as much as i like it when central asia gets first page treatment in a major u.s. newspaper, the spin of the times article is a little puzzling. the u.s. president--any modern u.s. president really--often has to deal with visits from leaders who fall short in terms of corruption, democracy or human rights (or all 3). why just yesterday bush had pervez musharraf over for dinner. musharraf is a general who overthrew a democratically elected government almost 10 years ago and who has clung to power ever since. people like that come to visit all the time. nazarbayev's visit is hardly remarkable on that score. the "balancing act" discussed by the times is a chronic issue at the white house; it's not just something that happens when the kazakh leader comes to town.
but maybe i'm just getting defensive about kazakhstan. i gotta admit i've been feeling a little defensive for the kazakhs lately. it's because of borat. i'm really looking forward to the film, but i'm actually sympathetic to kazakh officials who are upset about it. borat's kazakhstan has nothing to do with the real place. and for a country trying to foster its tourism industry, a high profile film that portrays their country as a anti-semitic bigoted backwards poverty stricken place can easy overwhelm anything they do.
the saddest thing is that kazakhstan really is a remarkably tolerant place. central asia is a hodge-podge of races and ethnicities. stalin deported restive groups from across the soviet empire to central asia and now it's quite multi-ethnic. when i was in uzbekistan, there were chechens, russians, germans, koreans, tatars, and many others in addition to uzbeks and tajiks, with very little ethnic problems. kazakhstan had a lower indigenous kazakh population to begin with, so it's even more diverse than uzbekistan (uzbeks at least are a majority in uzbekistan, kazakhs are just a plurality in kazakhstan). the people of kazakhstan also belong to over 40 different religions, all living peacefully together.
alright, it is true that having an authoritarian government can suppress any religious and ethnic tensions. but i also think that countries who manage to foster tolerance should be congratulated. the only reason that the borat character works is because of the widespread ignorance about kazakhstan and central asia. in a sense, the character is really a parody of america, or at least american ignorance about the world. but i realize that most people who see the film probably won't see it that way.
anyway, i still want to see the film. i've heard only good things about it. but i can't get over feeling sorry for the kazakhs who, whatever the flaws of their government, still are right to be proud of their country. i guess i should be reassured that most kazakhs aren't even aware of the film or borat character. then again, that's only because of official censorship, something i don't like either. maybe i have a bit of a balancing act when it comes to kazakhstan too.
