12 Jan 2010
Mongolia’s Balancing Act

Mongolia’s Balancing Act
Bookmark and Share
Category: OPINIONS

Views on Mongolia’s Third Neighbour Policy.

About: , , , , ,

As most people, who are even remotely connected to Mongolia know, the much publicised (and long overdue) Mongolian economic boom is set to start in earnest. World analysts have now jumped in and tried to predict the shape of things to come.

Mr. MacNamara, a journalist from the Financial Times has recently written an article about Mongolia’s third neighbour policy, while today the news about Mongolia seems to be all about the pre-IPO road-show of South Gobi Energy trying to raise $400m in HK for its Mongolia projects.  Before that it was the agreement between Areva and Mitsubishi to develop Uranium deposits in Mongolia together. Not a week goes by that Mongolia does not make the international business headlines with a new deal or story about its upcoming growth, it is clear that the world media’s are slowly catching up to the “Mongolia story” but where is that story heading?

Principally, it seems that the main questions asked by analysts are:

  • How will Mongolia juggle its appetite for foreign investments while maintaining national and political integrity?
  • How will Mongolia play its formidable neighbours to its advantage yet retain a real independence from both?
  • Will the much flaunted “third neighbor policy” work and be efficient or is it merely an elaborate trap for foreign investors?

While the Mongolian economy and its democratic movement are notoriously wild and unpredictable, all the signs seem to point towards a real desire from the political class to move in the right direction. All the ingredients for Mongolia to become this decade’s success story are present, now it is simply a case of blending the right mix of ingredients together to obtain a performing economy. This is actually a lot trickier than it sounds. Thankfully, Mongolia is still a functioning democracy and its elected representatives are still answerable to the people of Mongolia, if only through a system of fair elections and a generally free press.

The will to move in the right direction is clearly demonstrated by the new generation of Mongolia’s politicians who are fast becoming a formidable force, Mr. Zorig, the minister for Mineral Resources, has already accomplished much; he not only achieved the completion of the OT agreement but he has also restored Mongolia’s tainted reputation with Foreign Investors. Mrs. Oyun from the Civil Will Party seems to be one of the political shooting starts and also one of the finest and most driven politicians I have ever seen. The current president of Mongolia, Mr. Elbegdorj himself does not seem to be such a strong political personality but his current work  is essential as it will enable the next generation of politicians to carry out the reforms that need to be done.

Mongolia’s main weakness has always been its isolation, landlocked between two enormous powers. With the correct exploitation of its resources, Mongolia now has the opportunity to turn that weaknesses into a strength and take full advantage of both neighbours. To achieve this, Mongolia will need to thread a fine line and play a tricky political game if it is to come out on top. Mongolia’s position is not an easy one; it is likely to become the setting of the clash of the titans over its resources. Russia’s agenda for Mongolia seems to be more a question of political dominance while China seems to be primarily concerned with securing easy and cheap access to the resources Mongolia is so abundant in and that China so desperately needs. The country itself seems locked in a love / hate relationship with China while it still has ambiguous feelings about Russia.

Concerning Russia, Mongolia seems uncertain as to where its relationship now stands and worries that Russia will increasingly use the carrot and stick method to obtain what it wants from Mongolia, this was demonstrated with the opposition to the Millennium Challenge railway funds as well as the timely reminders of Mongolia’s supposed outstanding debt to Russia. Russia has notoriously used threats, blackmail and occasional symbolic rewards in dealing with its own internal affairs as well as its previous (Soviet) area of influence; the pressure from Russia is likely to come from the Public sector and will be aimed squarely at the Mongolian Government. China on the other hand is more likely to play a more subtle game, using discrete methods of cajoling, bribery, corruption and its own economic dominance to ascertain its power over Mongolia but this is unlikely to be done by the state but rather led by private Chinese entities.

The best way for Mongolia to leverage its enormous resources against its neighbours is to use what has now been termed “The Third Neighbour Policy”, essentially a loose understanding that whenever possible and advantageous, Mongolia will deal with countries or entities that are neither Chinese nor Russian. This policy has a number of clear advantages, the most obvious of which is that Mongolia should be able to retain a greater independence from either of its neighbours but should also be able to obtain greater transparency and accountability from the  “third neighbour” companies such as Rio Tinto, BHP, Peabody and so forth than from its geographic neighbours.

Mongolia’s favoured third neighbours have traditionally been considered to be Japan, Korea, India, the USA and sometimes a few of the European countries. The policy allows them to indiscriminately pick and choose the  most  suitable partner for each project. The next mega project in the pipeline is the famed Tavan Tolgoi project, the huge coal deposit in the South Gobi. It is too big for a single company to exploit and so will have to be divided and its licenses allocated accordingly. The way this will be done will really settle the question of Mongolia’s foreign policy and its use and abuse of the third neighbour policy. Mr. Zorig has announced that they will announce the shape of things to come regarding Tavan Tolgoi early in 2010 and choose its companies soon thereafter. If Oyu Tolgoi was the appetizer, the amuse-bouche even, Tavan Tolgoi will be the main course.

But, for the policy to have any chance of success it is not simply sufficient to wish it so, Mongolia must become an attractive destination for foreign investments. While some progress has certainly been made, it still needs to improve its offering; the corner stones of foreign investments in Mongolia will be the introduction of effective measures against the rising problems of corruption and the creation of a strong, independent, judicial system. The business environment of Mongolia is still good but can be further strengthened with more comprehensive, transparent and accessible information to foreign investors. Improving political stability is a longer term goal but is part of the greater understanding required on the part of Mongolia as to what is essential for the country to remain competitive in an increasingly globalised world.

Mongolia has already learned much with the debacle of the 68% windfall tax, it must carefully manage its fiscal and foreign policies, a too obvious show of greed on the part of the government will force foreign investors to seek their fortunes elsewhere while a too lenient policy will mean that Mongolia gets taken advantage of and will not receive its fair share of revenues.

On the flip side of the coin, if the third neighbour policy becomes truly effective, it may well anger its two very large and powerful neighbours who feel that they are missing out and see their influence diminish within Mongolia. Mongolia depends on those neighbours for its survival as they are (China in particular) Mongolia’s majority trading partners. Furthermore, Mongolia could be perceived as setting a bad example for its neighbours; a democratic and successful economy on their doorstep might set a dangerous precedent, in particular for the inner Mongolian region of China. It does not take a big stretch of the imagination to understand that both Russia and China have every interest to see Mongolia’s democracy and its third neighbour policy fail. A strong Mongolia is the last thing they want to see. How Mongolia handles this potential political and economical backlash from both countries is the most interesting of questions.

In the end it might well be the case that Mongolia’s abundant availability of minerals might end up being  the catalyst that will lead the country to its very own demise. As many other ex-Soviet, resource rich, central Asian countries have already demonstrated, the tightrope balancing act of democracy and good governance is hard to achieve, leaving very little room for errors. It would only be too easy for Mongolia to become a failed state, ruled by despots and only concerned with the well being of its ruling class.

Most people are confident that Mongolia will manage this difficult balancing act well, it will of course make mistakes along the way but as long as it retains a fair system of checks and balances, it will be able to recover from those mistakes and forge ahead. I look forward to seeing Mongolia develop into one of the most successful economies of this decade and will continue to be an avid spectator of this fantastic story.

About: , , , , ,

  • Joel

    I liked this, and also the critical response that follows below. I agree with your anonymous responder that the interests of the powerful business elite are not necessarily those of the nation. The problems are deep - institutional and governance on one level, but on a deeper one (and perhaps why Mongolians don't seem able to build functioning institutions) a matter of how people work together - i.e. very high individualism allied to a seemingly intransigent lack of trust in each other, and a win-lose attitude to opportunities. And not only the justice issue, but the media one needs to be sorted out. Most of my Mongolian friends regard their country as democratic in name only after July 1st- they believe that any one who speaks against the powerful is in danger, hence citizens reluctance to demonstrate/speak out publicly. There is some academic literature on why countries do/dont develop - citing Asian countries specifically as successes e.g. Malaysia, Thailand, S Korea and (going back a bit!) Japan. The theory being that the combination of strong nationalism, external economic or military threat, and 'group' culture means that the rich elite put their greed and differences aside and work to build a functioning state with inclusive institutions in order to preserve and protect their national identity and culture. Mongolia certainly has a proud sense of national identity, and - as you point out - faces very present and formidable external economic and cultural threats. The question is how can the elite be motivated to think of themselves as leaders rather than bosses, and do the necessary in standing for Mongolia. My (Mongolian) wife thinks that the only hope is that all the young bright Mongolians who are currently studying abroad will come back and adapt what they have seen and learned to the Mongolian context and do the right thing once the greedy corrupt old guard are dead or our of office. In the meantime its just a matter of stopping things from going too direly wrong. Like mobilising debate and information on the Tavan Tolgoi bid, which a number of disturbingly highly placed people have said is "a done deal for the Chinese"... Sorry this was a bit of a ramble

    In which case the future is not so bright, and us foreigners may be needing Chinese Visas here in 20 years...

  • Anon

    Just a couple of comments on what Joel said:

    First, the press. I tend to find the Mongolian press (what I've seen of it) rather lacking. Articles are too often opinion pieces, written to inflame rather than inform, build sensation rather than present facts or useful information. Rumours and contentions are all that is needed to write an article. In the meantime, important developments with a major impact on Mongolia are best found on the English-language Internet, not in the Mongolian press.

    Secondly, nationalism. It seems to me that current Mongolian nationalism could be characterised as the beleaguered defensive nationalism of a rump state. The charitable view would be that its narrow focus on the Mongolian state, to the exclusion of the rest of the Mongolian-speaking world, is an attempt to regroup and build up a strong identity from a narrow base. But it is still a tragedy that Mongolian nationalism as we see it now has pretty much come down to denying "Mongolness" to anyone but the inhabitants of the Mongolian state.

    But that's another issue. Getting back to your discussion above, the nationalism that is useful in creating a cohesive independent state is not the kind that is found in the streets of Ulaanbaatar. Mongolia's popular nationalism is a narrow sentiment that is easily whipped up and manipulated by unscrupulous politicians for their own ends. The kind of nationalism that is needed is, as you intimated above, one of how can the elite be motivated to think of themselves as leaders rather than bosses. That is, how can the elite be motivated to act in the interests of their own nation (true nationalism). Despite vast differences in their situations and very different experiences, Japan, Korea, and China are countries that have managed to achieve growth within a framework of national independence thanks to the existence of a cohesive elite that was able to close ranks against foreign interests and put the interests of their own state first. Despite the virulent nationalism of the Mongolian people, the Mongolian elite seems to be happy to do closet deals with the "hated other" when it is in their own financial interest. Unfortunately, popular Mongolian nationalism is too narrowly focussed on knee-jerk hostility to outsiders to recognise the broader picture here.

  • Anon

    I am not totally impressed with this analysis. Apart from slips like calling the current president Enkhbayar, it fails to address a very basic issue: the fundamental clash of interests between the self-interest of the power elite and national independence. There is a clique of very rich people in Mongolia whose interests are not necessarily synonymous with the interests of the nation and its continued independence.

    At the very heart of this issue -- massive gain for the powerful few vs the long term economic health and independence of the nation -- is the question of whether Mongolia should simply export its resources to enrich a small number of people or build on them to create a stable industrial base that will benefit the whole nation in the long run. (Mongolia's first industrial base was destroyed by US-style economic liberalisation in the early 1990s). That is the battle currently being fought. One of the biggest issues in Mongolia at present is whether to allow a private company (dominated by a who's who of Mongolian politicians and businessmen) to construct a railway from a coal mine to the Chinese border, or to push instead for the processing of mineral resources in Mongolia. Understandably, those who want to build the railway are in favour of minimal processing and maximum profitability for themselves.

    I find it interesting that you have not addressed this issue at all when it plays such a central role in the future of Mongolia. Russia, China, democracy.... these are hackneyed old cliches trotted out by superficial Western observers. They completely ignore the ability of mineral resources to corrupt the local power elite and sabotage efforts by a country to "play its formidable neighbours to its advantage yet retain a real independence from both".

  • Dear Anon,

    Many thanks for taking the time to reply to my article, I value and appreciate what you wrote (and thanks for pointing out the error in the president, I have now corrected it).

    I do indeed believe that the development of the railways and / or the creation of added value to the price of the raw materials within Mongolia is indeed an important issue that I thought I would tackle in another article, as it does deserve to be a topic on its own. I wanted this article to focus purely on Mongolia's third neighbour policy and its foreign policy at large, not taking into account its own management of resources and wealth. I have touched briefly on the subject of the growing wealth gap and the potential for mismanagement of resources in my previous article " Is Mongolia Now Open for Business" which you can also find on my website.

    I will now look for a way to take into account what you have mentioned and incorporate some of that in this current article while a prepare a dedicated article to address this very issue.

    I also agree that I am nothing but a superficial western observer, I cannot hope to know the country as well as the Mongolians themselves or the people whose purpose it is to analyse emerging economies such as Mongolia. Those articles are simply my own views of the situation in general as I see it, my own perspectives are often impacted by my own experiences in Mongolia and I cannot be an impartial observer. As I am myself an outsider to what is happening in Mongolia, the articles are by their very nature liable to errors in facts and judgment.

    Again, many thanks for your contribution, I hope that you will be able to give me your comments on the next articles I will write.

    Best,

    Christopher de Gruben

  • Anon

    Well, I guess I did hit a bit hard :)

    I think I was disturbed by the trotting out of recent headlines like SouthGobi, Areva, etc., when the most vital current issue, it seems to me, is the railway issue.

    I am also not saying you are a superficial Western observer. Unfortunately when the media (especially the US media) trot out the old cliches about democracy I tend to wince, and when I read it in your piece I not only winced but decided to take pen to paper. I am sure that democracy plays a role in all this, but when a country is so heavily controlled and manipulated by a small clique of people (and perhaps more countries are run like this than we would care to admit), democracy can have at best a moderating influence on the decisions of the elite. Perhaps I am being too cynical.

    At any rate, please don't let my comments deter you from writing further pieces. Annoying as it may be, I personally feel it is far better to receive reasoned comments to a piece that has obviously taken a lot of thought and effort to produce than the brainless one-liners that so often litter the comments column of blogs... or no comment at all.

  • Dear Anon,

    Thanks again for your comment, I do actually really appreciate people taking the time to value what I write in a critical but objective manner. I only wish that there was a real platform of debate within the Mongolian media where people from all interest groups could debate about those matters in a logical and well reasoned way. It makes a change from the racist and nationalistic comments I usually get on my articles.

    Concerning the use of democracy, I agree with you that it is a cliché and that the term is over used, but having said that, I think that in the case of Mongolia, it will be the sole thing that will keep the powers to be in check. For me democracy is about free elections and free press, essentially about the accountability of governments. The right of citizens to speak out and challenge their governments.

    Democracy has many flaws, I will not dispute that, but as far as I know it is the only system that manages to keep its leaders on their toes. The strength of a democracy is often inversely proportional to the levels of corruption and the wealth gap of a country. Singapore springs to mind as an immediate successful example of this while China, Russia and Kazakhstan demonstrate how the lack of a true democratic system aids the system of abuse that we see in many parts of the world.

    As long as the citizens of Mongolia are able to challenge the government in a free press and eventually vote for a government that they want to have, it will force the government and its backers to listen to the wishes of the people and make sure that the wealth they obtain is distributed reasonably fairly. The issues of the railways and the use of mineral resources to acquire wealth are important issues that will be decided on by the government but if those decisions prove to be un-advantageous to the people of Mongolia, I expect that at the next round of elections, this will become an issue and the following government would have learned from its mistakes and be able to adjust.

    I watched with fascination the discussions on OT and was actually quite happy to see that it took so long to complete, there was a real input from the citizens of Mongolia as well as a real sense that the government was trying to get the best deal possible for the country, this was the main topic of the last elections. This is democracy at work for me.

    If future large strategic deals done by Mongolia obtain this level of interest from the public than I have every hope that the country will do well and the right decisions will be (more often than not) taken. Of course I do realize that corruption and abuse of power will always be an issue in Mongolia. In particular as it develops so fast. My last paragraph in the article deals with this by saying that the mineral wealth of Mongolia might well be its own demise. It is my ardent wish that Mongolia sees a strong democracy as that will enable it to grow in a more consistent way while limiting the abuse of power.

    Hope this clarifies a little why I felt I couldn’t avoid putting democratic concepts at the forefront of the development of Mongolia. I will in any case dedicate an article to raise the points you mentioned and will (with your permission) consult you on this as you seem to be very knowledgeable on this subject.

    Thanks again for taking the time to read and write.

    Best,

    Chris

blog comments powered by Disqus