Бичсэн: Ж. Санчир, 2017.06.06

Монгол хэл рүү хөрвүүлсэн: Ш. Номиндарь

Санчир бол Монгол төдийгүй дэлхийн Өмнөд хэсгийн улс орнуудын улс төр, эдийн засгийн хөгжлийн талаар ихэд анхааран судалдаг улс төр судлаач, нийгмийн идэвхтэн юм. Улс төрийн онол, дэлхийн улс төрийн эдийн засаг, Төв Ази болоод Орос судлалыг хамтатгасан салбар хоорондын судалгаа хийдэг түүний ажлын цар хүрээ тэгш бус, хоцронгуй хөгжлийн асуудлуудаас эхлээд пост-социалист орнуудад явагдаж буй ардчиллын үйл явц, худалдаа, хөрөнгө оруулалтын асуудлууд, олборлох аж үйлдвэр, хөгжиж буй улс орнууд дахь ядуурал, өрийн асуудлуудыг тус тус хамардаг. Шинэ Сэдвүүд Төслийн судлаачид болон монгол судлаач эрдэмтэд Санчиртай Монголын эдийн засгийн хямралыг даван туулахад гүйцэтгэх ОУВС хийгээд Хятадын үүрэг ролийн талаар цахим шуудангаар солилцсон үзэл бодлоос энэхүү нийтлэл үүдсэн билээ.

 

2017 оны 5 сарын 24-нд Олон Улсын Валютын Сан (ОУВС)-гийн Захирлуудын Зөвлөл Өргөтгөсөн Санхүүжилтийн Хөтөлбөр (ӨСХ)-ийн хүрээнд Монгол улсад гурван жилийн хугацаа бүхий 5,5 тэрбум ам.долларын санхүүжилт өгөх шийдвэрийг баталсан. Хэдийгээр улсын өрийнхөө хямралыг давах үүднээс Монгол ОУВС-аас санхүүжилт авахын зэрэгцээ Хятад улсаас шууд зээл авах бололцоо байсан боловч, Хятадын тал энэ тохиролцоог бүрмөсөн цуцалсан билээ. Монгол улс ОУВС-тай хийсэн энэ тохиролцоог цөөнгүй улс төрч, улс төрийн тоймч, хэвлэл мэдээллийн хэрэгслүүд хоёр мангасаас арай гайгүйг нь сонгосонтой зүйрлэцгээсэн юм.

Монголын эдийн засгийг сэргээхийн тулд нэг бол ОУВС-аас тусламж авах, эс бол Хятадаас зээл авахаас өөр арга зам байхгүй мэтээр сурталчилах нь төр засгийн болоод монопольчлогдсон хэвлэл мэдээлэлийн сурталддаг худал зүйл болохыг би сануулж байсан. Иргэний нийгмийн хэд хэдэн байгууллагууд болон миний бие зэрэг хувь хүмүүс энэ хоёрхон гарцаас бусад боломжууд байгааг дэвшүүлсээр ирсэн билээ. Эдгээрт улсын төсвөөс шамшигдуулж оффшор дансанд хийсэн мөнгийг буцааж авчрах [1], бондны эх үүсвэртэй зээлийн зарцуулалт, түгээлт хийгээд эргэн төлөлтөд аудитын шалгалт хийх, шаардлагагүй зардлыг төсвөөс хасах болон үүнтэй төстэй бусад арга хэмжээ орно. Энэхүү арга хэмжээнүүд шууд хэрэгжих боломжтой эсэх нь хоёрдугаар зэргийн ач холбогдолтой юм.

Дээр дурдсан үзэл санааг дэмжин түгээж буй Монгол дахь хамгийн том хөдөлгөөн бол Оффшорын эсрэг Ард Түмний Онц Түр Зөвлөл (АТОЗ) юм. Тэдний явуулсан хамгийн том үйл ажиллагаа бол энэ оны 3 сарын 31-нд Сүхбаатарын талбайд зохион байгуулсан жагсаал байлаа. Улсын төсвөөс хулгайлж оффшор дансанд нуусан мөнгийг авчрахыг шаардсан тус жагсаалд олон зуун хүн оролцсон бөгөөд жагсаалд оролцогч улс төрч, идэвхтэнүүд тэдгээр дансанд буй 17 тэрбум ам.долларыг буцааж авчрахыг шаардацгаасан юм. Хэдийгээр зарим хүмүүс эрх баригч бүлгийнхэний нэг хэсэг нь сөрөг талынхандаа дарамт үзүүлэхийн тулд иймэрхүү жагсаалыг санхүүжүүлж зохион байгуулдсан гэж хардаж байсан ч, гадаад орнуудад бий болсон оффшор дансны эсрэг монгол бүлгүүд болон Ард Түмний Онц Түр Зөвлөлд өгч буй олон нийтийн өндөр ач холбогдол энэ хөдөлгөөнийг ард олонд хэдийнээ хүлээн зөвшөөрөгдсөн бөгөөд бодитой сөрөг хүчин болохуйц гэдгийг нь илтгэж байна.

 

ОУВС-тай хийсэн тохиролцоо болох Өргөтгөсөн Санхүүжилтийн Хөтөлбөрийн дагуу Монгол Улс зардлаа хэмнэж, татвар хийгээд тэтгэвэрийн насыг нэмэхийн сацуу валютын ханшийг уян хатан байлгаж, банк, санхүүгийд эрхзүйн хүчирхэг орчин бий болгох үүрэг хүлээсэн юм. Энэ бүхэн нь ОУВС-аас бусад орнуудад явуулсан стандарт бодлого болох “бүсээ чангалах” багцтай нийцэж буй бөгөөд уг бодлогыг хэрэгжүүлсэн улс орнуудын эдийн засаг агшиснаар өрийн эргэн төлөлт нь улам бүр даагдашгүй ачаа болсон байна. (Toussaint, 2010; Varoufakis, 2016; Weisbrot & Sandoval, 2007). Тийм ч учраас, миний бие Нэгдсэн Үндэстний Байгууллагын зарчимд нийцүүлэн өрийг дахин бүтэцчилэх бодлого хэрэгжүүлж, шинээр Өрийн Тогтвортой Байдлын Дүн Шинжилгээ хийж, өрийн зарим хэсгийг эргэн төлж чадах хэмжээнднь зохицуулж цайруулах, хүлээн зөвшөөрөх ёстой өр, ёсгүй өр хоёрыг ялган салгах үүднээс иргэний оролцоотой аудит хийх зэрэг алхмыг Монгол улсад хийхийн [2] төлөө тэмцсээр ирсэн билээ.

Миний бодлоор, Монгол ОУВС-аас юм уу Хятадаас тусламж авах ёстой гэдэг л сонголтууд яригдаж байгаа нь, одоо байгаа тогтолцоог эдгээр хоёр боломжийн аль аль нь савлуулахгүйтэй холбоотой. Энэ хоёр сонголт өдгөө ноёлон буй давхаргад байр сууриа хадгалж байхад нь хэрэгтэй төдийгүй энэ бололцооны ачаар эрх барьж буй төр засаг өрийн асуудлуудыг шийдэх шаардлагагүй болж байгаа юм. Тэд зөвхөн зээлийг төлөх хугацааг хойшлуулж мөн дахин санхүүжүүлснээр дараачийн засагт буруугаа тохох боломжтой болж байна. Товчхондоо, энэ нь өнөөдөр Монголыг ийм байдалд оруулсан буруутай этгээдтүүдтэй хариуцлага тооцох биш харинэрх баригчдад зөвхөн статусквогоо хадгалах л боломж олгож байна.

 

[1] Панамад байрлах Моссак Фонсэка хууль зүйн фирмээс алдагдсан оффшор дансны мэдээлэлд буй татвараас зайлсхийсэн, мөнгө угаасан, хууль бус шилжүүлэг хийсэн байж болзошгүй хүмүүсийн урт гэгчийн жагсаалтад хэд хэдэн орны төрийн өндөр албан тушаалтнуудын нэр олдсон. Панамын бичгүүдэд дурдагдсан Монголын 49 бизнесийн байгууллага, хувь хүмүүсийн тоонд Монголын ерөнхий сайд асан С. Баяр, С. Батболд болон парламентын гишүүн С. Баярцогт, түүнчлэн төрийн бусад албан хаагчдын нэр багтсан нь илэрсэн юм.
[2] 2016 оны 3 сард Роза Люксэмбург Стифтанг байгууллагын зохион байгуулсан Зүүний Форум, 2016 оны 7 сард Улаанбаатар хотноо зохион байгуулагдсан Ази-Европын Ард Түмний Форум болоод Ази-Номхон Далайн Судалгааны Сүлжээ, Хүнсний хувьд бие даасан байдалд хүрэхийн төлөөх Ард Түмний Эвсэл болон Хүний Эрх, Хөгжлийн Төвөөс Монголд зохион байгуулсан Ард Түмний Судалгааны Сургалтын үеэр тавьсан илтгэлүүддээ дурдаж байсныг жишээлж болно.

 

Зүүлт:
Toussaint, Eric. Debt, the IMF, and the World Bank: Sixty Questions, Sixty Answers.[ОУВС болон Дэлхийн Банк: 60 асуулт, 60 хариулт]. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2010.
Varoufakis, Yanis. And the Weak Suffer What They Must?: Europe’s Crisis and America’s Economic Future. [Сул доройчууд нь ядахаараа зүдрэх ёстой гэж үү?]. Washington, DC: Nation Books, 2016.
Weisbrot, Mark, and Sandoval, Luis. Argentina’s Economic Recovery: Policy Choices and Implications. [Аргентины эдийн засгийн сэргэлт: Бодлогын сонголт ба оролцоо]. New York: Center for Economic and Policy Research, October 2007, #2.

This blog is the fifth in a series of posts about Mongolia’s 2016 parliamentary elections that were held on June 29th.

Mongolia’s June 29^th national parliamentary elections and Ulaanbaatar city elections acted as a multifaceted anticipatory device. The elections could be said to form a symbolically cumulative conclusion to a troubled political and economic period. The result was a vast overhaul of the state hural and the winning of an 85.5% majority for the Mongolian People’s Party (MPP). However, looking deeper into the temporal flow of the pre-election and post-election period reveals not so much a culminating electoral event and political regime change at the national and city levels. Instead, for many people living in Ulaanbaatar, this year has proven to be one of ongoing waiting and uncertainty. This period has been punctuated by waves of speculation and markers in time that produce stalling caused by changing groups of the political class.

The materiality of stalling

For many people living in Ulaanbaatar, this stalling has had considerable material repercussions that began well before the elections. One local official told me that the providing of certificates of temporary possession (ezemshih gerchilgee) of newly acquired pieces of land was stalled on the 25^th of May 2016 in the lead-up to the election. People claiming new land in the north of the city were attempting several times a week to try and process the right paperwork, but were consistently sent away to return ‘after the election.’ However, now almost three months afterwards, the processing of new land has not yet recommenced. In this period of bureaucratic stalling, people attempt to chase the right land official who visits on particular days, but are told that the land official is only currently dealing with ‘problem land’ and not new applications. However, to the average person, what counts bureaucratically as ‘problem land’ is opaque and not fully knowable. The fact is that many people in new plots of land are in varying forms of conflict with their neighbours as to the limits of boundary fences. Instead of waiting for bureaucratic decisions to be made in the meantime, people go ahead and secure their land in other ways.  For instance, they may stay on the land in an effort to hold it, and attempt to secure it with a fence before it can be officially recognised.[i]

 

Waiting amongst disrepair

One group of people in Ulaanbaatar have been particularly hit by post-election stalling. Again, their story began a long time before this year’s elections. They are a people who have been left behind after the last economic peak of 2011 and have borne the brunt of the subsequent departure of major investment from Ulaanbaatar’s construction sector. In the heart of Zuun Ail, an area close to the city core and a prime area for redevelopment projects, lies a collection of old niitiin bair – former construction worker dormitories built during the 1950s. Building No. 3, like the other niitiin bair, stands as a two story building that consists of one room apartments. These buildings have never had running water, and residents obtain their water from nearby wells. The one advantage these buildings had was heating. In the earlier days of the rise in construction development a construction company sought to redevelop these buildings into apartments. Excited at the prospects of gaining access to better infrastructure including running water, and increasing the value of their property, many owners in Building No. 3 signed contracts with the company to exchange their apartments for new ones to be built in their place.

Unfortunately, funding dried up, the redevelopment of Building No. 3 did not go ahead and the construction company is rumoured to have gone bankrupt.[ii] Before this was known however, the internal infrastructure of several of the rooms were removed, including the heating pipes, windows, doors and floor boards which were sold for scrap. Several different parties are blamed for this, including some residents claiming that owners were told to remove the infrastructure to display intent to leave and compliance with the upcoming redevelopment. Since then, the rooms have been further vandalised. The end result has been that multiple apartments on the bottom floor of the building have been slowly filled with refuse, as rubbish has been routinely disposed of through the gaping holes of former windows over the course of some time. The building’s heating has been switched off, the building itself is in a crumbling state of disrepair and is unsafe to live in.

Several people still live in this building and are unable to leave. Many owners, both living in the building and elsewhere, are desperate to find a solution to their problem – to find a different construction company deal, to receive compensation from the original construction company, or to simply find alternative housing. However, since the election period, simply being provided emergency alternative housing has become a main and urgent aim. Those still living in the apartment are working to a strict and unforgiving deadline: the looming onset of winter in an unsafe apartment building without heating. The situation is dire and resulted in Amnesty International Mongolia putting a call out to campaign for the former Ulaanbaatar mayor Bat-Üül to provide these people with alternative housing. This Amnesty International call-out has since been renewed and rebroadcasted since the elections. During the elections, election promises were made offering some solutions. This has meant that for these people, the elections acted as an important anticipatory device. However, as yet, the residents have not yet been provided alternative housing and cold weather is fast approaching.

Cleaning in defiance      

For the resident owners, this prolonged period of waiting has been a time of strategy, observation and flows of different types of actions. Just as the political stalling is prolonged and ongoing, so too are their different types of strategies. Here attempted ‘resolution’ of their situation, rather than an end point, is a maintaining device and important way to be heard. Residents have been involved in different court cases related to their situation. Much time is spent commenting on the ongoing situation while sitting in doorways of buildings and on the street, where updates are shared, compared and critiqued. They display an ‘active interaction’ between resistance and attempts to bring about change, while staving off the material flow-on effects of forced disrepair (Ortner 2016).

This was clearly seen on May 22^nd 2016, when several residents spent a full day clearing all the rubbish out of the empty apartment rooms on the ground floor. This was a huge undertaking. The rubbish was putrid and some of it had even decayed to earth. This rubbish had been an invasion of their building, encroaching closely on their own small apartment rooms. Who had deposited this rubbish and what it actually consisted of was essentially unknowable. By cleaning it up, they were moving against the anonymity of an accumulation of urban waste disposal over a long period of time. They were rejecting the slow deterioration and destruction of their living space that had occurred through quests for bountiful profit for some, and a better quality of life for others:

Thanks to their amazing efforts, the rooms are now cleared. But the building’s current residents continue to wait. They plan to have everyone move upstairs, then seal off the corridors and the windows of the ground floor to stop further rubbish polluting their building. In this period of waiting, their only option is to carve out a better space and modify this building to their needs. However, in the last few weeks, residents have informed me that people are beginning again to throw rubbish into the building during the night.

Stalling in a far-from-normal election year

The promise of varying forms of assistance for residents of Building No. 3 is an election promise of severe personal, emotional weight. Providing emergency alternative housing can determine the health and well-being of a large group of people this coming winter. While some steps by new politicians have been taken since the election, alternative housing has yet to be confirmed. The failure to provide such housing puts these people into a dire and unknowable situation and has considerable material and felt ramifications.

Bureaucratic stalling in Ulaanbaatar at the height of summer was always going to have significant effects reverberating throughout the city. A land official told me, “it is normal for this [kind of stalling] to happen during an election year.” It is common for a new term of Mongolian national parliament to not be confirmed until September of that year. However, as Mongolia’s new politicians are aware, Mongolia’s recent economic oscillations mean that this year is no ‘normal’ election year. To address the looming decisions, the new state parliament was formed much quicker than usual.

What was described as a crisis in the lead up to the election has transformed to ever deepening gradations of ‘crisis levels’ without a clear end in sight. The course that Mongolia now needs to take given the government’s own economic assessment is by no means clear. Mongolia faces major economic decisions that, no matter which way they turn, will have significant geopolitical consequences. Mongolia is currently considering accepting IMF bailouts, while the Bank of China has set up an office in Ulaanbaatar, and waits to see whether Mongolia will open its economic borders to allow it to set up branches and commence operations in Mongolia.

While bureaucratic stalling is common during an election year, acts of stalling this year are especially critical given the far-reaching economic fallout that has affected so many groups of people. However, where there is stalling, there are also new possibilities. While people wait to see whether this ‘crisis ordinary’ (Berlant 2011:10 c.f. Rebecca Empson this blog series) will deepen into a chasm of economic disrepair that the country as yet cannot see an end to, some people see this interlude as the opportunity to divert their current course. Let’s just hope that the new political representatives of Zuun Ail at the city and national level will find ways to manoeuvre their newly acquired power to allow the residents of Building No. 3 to access alternative housing this winter. These are one group of people who simply cannot afford to wait.

 

For more information on Amnesty International’s campaign for this case, please see: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa30/4793/2016/en/

 

© All photos by Rebekah Plueckhahn

A sincere thank you to Doljinsuren and Erdenezayar for assistance with this research.

[i] Living on land as a way to ‘hold’ and prevent others from claiming it has long been a part of land access in Ulaanbaatar since 1990.

[ii] While conducting research on property in Ulaanbaatar, more stories emerged of other similar failed redevelopments of other buildings in different areas of the city.