ETHNIC NATIONALIST CHALLENGE TO MULTI-ETHNIC STATE: INNER MONGOLIA AND CHINA Temtsel Hao 12.2000 Thesis submitted to the University of London in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in International Relations, London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London. UMI Number: U159292 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U159292 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 T h c~5 F . 7^37 ( Potmc^ ^ Lo « D ^(c st' ’’Tnrtrr*' ABSTRACT This thesis examines the resurgence of Mongolian nationalism since the onset of the reforms in China in 1979 and the impact of this resurgence on the legitimacy of the Chinese state. The period of reform has witnessed the revival of nationalist sentiments not only of the Mongols, but also of the Han Chinese (and other national minorities). This development has given rise to two related issues: first, what accounts for the resurgence itself; and second, does it challenge the basis of China’s national identity and of the legitimacy of the state as these concepts have previously been understood. During the period under examination (1979- 1993), an important shift in the basis of the legitimization of the Chinese State occurred. This shift paralleled the decline in significance of the Communist ideology both in China and worldwide and the corresponding rise of Chinese nationalism officially designated as patriotism (ai guo zhu yi). These developments have shaped the re-emergence of Mongolian nationalism in China, which in turn challenges aspects of the basis of China’s statehood. In order to chart the complex inter-relationship between the Mongols and the Chinese state, it is necessary to adopt an historical perspective. The history of Mongolian self-rule, the struggle for autonomy, and the titular regional autonomy are reviewed to show that the resurgence of Mongolian nationalism is closely linked to the deterioration of the political and economic situation of Mongols in China. During the period of reform, the political ideal of a socialist nation that had unified ethnic and non-ethnic Chinese in the early years of the People’s Republic was weakened. In opposition to the ideal of socialist unity, the traditional view of the identity of the Chinese nation that stresses cultural, ethnic, and historical ties has been strengthened. These developments have weakened the authority that the Chinese government exercise over what the Chinese call “national minorities” (shao shu min zu). This weakening of authority may be seen as an example of the problem that arises when the power of coercion replaces political authority. In terms of foreign relations, Mongolian nationalism has complicated important dimensions for China’s relations with other countries of northeast Asia, especially in the post-cold war era. Moreover, the increasing nationalistic basis on which the identity of Chinese people is based, together with the problems this raises in regard to Hong Kong and Taiwan, have profound implications for the international identity of the Chinese state. Consequently, the way in which Chinese “national minorities” have emerged as a problem within China also has clear international implications. In conclusion, this thesis suggests that the rise of Inner Mongolian nationalism threatens to undermine the concept of an unitary Chinese nation (for example in the guise of a supposed Chinese family). As a result, Mongolian nationalism weakens the basis of Chinese statehood as presently conceived. Furthermore, the challenge of non-Chinese nationalism to Chinese statehood suggests the problems of nationalism as state legitimisation in general. 2 CONTENTS Title 1 Abstract 2 Contents 3 Acknowledgement 4 Note On Name Spelling And Hanyu Pinyin 5 Abbreviations 6 Chapter I Introduction 7 Chapter II Ancient China And Modem Chinese Nationalism 27 Chapter III Mongolian Historical Identity And Modem Nationalism 61 Chapter IV The CCP And Inner Mongolian Nationalism - The Soviet Model Of Nationality Issues 109 Chapter V Reform Period: Re-Emergence Of Mongolian Nationalism And The Problems Of Survival 152 Chapter VI External Differentiation And Nationalism 217 Chapter VII Conclusion 249 Bibliography 259 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge first of all my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Michael B. Yahuda for his experienced supervision and patience. I am indebted to the LSE school studentship, ORS award which give me the opportunity to study in the U.K. I also gratefully acknowledge the financial assistance by Central Research Fund of University of London, which made it possible for me to conduct me fieldwork for this thesis in China and Mongolia. The interviewees I visited for the purpose of writing this thesis have been indispensable. Thanks are also due to many helpful lecturers in International Relations, london School of Economics and Political Science. Last, but not the least, I would like to thank my family for their patience, encouragement and continuous help. Temtsel Hao London, December, 2000 4 NOTES ON NAME SPELLING AND HANYU PINYIN The pin yin system, the official romanisation system in the PRC, has been adopted by the UN and other international organisations. It has become the system most universally used in Scholarship and journalism in the West1. However, we should notice that pinyin is called han yu pin yin in its full name, which designed to Romanise the Chinese language only. There are many other non-Chinese languages in China as well, which have different pronunciation systems. Most of these non- Chinese languages use alphabets, and have a more direct way of romanisation than Chinese. In recent years, there has been more and more evidence that to use han yu pin yin to spell words from non-Chinese languages implies an assimilationist tendency. Inner Mongolia was spelt as Nei Monggu inhanyupinyin , in my thesis, non- Chinese names are spelt in their own language or in well-known English spellings, such as Uighurs, Ulanhu, Ordos, Hohhot etc.. In my thesis, thehanyu pinyin system is only used to spell Chinese names. However, some well-known Chinese names of places and people are exceptions because they are more easily recognised in the old way, such as Hong Kong, Confucius, Chiang Kaishek, Sun Yatsen, etc. 1 Lowell Dittmer and Samuel S. Kim, “Preface”, Lowell in Dittmer and Samuel S. Kim, ed. China’s Quest for National Identity (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1993) 5 ABBREVIATIONS 1. CCP Chinese Communist Party 2. COMINTERN The 3rd Communist International 3. IM Inner Mongolia 4. IMAR Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region 5. IMKMT Inner Mongolian Kuomintang 6. IMPRP Inner Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party 7. KMT Kuomintang (Nationalist Party) 8. MPR Mongolian People’s Republic 9. MPRP Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party 10. NIMPRP New Inner Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party 11. OM Outer Mongolia 12. PLA People’s Liberation Army 13. PRC People’s Republic of China 14. SEZ Special Economic Zone » 6 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION This thesis examines the challenge posed to the legitimacy of the Chinese state by the resurgence of Mongolian nationalism since the onset of the reforms in China in 1979. Nationalism in nature is a legitimation principle. Nationalism, by Ernest Gellner’s definition, is a political principle by which “the cultural and the political units should be congruent.5,1 Nationalism is often justify itself with national self determination which is in accordance with the generally accepted international norm that the sovereignty is vested in the people of a given territory. Nationalism as a political principle of national self-determination is clear and less controversial, but to decide which group is a nation and thus entitled to self-determination is a difficult issue. Since most states within their current territorial bounds have been formed on the basis of succession to a previous authority2, problems can and do arise when such states include within their borders peoples with claims to belong to diverse nations. In such cases problems may become acute when the predominant national group uses its nationalism as the principle for state legitimacy in such a way as to use the instruments of statehood to assert that others belong to the same nation irrespective of their own declared views. Problems may also become manifest when smaller national groups claim the right of secession on the basis of the nationalist principle. Chinese nationalism or state nationalism (“ai guo zhu yi” in Chinese) is an such example in which nationalism is used as a state legitimation principle. The key point of Chinese state nationalism(“ai guo zhu yi”) is its emphasis upon the state rather than upon the nation: Since all peoples live in one state, therefore they are of one nation, and by the nationalist principle, they should be loyal to state. However, nationalism as a legitimation principle is a two-pronged sword. While nationalism can be used to justify state legitimacy, it can be also used to defy a state and justify a separatist movement. Chinese state legitimacy has many origins: the imperial legacy, the nationalist past and Marxist ideological influences. For example, Chinese state nationalism partly originates from the sino-centric past and culturalism3, assimilationism before 1949 and it also finds justification in historical materialism. 1 Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Basil Blackwell, 1983) p.l.