan, N. and Pritchard, A. (1998) Tourism Promotion and Power: Creating Images, Creating Identities. Chichester: Wiley. Novinomad (2003) Kyrgyzstan: Land of the Tien Shan Oasis on the Great Silk Road. Tour Operator Brochure. Olcott, M. (2001) Revisiting the twelve myths of Central Asia. Working papers, September 23. Moscow: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Olcott, M. (2005) Lessons of the Tulip revolution. Testimony before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 7 April 2005.

662


Palmer, C. (1994) Tourism and colonialism: The experience of the Bahamas. Annals of Tourism Research 21, 792–811. Palmer, N.J. (2006) Economic transition and the struggle for local control in ecotourism development: The case of Kyrgyzstan. Journal of Ecotourism 5 (1 & 2), 40–61. Pretes, M. (2003) Tourism and nationalism. Annals of Tourism Research 30 (1), 125–142. Saipjanov, A. (2003) Kyrgyzstan ‘statehood’ festivities – a potential source of interethnic tension. Eurasia insight, 26 August. Sharipov, A. (2007) Kyrgyzstan: Role and place of ethnic minorities in conflicts between the opposition and the regime. Central Asia News, 2 May 2007. The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal (2006) Index of economic freedom: The Kyrgyz Republic. http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/ country.cfm?id=KyrgyzRepublic. Accessed 09.09.07. Thompson, K. and Foster, N. (2003) Ecotourism in Kyrgyzstan – policy and practice. In D. Fennell and R. Dowling (eds) Ecotourism Policy. London: CAB. Tolkun (2007) We are different, yet together. http://kyrgyzstan.neweurasia.net/2007/03/ 29/we-are-different-yet-together/. Accessed 12.05.07. ¨ Viken, A. and Muller, D.K. (2006) Introduction: Tourism and the S´ami. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 1, 1–6. Wilkinson, C. (2006) Responses to Kyrgyz Russian language attitude survey – pilot study. http://kyrgyzstan.neweurasia.net/2007/05/14/kyrgyz-russian-languageattitude-survey-pilot-study/. Accessed 12.06.07. Wright, S. (1999) Kyrgyzstan: The political and linguistic context. Current Issues in Language and Society 6 (1), 85–91. Wu, D.Y.H. (1995) Ethnicity, identity and culture. The Humanities Bulletin 4, 13–19. Yessenova, S. (2005) Routes and roots of Kazakh identity: Urban migration in postsocialist Kazakhstan. The Russian Review 64 (4), 2–20. Yulia (2007) Evolving as a minority – Russians in Kyrgyzstan. http://kyrgyzstan. neweurasia.net/2007/03/29/evolving-as-a-minority-%e2%80%93-russians-inkyrgyzstan/. Accessed 12.05.07.

Personal communications Akmatova, L. Assistant, Kyrgyz State Agency for Tourism and Sports. March and November 2004. Asel. Assistant, Novinomad. March, 2004. Birkov, V. President, Tien Shan Travel. March 2004. Claytor, I. President, Celestial Mountains Tour Company. March 2004. Katanaev, S. and Schetnikov, N. Presidents, Dostuck Trekking. March 2004. Komissarov, V. President, ITMC. March 2004. Muza Travel. President, Muza Travel. April 2004. Omuralieyv, N. Scientist, Centre for Social Research. March 2004. Polynsky, V. President, VicTour. March 2004. Pyshnenko, S. President, Turkestan Travel. March 2004. Rayeva, D. Assistant, Helvetas. March 2004. Umetaliev, E. President, Kyrgyz Concept. March 2004.