Glossary of Mongolian Terms
aimag: province
airag: fermented mare’s milk
aaruul: traditional Mongolian cheese or dried curd
denj: hill or terrace, as in “American denj,” the place in Ulaanbaatar where American merchants used to congregate during the early twentieth century
deel: traditional Mongolian dress, worn by both men and women
dzud (or zhud): especially disastrous winter conditions in which herders often lose large numbers of livestock
ger: round felt tent; usually called a “yurt” in English or “yurta” in Russian
Hural: gathering or assembly; the Great Hural is the Mongolian parliament
morin huur: traditional Mongolian stringed instrument, often referred to as the national instrument of Mongolia. The sound it makes is sometimes compared to that of a horse neighing or the wind blowing gently across the steppe.
Naadam: biggest annual festival in Mongolia. It typically takes place in July and includes cultural celebrations and archery, wrestling, and horse racing competitions.
soum: district
soyombo: national symbol of Mongolia, designed by Bogdo Zanabazar in the seventeenth century. It appears on the Mongolian flag.
Tsagaan Sar: the Mongolian lunar new year, usually celebrated in February. It literally means “white moon.”
tsam: a Buddhist ritual dance that in Mongolia is performed using elaborate masks
On January 27, 1987, senior diplomats from the United States and Mongolia met in a modest ceremony below a portrait of Thomas Jefferson in the Treaty Room of the Department of State in Washington, D.C. Their purpose was to sign the legal documentation needed to finally establish formal diplomatic relations between the two countries. This in turn led to the appointment of the first ambassadors and the opening of new embassies in Ulaanbaatar and Washington. It also became the catalyst for a rapid growth in relations in any number of areas, not only in the political arena but also in culture, education, business, development, and security.
Twenty-five years later, the bilateral relationship between the United States and Mongolia continues to both deepen and expand. In all these areas and more, Mongolians and Americans are increasingly meeting, learning from, understanding, and partnering with each other to achieve common aims and objectives.
This book provides a retrospective look at the first quarter century of diplomatic relations between the United States and Mongolia, recalling in part a dispatch written nearly 100 years ago by an American diplomat named A. W. Ferrin. At the time, Ferrin was a commercial officer assigned to the US legation in “Peking.” In his dispatch, he highlighted the growing commercial opportunities available to American businesses in Mongolia. At the same time, he suggested that an American diplomatic presence in Urga—as Mongolia’s capital city of Ulaanbaatar was then known—would prove “helpful” to Mongolia. In fact, the entire phrase used in the dispatch that Ferrin sent to his superiors at the State Department in Washington, D.C., in 1918 continues to resonate nearly a century later: if the United States were to open an office in Urga, he argued, it would almost certainly prove to be “a most helpful factor in the development of a wonderful country.”
Although Ferrin’s plea was unsuccessful in his lifetime, this phrase—which recurs at several points in the narrative that follows—poignantly conveys in only a few words what many Americans, diplomats and ordinary citizens alike, aspire for out of the US-Mongolia relationship. From the view of many Americans who have visited, Mongolia is indeed a “wonderful country,” one that includes a fascinating history, vibrant culture and inspiring landscapes. There is also a genuine desire on the part of many Americans to see Mongolia succeed in its efforts to emerge as an unqualified success story in Northeast Asia, one that shares important core values with the United States and can potentially set a positive example for others in the region and beyond.
History also resonates across important aspects of the relationship. For example, when Mongolia and the United States celebrated the 20th anniversary of bilateral relations in 2007, the Mongolian Postal Service issued a set of two stamps to mark the occasion. One stamp featured Genghis Khan cast in bronze, sitting on his throne in the large, recently completed memorial outside Government House in Sukhbaatar Square in downtown Ulaanbaatar. The other depicted President Abraham Lincoln cut from marble, also looking larger-than-life from the vantage point of the Lincoln Memorial on the Mall in Washington, D.C.
As shown on the stamps, the two huge sculptures are very similar, each showing a national hero seated in an almost identical pose that exudes power, confidence, and authority. Both stand out as leading historical figures and as instantly recognizable symbols of their respective countries. While different in many important respects, the juxtaposition of the two leaders in these commemorative stamps also serves to underscore that Genghis Khan had forged unity among the Mongol people during the thirteenth century, just as Abraham Lincoln six centuries later successfully fought to maintain the unity of the United States, helping to establish and sustain a “more perfect union.” Although separated by different histories and cultures as well as thousands of miles and a huge ocean, perhaps it was inevitable that Mongolia and the United States—one an old nation that became a great power during the thirteenth century, the other a new country that emerged as a world power only in the twentieth century—would eventually meet.
There are, of course, several ways to analyze and critique relations between countries, including countries as different and as geographically far apart as Mongolia and the United States. One approach might be to highlight geopolitical issues, focusing on Mongolia’s strategic location between two large powers, Russia to the north and China to the south. Another might be to focus on national interest, presenting US-Mongolia relations in either more pragmatic or more hard-headed terms as being primarily driven on both sides by the quest for national advantage, whether related to national security, the search for influence, or a concerted effort to gain commercial benefit. Certainly, the foreign relations of any country are based on a mix of ideology, idealism, and national interests.
All these issues and more inevitably arise when any two countries engage with each other seriously on the world stage. To complicate matters further, bilateral relations between countries are never conducted in a vacuum. On the contrary, they become increasingly pronounced when set against the reality of a wide and complex web of bilateral relationships involving other countries both near and far, as well as with a growing number of multilateral players. For Mongolia, forging an effective foreign policy that achieves an appropriate balance among many often competing priorities and potential partnerships will always remain as an especially formidable challenge that more or less defines and determines Mongolia’s place in the world.
It is also the underlying rationale behind what is typically described as Mongolia’s “third neighbor” approach to foreign policy. Since the early 1990s, every Mongolian government of all political persuasions has attempted to simultaneously maintain friendly ties with its “first” and “second” neighbors, Russia and China, while also reaching out to a wider world consisting of a multiplicity of “third neighbors,” including Japan, Korea, India, Canada, Australia, the various countries forming the European Union, and the United States. Put another way, in recent years Mongolia has actively sought to maintain a “three-dimensional” foreign policy, one that consciously promotes positive and productive engagement with its two immediate neighbors while also seeking to build constructive ties with a much wider set of other countries, as well as a range of multilateral institutions situated in every corner of the world.
Against that backdrop, this book intentionally deals with only one set of “third neighbor” relationships—those involving the United States and Mongolia, two countries that have been interacting diplomatically for only a quarter century while maintaining a remarkable set of people-to-people ties for at least 150 years. The approach is primarily narrative and descriptive rather than highly critical or theoretical. It is not rooted in any grand theory of international relations or meant to become a platform for extended reflections on how nations compete, cooperate, or interact with each other within a wider geostrategic arena. Rather, it touches in significant part on the human dimensions of the US-Mongolian partnership as it has played out in a number of important areas over the last 25 years. More than anything, the intent here is to record and preserve some of the major highlights in an emerging and fascinating story, one in which many chapters remain to be written.
The narrative begins in the early 1860s, when the first American adventurers began arriving in “Outer Mongolia,” a distant area on the map that at the time was seen as one of the most remote and forbidding places on earth. A subsequent chapter explores in greater depth the several “false starts” and “unexpected turns” that eventually culminated in the January 1987 agreement to establish relations, exchange ambassadors, open embassies, and engage in normal diplomatic relations.
Five successive chapters in turn assess and describe the several areas in which US-Mongolian ties have flourished over the last quarter century. In particular, these five chapters—which represent the “core” of this book—describe a multitude of efforts on the part of both Mongolians and Americans to support democracy, partner on development, build commercial ties, promote security, and sustain people-to-people relations.
A final chapter provides an overall assessment of the current state of the relationship while also taking a speculative look at possible future developments. Several annexes include, among other things, a listing of some of the major agreements signed between the two countries over the past 25 years. The texts of two official documents produced in the summer of 2011—one issued by the White House, the other by the United States Congress—highlight and summarize the major areas of cooperation and mutual support achieved during the first quarter century of what has become a vibrant diplomatic relationship.
The manuscript concludes with a section on major sources and further reading, providing details on books, articles, monographs, and other sources of information for those wishing to explore in greater depth some of the themes highlighted here. At the same time, it needs to be emphasized that many of the recollections on which this narrative is based are purely personal in nature and until now have never been written down anywhere.
Put another way, the catalyst for this effort was decidedly nonacademic in nature, reflecting instead a conscious and deliberate attempt to capture some of the early memories and anecdotes linked to the early diplomatic history of the United States and Mongolia before they disappear forever. This was aided by a willingness on the part of six of the first seven American ambassadors to Mongolia to contribute memories of their own. In addition, some of the first Mongolian staff to work at the US Embassy in Ulaanbaatar provided their recollections. Finally, as a participant in certain parts of that history—first as USAID country director in Mongolia from August 2001 until April 2004 and then as US ambassador to Mongolia from November 2009 until July 2012—my own perspective and personal views are inevitably reflected in certain passages in the text that follows.
My sincere hope is that this book will remind Americans and Mongolians alike of some of the more interesting and important aspects of their shared history during its critical early stages. Perhaps it will one day also provide useful raw material for further reflection, critique, and analysis on the part of others about an intriguing and increasingly complex diplomatic relationship that continues to unfold. Finally, it should be emphasized that the faults inherent in this approach are mine alone—and that the views expressed in this volume are those of the author and do not purport to reflect those of the US Department of State or the US government.