Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada: ‘Five Minutes With’ on Mongolia

Following a “Brown Bag” talk on “Mongolian Parliamentary Election” at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada on August 15, we had a chance to appear on their first “Five Minutes With” interview.  With the persmission of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, we’re posting the brief interview.

How did Mongolia’s recent election differ from past elections?

This year’s election differs from past elections in several ways. First, the introduction of a mixed electoral system provides greater opportunities for smaller parties. Mongolia has a unicameral parliament with 76 members, and under the new system, 28 members were nominated from the political party lists while the other 48 were elected through the majoritarian system. As a result, the two major political parties are now more vulnerable than before. Second, a gender quota was introduced for the first time. The new parliament now has 9 female members, who have now formed the first-ever women caucus – aimed at advancing political gender equality. Third, the new parliament has more representatives from civil society organizations. Finally, there were number of innovations introduced in the elections – the implementation of new technologies (biometrics, electronic counting), the inclusion of diaspora voting, conducting parliamentary and local elections (esp., of the capital city) simultaneously, and increasing role of judicial institutions, anti-corruption agency, and police in screening candidates. These changes have meant that unless one of two major parties explicitly fails or succeeds to run the government, chances for overwhelming majority by one political party is unlikely. Furthermore, all parties avoided inciting violence, unlike from the past two elections. This can be attributed to limiting participation of the political parties in organization elections and increased security from police personnel.

How has the government responded to public opinion on corruption?

Corruption is the most important concern for the public. Corruption was prominent in the 1990s when state institutions, especially judicial and law enforcement institutions, were weak due to political and economic transitions. As corruption became prevalent, public pressure has steadily increased since early 2000. In 2006, the parliament passed an anti-corruption law and established an independent agency to tackle corruption. Optimists would say that Mongolia has successfully institutionalized anti-corruption efforts by establishing a new legal environment, increasing investigations of public officials, and raising the deterrence for public servants to abuse their powers. Pessimists, on the other hand, would argue that Mongolia’s fight against corruption has proven fruitless so far. Moreover, politicians have started using anti-corruption rhetoric as a method to marginalize/demean their opponents and win popularity. My views are somewhere in between – the prosecution of the former President on charges of abuse of his political authority was an important step forward, but allegations are noticeably one-sided as only minority party members or affiliated officials considered are suspicious.

How does Mongolia’s mining sector factor into domestic politics?

Mongolians view the mining sector with mixed feelings. On the one hand, the mining sector can provide greater economic growth, investment, technology, infrastructure development, and employment. But, on the other hand, it poses enormous challenges for country’s pristine environment, sustainability of key resources (e.g., pastures, water), and nomadic lifestyles. For instance, major mining exploration and extraction operations are occurring in Mongolia’s Gobi area. Since these activities use extraordinary amounts of water, they resort to using up un-renewable underground water sources. What would happen to the Gobi area’s ecology, its 33 oases, and its pastures? This would certainly contribute to Mongolia’s rapid desertification and more dust storms for Northeast Asian cities like Beijing, Seoul, and Taipei. Similarly, many rivers have been exposed to mining pollutants and pastures have been destroyed by other mining activities, including artisanal mining. Increased enforcement of new legislation which prohibits mining and exploration in forestry and river basins, the introduction of new regulatory mechanisms (e.g., license issuance, closure plans), and proposed changes in mining laws are just reflections of increased public outcry against irresponsible mining.

I think this public outcry will become more vociferous because the mining sector has been identified as one of the main sources of corruption (esp., regarding licenses and violation of regulations). At the same time, some populist politicians will likely use this public outcry for their own short-term political goals.

Posted in Corruption, Elections, Environment, Mining | Tagged | Leave a comment

Foreign Investment Considerations in Canada Resemble Mongolian Law

When the Mongolian parliament passed a foreign investment law somewhat hastily in May 2012, partly in response to the proposed purchase of a majority of coal miner South Gobi Resources by CHALCO, this led to a fair bit of tut-tutting in the investment community. To many investors, this seemed like a threat to their ability to cash in on investments in Mongolia that have attracted some attention with frequent headlines such as “Mongolia fastest growing economy in 2011”.

Given the  lack of liquidity and diversification beyond mining in the Mongolian economy, investments in foreign mining companies seem like the obvious way for many investors to participate in the Mongolian boom. Yet, such investments are somewhat predicated on the ability of mining companies to participate in M&A activities to cash in on the value of their resources or production capacity. The foreign investment law limits the opportunity for such activities.

When the law was passed, it already reminded me of Canadian legislation that restricts foreign ownership and thus also foreign takeovers of resource companies. Often this legislation is justified in national security terms or with reference to a need to protect “national champions” with headquarters in Canada to protect economic development from a hollowing out by foreign owners. While the Harper government was already challenged by the proposed takeover of Potash, discussions have resurfaced recently with the CNOOC bid for Nexen.

The most recent twist in these discussions (see for example the Globe & Mail on Oct 23) suggests a two-track investment review process that distinguishes between state-owned and private investors as owners of Canadian assets, presumably being more lenient in decision on private investments and more cautious with the approval of investments by state-owned (primarily, but not exclusively Chinese) entities.

That is a distinction that is quite prominent in the Mongolian investment law as well in distinguishing state-owned from private investors and requiring different review processes for these different investors.

Surely, decisions like the current discussion in Canada give a lot of legitimacy to Mongolian moves to restrict foreign investments. Those who attack Mongolian moves in this regard should consider that similar policies are deemed legitimate, at least if they’re based in Canada.

Posted in Business, Canada, Foreign Investment, Mining, Policy | Tagged | Leave a comment

Green College Eurasian States and Societies Series: Robert Bedeski “Lessons from Mongolian State Evolution”

Eurasian States and Societies Series
Green College
UBC

Monday, October 29
17-18:30h
Green College Coach House
UBC Campus

Dr. Robert Bedeski

Emeritus, University of Victoria

“Lessons from Mongolian State Evolution: The Anthropocentric Theory of Human Security”

Posted in Events, Mongolia and ..., Nationalism, Politics, Research on Mongolia, UBC Mongolia Lecture Series | Tagged | Leave a comment

Book Chapter Mongolia’s Mining Controversies and the Politics of Place

Mongolia’s Mining Controversies and the Politics of Place

Sarah Combellick-Bidney in J. Dierkes, ed. Change in Democratic Mongolia – Social Relations, Health, Mobile Pastoralism, and Mining Leiden: Brill.

Brill: Change in Democratic MongoliaControversies about mining are not new to Mongolia, and they are never static. There are always new turning points, and earlier controversies provide essential context for understanding current developments on the mining front. This study follows a critical juncture in the mining controversies of 2007, when negotiations on Oyu Tolgoi were stalled and newspapers and magazines covered wide-ranging debates about the role of mining in Mongolia’s future. This case study of development discourse among Mongolian politicians, NGO leaders, businessmen and scholars highlights the ways in which critics were able to erode the legitimacy of the contracts and expand the conversation to include a variety of other options. While the rhetoric of global development casts mining as a standard means of achieving economic development, domestic critics in Mongolia representing a wide range of interests engaged in the ‘politics of place’ to raise questions about the effects of ‘big mining’ on their society and their land. Both the government of Mongolia and the mining sector proved to be more susceptible to such questions than investors had predicted.

 

Posted in Book: Change in Democratic Mongolia, Development, Economics, Mining, Oyu Tolgoi, Politics, Regulation | Tagged | 1 Comment

Book Chapter: Discovering Peacekeeping as a New Mission: Mongolia

A chapter on Mongolian peacekeeping, jointly written with Dr. Thomas Bruneau, is published in the The Routledge Handbook of Civil-Military Relations (2012).  The chapter examines Mongolia’s explicit reorientation of its military from territorial defense, although that is formally still a purpose of the armed forces, to peacekeeping operations.  Here is a quick synopsis of the chapter.

In the past two decades, Mongolian military was employed for external peacekeeping missions and domestic law enforcement as well as humanitarian missions, which were real tests for Mongolia’s fledgling democratic institutions. Mongolians have, for example, utilized the peacekeeping role in elaborating their “Third Neighbor” strategy to maintain the maximum amount of independence from their gigantic, nuclear – armed, neighbors by strengthening its ties with Western democracies. There are adjustments taking place, and a fairly wide awareness of the need for updating and adjusting the legal and institutional bases of civil-military relations.

The Mongolian case demonstrated that peacekeeping could reveal interesting dynamics of civil-military relations in a new democracy. First, in a delicate geo-strategic environment, Mongolian political leaders projected peacekeeping as a way to advance its foreign policy goals of achieving bilateral relations with the West and increasing Mongolia’s international profile. Second, peacekeeping was perceived by military leaders to justify the existence of a small military and to consolidate civil-military relations. Third, foreign military training assistance and increased engagements with Western militaries consolidated a new identity for the Mongolian military, which respects democratic civilian control and stands out as the most reformed security institution, whilst many other institutions are wrestling their past legacies and new challenges such as corruption and ineffectiveness.

Despite raising concerns in Moscow and Beijing, Mongolia’s military engagement with the West was necessary for the military to overcome transitional challenges and to adapt new Western military standards and ideas. Mongolia’s current prestige as a forthcoming troop contributor for peacekeeping missions would be impossible without the US military assistance. Without deployments to Iraq, Mongolia’s peacekeeping commitment would have waned in early 2000. The deployments to Iraq brought a momentum for Mongolian peacekeeping efforts and introduced Mongolia’s military to the UN DPKO and other institutions. While militaries are withdrawing from Afghanistan, Mongolia is increasing its contribution to both the UN and coalition missions in Afghanistan.

Over two decades, Mongolia transformed its Soviet-style military into a modern, deployable peacekeeping military. A potential road map could be developed based on Mongolia’s experience since the process occurred within the newly institutionalized framework of democratic civil-military relations. In spite of these minor (fixable) institutional lessons-unlearned, one of the best lessons learned is that the Mongolian military was kept out of politics and economics during transition. A quick consensus reached between political and military leaders on future roles of the military during the transition made them as impartial constructive actors – not destructive ones. Mongolia’s lessons may help the West recalibrate its assistance towards development of the peacekeeping capability.

 

 

 

Posted in Foreign Policy, Military, Research on Mongolia, Security Apparatus, UN | Tagged | Leave a comment

Book Chapter: Changes in Pastoral Land Use and Their Effects on Rangeland Vegetation Indices

Temuulen Tsagaan Sankey, Joel Sankey, Keith Weber, and Cliff Montagne

Changes in Pastoral Land Use and Their Effects on Rangeland Vegetation Indices

in

Change in Democratic Mongolia: Social Relations, Health, Mobile Pastoralism, and Mining

Brill: Change in Democratic Mongolia

Drastic changes have occurred in Mongolia’s grazing land management over the last two decades, but their effects on rangelands are ambiguous. After the democratic changes in 1992, formerly state-owned livestock collectives were disbanded and Mongolia’s livestock population was privatized. There was no longer a state institution to formally regulate pasture use and herders became responsible for pasture use management.  Temporal trends in Mongolia’s rangeland condition have not been well documented relative to the effects of long-term management changes. We studied the changes in pastoral land use management in Tsahiriin tal of northwestern Mongolia and their effects on rangeland vegetation productivity using a remote sensing satellite-based approach.  Grazing lands in Tsahiriin tal that were formerly managed by the socialist collective are now used by numerous nomadic households with their privately-owned herds, although the lands remain publicly owned.  Grazing pressure has more than tripled and herd distribution has changed from a few, spatially-clustered large herds of sheep to numerous smaller herds of multiple species including sheep, goats, horses, and cattle.  Our satellite image analyses indicate that rangeland vegetation significantly decreased (p-value <0.001) from the collective to the post-collective period.  The observed decrease was significantly correlated with changes in the grazing management system and increased herd size. The decrease in rangeland vegetation might be further accelerated, if current grazing land use continues with no formal rangeland management institution or organized, well-structured efforts by the local herding households.

Posted in Book: Change in Democratic Mongolia, Grassland, Nomadism, Research on Mongolia | Tagged | 1 Comment

Mongolia Lecture Series: Y Otgonbayar “Education Reform in Mongolia”

Mongolia Lecture Series
Program on Inner Asia
University of British Columbia

Wednesday, Oct 24
16:30h

Room 231
CK Choi Bldg for the Institute of Asian Research
1855 West Mall
UBC

Yondon OTGONBAYAR

“Education Reform in Mongolia”

Dr. Otogonbayar will provide an overview over the reform of primary and secondary education in Mongolia starting with the introduction of secular education during the state-socialist period, the eradication of illiteracy and the foundations of a Soviet-style education system. He will then discuss the first changes in the education systems in the early 2000s. The pros and cons of current reforms will complete this overview.

The Hon. Otgonbayar is a member of the Mongolian parliament (Улсын Их Хурал) for the Mongolian People’s Party. From 2008-2012 he served as Minister of Education, Culture and Science in the Mongolian cabinet. Dr. Otgonbayar was educated at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations; the Indian Institute of Management and Marketing, New Delhi, and the Academy of Management, Ulaanbaatar. Prior to entering politics he served in Mongolia’s Ministry of Foreign Relations. He tweets @OtgonbayarY

As always, this event is free and open to the public.

Posted in Education, Primary and Secondary Education, UBC Mongolia Lecture Series | Tagged | Leave a comment

New Blog: The Mongolist

Brian White has spent a lot of time in Mongolia, including the country-side, and uses his Mongolian to provide insights on current political and social developments on his blog, The Mongolist. I got to know Brian through his and my association with the American Center for Mongolian Studies and have always appreciated him his for his knowledge as well as entrepreneurial spirit.

With Mongolia’s mining boom seemingly only accelerating, the country has been attracting a fair bit of writing that is not based on any particular insights, but rather on hasty surveys of the political scene or geopolitical situation by writers who get a quick grasp of current developments, but seem to be writing the same stories over and over again.

Brian’s blogging will obviously be quite different as his first few posts show already.

My favourite is obviously his ranking of Mongolian medals at the London Olympics on the sheeple index (total medals) * (sheep population)/(human population).

More seriously, Brian will easily establish himself as an independent blogger who is neither beholden to a particular foreign viewpoint, nor mired in some of the domestic political ties and obsessions. For an example of this independence and insight, see his post on portrayals of foreign investors in the Mongolian public.

The Mongolist posts will certainly become regular and required reading for me.

Posted in Research on Mongolia, Social Media | Tagged | Leave a comment

Book: Change in Democratic Mongolia – Social Relations, Health, Mobile Pastoralism, and Mining

Change in Democratic Mongolia – Social Relations, Health, Mobile Pastoralism, and Mining

Edited by Julian Dierkes

Some 100 years ago, Mongolia gained independence from Qing China, and more than 20 years ago it removed itself from the collapsing Soviet Bloc. Since then, the country has been undergoing momentous social, economic and political changes. The contributions in Change in Democratic Mongolia: Social Relations, Health, Mobile Pastoralism, and Mining represent analyses from around the world across the social sciences and form a substantial part of the state of the art of research on contemporary Mongolia. Chapters examine Buddhist revival and the role of social networks, perceptions of risk, the general state of health of the population and the impact that mining activities will have on this. The changes of patterns of nomadism are equally central to an understanding of contemporary Mongolia as the economic focus on natural resources.

Table of Contents

Introduction: Research on Contemporary MongoliaJulian Dierkes

PART I Social Relations

1. Finding the Buddha Hidden Below the Sand: Youth, Identity and Narrative in the Revival of Mongolian BuddhismMatthew King
2. Formal and Informal Networks in Post-socialist Mongolia:Access, Uses and InequalitiesByambajav Dalaibuyan
3. Democracy and Risk: Mongolians’ PerspectivesPaula Sabloff
4. Local Leaders between Obligation and Corruption: State Workplaces, the Discourse of ‘Moral Decay’, and ‘Eating Money’ in the Mongolian Province – Astrid E. Zimmermann

PART II Challenges to the Mongolian Health System

5. Did the Social and Economic Transition Cause a Health Crisis in Mongolia? Evidence from Age- and Sex-specific Mortality Trends (1965-2009) – Mungunsarnai Ganbold & Thomas Spoorenberg
6. Occupational Safety and the Health of Miners as Challenge to Policy-making in Mongolia? – Oyuntogos Lkhasuren

PART III The State of Mobile Pastoralism

7. Changes in Pastoral Land Use and Their Effects on Rangeland Vegetation IndicesTemuulen Tsagaan Sankey, Joel Sankey, Keith Weber, and Cliff Montagne
8. Collaborative Pasture Management, a Solution for Grassland Degradation in Mongolia? – Raffael Himmelsbach
9. The Twilight of Pastoralism? Livelihood, Mobility, Differentiation, and Environmental Engagement on the Inner Asian SteppeTroy Sternberg

PART IV The Social Context of Mining

10. Mining, Resistance and Pastoral Livelihoods in Contemporary MongoliaCaroline Upton
11. The Cultural Logics of Illegality: Living Outside the Law in the Mongolian Gold MinesMette High
12. Mongolia’s Mining Controversies and the Politics of PlaceSarah Combellick–Bidney

Conclusions: Mongolia in the First Twenty Years of the 21st Century – Julian Dierkes and Byambajav Dalaibuyan

To order, please visit the Brill website or turn to your usual online or brick-and-mortar book retailer.

Posted in Book: Change in Democratic Mongolia, Canada, Civil Society, Corruption, Democracy, Development, Environment, Environment, Gender, Grassland, Health, Law, Mining, Nomadism, Oyu Tolgoi, Policy, Politics, Population, Regulation, Religion, Research on Mongolia, Social Issues, Social Movements, Society and Culture | Tagged | 3 Comments

The Proof is in the Pudding

Three months after the Mongolian Parliamentary elections, another previously Communist country has gone to the polls. Georgia has managed to develop a strong relationship with the United States and Europe, and its elections on October 1 are being closely monitored by international agencies. What are the results of this election and what do Georgia and Mongolia tell us about the post-Communist democratic experience?

Georgia’s October 1, 2012 Elections

First of all, the results are far from clear at this point, with both major parties claiming a majority-win of 150-member parliament. That means a total of at least 76 seats, combined from 73 directly elected and 77 proportional. (http://civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=25276) While the country’s Central Election Commission is unlikely to release even preliminary results until tomorrow, both President Saakashvili- head of the ruling United National Movement- and Bidzina Ivanishvili- opposition leader of the Georgian Dream Coalition- have claimed a majority win. Some exit polls suggested a slight advantage for the opposition, but since the polls were taken 4 hours before all voting was to stop, their usefulness has rightly been called into question. In his most recent statement, President Saakashvili claimed that while the opposition might have won the proportional race, it is clear that UNM faired far better in the directly elected seats, and would maintain its majority status in the Parliament. It seems that Tbilisi voters as a whole supported the opposition, but that outside of the capital, support for the ruling UNM remained strong. Most recently Ivanishvili claimed that the opposition had won at least 100 seats, putting it well ahead of the number needed for a clear majority.

As we wait for the official numbers to be released, it is worth noting that the results of this hotly debated election may remain contested for some time. Already, a number of complaints are surfacing regarding voting irregularities, with reports ranging from votes being cast without voter ID cards, to polling station officials openly supporting one party over another; but, note that nothing major has been reported. It is, of course, too early to know whether these irregularities are on a scale large enough to actually “buy” the election. As anyone familiar with Mongolian elections would instantly recognize, sometimes the allegations of fraud are just as shady and clouded in mystery as the irregularities themselves.

Regarding the issues, it is clear that Georgians went to the polls with three major concerns: prison reform and human rights, Russian-Georgian relations, and (closely tied to the second issue) how to approach the status of de facto independent South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Just weeks before the election, a video was released showing the abuse of prisoners in a prominent Georgian detention facility, badly damaging the authority of the ruling party. Some have blamed Saakashvili for his handling of the South Ossetia crisis and the 2008 Russo-Georgian War. Ivanishvili, having made his fortune on Russian business ties, seems ready to begin the long process of resetting relations. While Georgian-Russian relations might not thaw anytime soon, with Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev refusing to meet with Saakashvili, a change in power might be necessary from a foreign policy standpoint.

Comparing Mongolia and Georgia

Looking back at our (Mongolia Focus’ writers’) experience in following Mongolian political developments, particularly the June 2012 Parliamentary election, a couple of important patterns seem to arise, regarding elections in new democracies.

Experience Matters. Mongolia has had slightly more experience with holding multi-party elections than Georgia, and it seems to show. In Mongolia’s most recent election, many analysts, Mongolian and international alike, were predicting huge problems with the new voting machines, voter registration, and voter ID cards. Despite the “rowdy” outcomes in the election this June, the procedure itself seemed largely flawless from my perspective as an international observer. All polling stations we visited seemed organized and the staff well trained. (See: https://mongoliafocus.com/2012/brief-election-observation-break-update/) The reports coming out of Georgia today look more like the claims lobbied against Mongolia 4 years ago. However, comparing Mongolia and Georgia’s history of electoral politics, Mongolia has seen 6 successful Parliamentary and 5 Presidential elections. Georgia, on the other hand, experienced a coup shortly after declaring independence from the Soviet Union, resulting in a new national leader that would not be replaced until the 2003 Rose Revolution. Following the Rose Revolution, Saakashvili was elected as President in 2004.

Mongolia has already been forced to deal with issues such as voter registration, ID cards, and fraud allegations. While they don’t always get it right, they seem to get closer following each election.

A rowdy democracy is still a democracy. The only thing for sure so far in the Georgian election is that nothing is clear, the campaigns were messy and “dirty”, the opposition was not well organized, but was able to garner significant support, and the prison scandal significantly weakened the UNM’s legitimacy and may have effected the final vote as well. If I was writing this post on Mongolia in June, I could have said almost the exact same thing, just substituting the arrest of Enkhbayar for the prison scandal. The good news is that “rowdiness” is hardly a bad sign for a developing democracy. Indeed, increased civil society involvement, a growing opposition, and the ability for observers to report irregularities are all signs of a thriving democratic system.

Trust Matters. Dr. Julian Dierkes and myself have remarked on how a lack of trust between political parties in Mongolia affects the results of elections and voter turn out in Mongolia, in our piece in East Asia Forum. Georgia’s UNM and Dream Coalition are likewise wary of each other, with Ivanishvili having guessed early on that Saakashvili would not relinquish his hold on power and Saakashvili openly accusing the opposition of having ties to the Kremlin.

Elections are the Proof in the Democratic Pudding. I argue that both Mongolia and Georgia are eager to prove their democratic credentials and avoid backsliding on their domestic reforms and commitments to human rights. While democratic development is ultimately dependent on domestic factors, both Mongolia and Georgia have formulated their foreign policy and security objectives with an eye to attracting the involvement of the US, EU, and NATO as a balance against their larger, potential threatening neighbors. Elections such as today’s in Georgia and Mongolia this past June are important bricks in the wall of democratic proof that both countries can leverage their relations with the world’s leading democratic powers.

Conclusion

Mongolia’s experience over the past 22 years has cemented its civil society and democratic system, reaching the “point of no return”. While Georgia has had a different, and significantly more turbulent political and social history following independence, it has already managed to attract attention to its fledgling democracy, at least in part as a result of the 2008 conflict with Russia, which turned the world’s attention to the little Caucasian country. Mongolia, on the other hand, had to prove that its democracy was real in the shadow of the world’s largest authoritarian states: The Russian Federation and the PRC. Historical and geographic differences might not make the Mongolian-Georgian comparison obvious, but both certainly have something to say about small state democratization and foreign policy.

(This Post can also be found on the author’s personal blog, Small Matters)

Posted in Democracy, Elections, Georgia, Ikh Khural 2012, Party Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Mongolian Foreign Policy: Rapid Growth, Third Neighbours and Moral Authority

Mongolia’s foreign policy has received some attention over the past several years. Most of this attention, especially recently, seems to derive from Mongolia’s current status as the fastest growing economy in the world.

Jean-Frédéric Légaré-Tremblay has provided a very cogent assessment of Mongolia’s place in the world for the Canadian International Council.

In this article, Légaré-Tremblay lists the following aspects:

  • military vulnerability
  • “third neighbour policy”
  • peace-keeping operations
  • North Korea

He ends his overview with the puzzle of Pres. Elbegdorj’ recent visit to Iran.

There are some further elements that make Mongolian foreign policy interesting. Légaré-Tremblay rightly highlights Mongolia’s exceptional status as Asia’s only post-socialist democracy. This status gives the country not only access to some of the high-powered third neighbours it has pursued (note U.S. Sec of State Hilary Clinton’s visit to Mongolia this summer), but also gives it some moral authority. [Note that discussions with Brandon Miliate have shaped many of my views on this moral authority and I have learned from Mendee Jargalsaikhan about foreign policy more generally.] Institutionally, this moral authority is visible in Mongolia’s presidency of the “Community of Democracies“, but it is also associated with the country’s increasing status in other organizational spheres like the UN Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States or the Non-Aligned Movement.

This moral authority surely also in the end made the recognition of Mongolia as a nuclear-weapon free state by the UN Security Council possible in September 2012, a step that the country had been pursuing since its declaration of nuclear-weapon free status in 1992, but that the UN SC had been reluctant to grant due to perceptions of the complications associated with a single-country nuclear weapons-free zone (given that Mongolia’s two neighbours, Russia and China, are both declared nuclear powers). In this forum as well as so many others, Mongolia clearly punches above its weight and its democratic status is a strong factor in this relative visibility.

It is perhaps not surprising that the status of Mongolia’s democracy has been chosen as the avenue of attack of former Mongolian president Enkhbayar especially in the ever-more bizarre writings of a certain Forbes.com blogger. If these writings were to succeed in tainting Mongolia’s democratic reputation (without any particular factual basis, see my article “Mongolian Democracy Crawls, But Moves Ahead” in the Wall Street Journal Asia in July 2012,) this would be a serious blow to Mongolia’s foreign policy. Yet, reasonable and cooler heads will hopefully prevail to reinforce Mongolia’s status in this regard and confirm the Freedom House classification of Mongolia as “free”.

Finally, the matter of Pres. Elbegdorj’ visit to Iran and his “inspection” of the Natanz uranium enrichment plant.  I was initially quite puzzled myself about this visit in the context of the 16th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement. Why would the Mongolian president – whom no one suspects of harbouring ambitions for nuclear weapons, as confirmed by the recent UN SC recognition of nuclear weapons-free status – visit a facility that is at the root of one of the burning geopolitical challenges at the moment.

There are no particular resource links with Iran, i.e. Mongolia does not appear to be importing any significant quantity of oil from Iran. While there is an ancient Mongolian diaspora in Iran historically associated with the Ilkhanate and the Hazaras, this has been the focus of some initiatives from Mongolia (such as the Mongol Heritage Foundation or the Organization for the Study of Diaspora Mongols), but the fate of diaspora Mongols remains a fringe topic of interest and pan-Mongolism a fringe political movement.

In the end, Pres. Elbegdorj has offered a persuasive explanation that draws on Mongolia’s moral authority as I have also outlined it above. In an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour Pres. Elbegdorj said, “Iran’s nuclear activities should not endanger any independent country’s security. Second, Iran should comply with the UN Security Council’s resolutions. Also, […] Mongolia has nuclear weapon-free zone status. That is a status that is not only important in our region, but it is a status that is important for the rest of the world.”

While the world’s attention to Mongolia over the coming years will be rooted in its economic development and natural resources, its moral authority has been growing on the basis of democratic reforms and an active and openly-engaged foreign policy.

From a Canadian perspective, it is Mongolia’s moral authority that is of great interest in addition to its attempts to lift itself up by its natural resources bootstraps. These twin aspects will surely be something to celebrate in the coming year of the 40th anniversary of Canadian-Mongolian diplomatic relations (2013).

Mongolia Today authors on Mongolia’s foreign policy

Julian Dierkes

Expanding Canada-Mongolia Relations: Resource-Based Democracies in Collaboration“, Canada-Asia Agenda, 7 (April 2010), Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.

Mongolia’s ‘third neighbour’ policy and its impact on foreign investment” East Asia Forum, February 15, 2011

Mongolian Democracy Crawls, But Moves Ahead“. Wall Street Journal Asia. July 9, 2012: 15.

蒙古 寻求外商投资的多元化” [Mongolia to Seek Foreign Investment Diversification]. 21世纪经济报道 [21st Century Business Herald]. August 28, 2012: 19.

Mendee Jargalsaikhan

Mongolia–Australia relations: a Mongolian perspective” Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Sept 14 2012.

Factoring Mongolia’s Non-Membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Voices From Central Asia, no. 4, July 2012.

Finally a New Era in NATO-Mongolia RelationsVoices From Central Asia, no. 1, June 2012.

Mongolia’s Quest for Third Neighbours: Why the European Union?EUCAM Policy Brief, No.25, July 2012.

Why is Russia Favored by Mongolia and North Korea?PacNet, August 21, 2012.

Brandon Miliate

Sec. Hilary Clinton has finally arrived … in UBMongolia Today July 9 2012.

 

Posted in Foreign Policy, Mongolia and ... | Tagged | Leave a comment

Why Mongolia’s China Mining Strategy is NOT a Mistake!

In the recent blog of the Wall Street Journal, Drs. Erickson and Collins argued convincingly that resource nationalism and discriminative policies regarding Chinese investors in Mongolia will have a negative impact on Mongolia’s economy. And they downplayed Mongolia’s attempts to extend its railways to reach the Russian Pacific ports. Yes, they are right about the role of geography and importance of Chinese investment and infrastructure for Mongolian mining exports. But, there are other considerations that are missing in their argument.

Before making quick conclusions on either anti-Chinese attitudes or resource nationalism, there are other rationales forcing Mongolian politicians to make a unanimous decision to limit the investment of the foreign state-owned enterprises in key economic projects.  Since 1990, Mongolian citizens have always been able to challenge the government’s key political and economic decisions if it is against their will, livelihood, and future.  This time, Mongolian people did not oppose the parliamentary decision of restricting Chinese investors because they want responsible and sustainable mining.

Arguments made by Erickson and Collin are, of course, shared by a number of Mongolian mining companies that are benefitting from the recent mining boom and the weak mining regulatory policies which could not hold mining investors accountable for responsible mining.  They want to sell more coal to China, but they have little to say about environmental degradation and social-economic consequences caused from extensive, careless mining operations.  Erickson and Collin will be touched if they compare images of the Mongolian southern provinces now and two decades ago just to see the environmental degradation in the world-renown Gobi desert.  Similar heartbreaking images are haunting people living in northern China or the Russian Far East.  Mongolian politicians made attractive, weak mining regulations during the economic downtime in the mid-1990s; as a result, many mining companies showed up and others, including many Chinese companies, secured licenses. The majority of license holders have conducted extensive mining exploration and extractive operations.  The irresponsible, careless mining of both foreign and domestic companies have caused public outrage, with calls to strengthen the mining regulations and make the license-issuance business transparent.  The latest efforts to investigate corruption in the mining regulatory institutions, to suspend the issuance of mining licenses to foreign investors, and to increase Mongolian shares in strategic mines are a few visible responses taken by Mongolian politicians for the public outcry.  Apparently, it also provides the ground for populist politics. The long-term investment agreement with Rio Tinto demonstrated sustainable and reliable mining were the main concerns for Mongolia.  These will be the overriding concerns for all other major projects, including Tavan Tolgoi.  All three neighbors, China, Mongolia, and Russia, are today striving for Western technology and improving the responsibility of mining companies, while keeping in mind each other’s capabilities and mining practices.  But all seem to agree that Western companies have a rather long record of corporate social responsibility.

Like any other nations, reliant on the extractive industries, Mongolians also want to make more value out of their natural resources because they are not renewable.  The establishment of short rail links with Chinese processing factories will benefit only a few mining companies, accelerate extraction process, and increase the Chinese reliance on low-cost coal from Mongolia.  Of course, it will generate short-term revenues from coal exports, but it will not reclaim the virgin lands of the Mongolian Gobi.  On the other hand, Mongolia’s policy to expand its rail links by connecting key mining deposits and extending its reach to Russia’s Pacific Ports have more promises than these short term gains.  First, the major infrastructure projects such as rail road and industrial complex Gobi area will offer employment opportunities for thousands of Mongolians.  Second, it will facilitate future economic interactions with marginalized, poorly developed Mongolia, the Russian Far East and eventually, another route for East Asia.  Third, Mongolians have access to both Russian and Chinese ports to the East Asian market, plus a European link.  The authors might be right at the current time, but the market will change.  One day Mongolia may turn into an importer of coking coal – at which point it would be better to weigh the costs of the two transport options.  Many Mongolians are looking beyond “Mine-golia”, as a new nickname for Mongolia, to build industrial capability for value-added mining products, to diversify its economy by re-investing into crop plantations and animal husbandry, and to improve the responsibility of mining industries. Due to inevitable economic dependence on China (remember, Chinese small and medium mining companies hold far greater number of licenses than other foreign investors), Mongolia does indeed avoid any further increase in economic dependency from any single investor.  This is the concern shared by any nation state.  For instance, Australia prohibited the participation of Huawei in the national network band tender and Mongolia did the same for Chinese ZTE two years ago.  Mongolia’s experience of overdependence on the Russian economy and investment are still haunting Mongolians politicians.  Giving away major tenders to both its neighbors will only consolidate their already influential economic leverage on Ulaanbaatar; therefore, Mongolia must at least attempt to invite others to diversify its economic partners.

Mongolia’s decision to limit the Chinese state-owned enterprises is similar to any state with giant neighbors. The unanimous decision is not a result of anti-Chinese attitudes or over-exaggerated resource nationalism.  It is the reflection of a public outcry against the past two decades of irresponsible mining and their desire of developing their economy by expanding infrastructure, introducing corporate social responsibility, and diversifying its economy. Therefore, the Mongolian mining strategy is not a mistake.

Posted in Business, China, Foreign Investment, Mining, Mongolia and ... | Tagged | 4 Comments

Mongolia-Australia Relation

Mongolia and Australia are marking the 40th anniversary of bilateral relations. In quite similar time frame with Canada, Australia, as another middle power, reached out Mongolia.  Today bilateral relation has been expanded as a result of the Australian well-targeted educational assistant and desire of Australian mining companies.  Here is the recent piece on this.

Posted in Australia, Foreign Policy, Mining | Tagged | Leave a comment

New book: Mapping Mongolia – Situating Mongolia in the World from Geologic Time to the Present

Just adding a review of the book “MAPPING MONGOLIA: Situating Mongolia in the World from Geologic Time to the Present” edited by Paula L.W. Sabloff. It was published in Pacific Affairs, 85(3), September 2012, pp. 656-658(3)

This welcome new book examines the place of Mongolia in the world. The book is a collection of papers originally prepared for the four-day international research symposium on “Mapping Mongolia,” held at the University of Pennsylvania in 2007. The strength of the book is that it is the result of the collaborative efforts of 15 authors from diverse areas of expertise (ecology,
genetics, archeology, history, anthropology and international security). The impetus for writing this book is a widely shared concern among scholars that small countries are marginalized by a configuration of area studies programs and groupings in the Western academia and diplomacy.

Full version of the review PDF

Posted in Mongolia and ..., Publications, Research on Mongolia, Society and Culture | Tagged | Leave a comment

A New Mongolian Government Is Finally Formed

Although the new government formed in Ulaanbaatar, its fate seems to be shaky and fragile.  Unlike earlier governments, Altankhuyag’s government is still trying accomodate interests of various factions and joining coalitions – and even unable to devote more efforts to the actual government work (i.e., the Government’s Action Plan).  President Elbegdorj’s policies over judiciary and security institutions are becoming more similar with his predecessor, Enkhbayar, – to assert the party-affilliated politicians at key posts of the judiciary and security institutions.  Political rhetorics of justice, reform, and equality are well used in Ulaanbaatar, but actions of politicians are telling us something totally different and weakening/politicizing the state institutions at both national and local governments.  Maybe something wrong with the structure….. Just adding a recent piece on the Eurasia Daily Monitor.

Posted in Civil Will Green Party, Democratic Party, Elections, Eurasia Daily Monitor, Ikh Khural 2012, Mongolian People's Party, Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party, Party Politics, Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment