LAND AND LEGITIMIZATION 2006 . 4, IN THE INNER MONGOLIAN NO GRASSLANDS RIGHTS FORUM

BY TEMTSEL HAO

Mongols perceive poor returns for their sacri-

struggle in serving the purpose of historical development and 31 fice of land use privileges under Chinese sov- national destiny,and the political nation has been transformed into an economic nation in which the welfare or destiny of the ereignty. whole justifies the need for sacrifice from certain groups, in particular peasants, migrant workers and residents of less If you ask a Mongolian herdsman of to whom developed regions. the grassland under his feet belongs, the answer will probably Following is a brief historical interpretation of the first 10 be the same as that of a peasant asked the same question else- years of the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region (IMAR), where in China: the land belongs either to the local collective during which , the cooperative movement and or to the state. But the Mongolian herdsman is almost certainly communization proceeded as in the rest of the country.During unaware that his right to use the land he relies on for his liveli- this period, the Mongols ceased to be owners of their ancestral

hood has less legal protection than that of a peasant.The issue land as the Chinese state assumed ownership of the land and DEVELOPMENT FOR WHOM? of Mongolian land rights and related legitimacy issues hinges resources of the entire country.In a political sense, the Mon- on two notions: that of a political nation and of an economic gols joined a new political nation envisaged by the Chinese nation. Communists with an emphasis on the common interests and The Chinese Communist movement can be seen as a part of common future of the people as a whole, without class, cul- the long process of building a modern Chinese nation. If the tural or ethnic distinctions. traditional Chinese identity is mainly cultural and related to Once this political nation became a thing of the past, how- the past, the new political nation envisaged by the Chinese ever, the validity of the new economic nation and the legiti- Communists entails looking toward a common future through macy of nationalism have come into question. How do the lens of historical materialism.1 The ideology of a political non-Chinese regard the newly-envisaged economic nation, nation provided legitimacy for the new Communist state to i.e., the authoritarian Chinese state with a freer economy? incorporate many non-Chinese peoples, including Mongols, How can the economic nation provide a credible vision for a together with their ancestral lands. I consider this nation- common future for non-Chinese? Is this common future justi- building process by the Chinese Communists to have lasted fied by shared history and cultural heritage? Is there an internal roughly 20 years, from the Sino-Japanese War, during which mechanism, such as economic rationality,or an external factor, Chinese communists actively expressed nationalist sentiment, such as a hostile outside force or common enemy,powerful through 1949, when the People’s Republic was founded. enough to bind diverse peoples in a common cause? In the current post-Communist era, the authorities have increasingly emphasized the economic nation to fill the ideo- The politics of boundaries logical vacuum created by the de facto abandonment of Com- The IMAR government led by ,2 although sponsored by munism. From 1979 to 1983, China’s land system was the Chinese Communists, also represented Mongolian nation- transformed from collective ownership and cultivation to a alist sentiments by advocating for the establishment of a uni- household contract system.This rural reform was also applied fied Mongolian homeland free of exploitation by Chinese to the pastoral lands of Inner Mongolia. Market reform fol- business and oppression by Chinese warlords.3 The leftist fac- lowed, and the resulting “socialism with Chinese characteris- tion of Mongolian nationalists was influenced by the Russian, tics” allowed not only private ownership of the means of Outer Mongolian (Mongolian People’s Republic) and Chinese production, but also of capital.As the former public ownership Communists, and they assumed control over Inner Mongolia and distribution system was transformed beyond recognition, soon after the Soviet and Mongolian armies defeated the Japan- the Chinese authorities began replacing the official ideology of ese in and Inner Mongolia.The Soviet model of Communism with a new language of economic efficiency and national self-determination4 and its early Chinese Communist rationality.Economic means have now replaced ideological version enjoyed great appeal among Mongolian nationalists.5

A villager herds sheep past a coal stockpile in Chifeng, IMAR. Photo: Getty Images

During its first 10 years, the IMAR government reclaimed Chinese), which reverted to the Mongolian name, , the peripheral territories that had been either incorporated under which it had been founded by Altan Khan in 1554. By into bordering Chinese provinces6 or set up as new Chinese April 1956, the promised restoration of Inner Mongolia’s provinces during the Republican period.7 In the CCP’s 1935 original leagues, tribes and banners was completed,12 and the Declaration (“The Chinese Soviet Central Government’s Decla- unified IMAR was lauded by Ulanhu as the end of 300 years ration to the People of Inner Mongolia”8), prom- of disunity within Inner Mongolia.13 Lauding unification’s ised to help the Mongols “preserve the glory of the epoch of benefits to the development of Mongolian culture, Ulanhu Genghis Khan, prevent the extermination of their nation and welcomed 500,000 Mongols outside the IMAR to return to embark on the path of national revival and obtain their inde- Inner Mongolia.14 pendence enjoyed by such peoples as those of Turkey,Poland, One principle applied by the IMAR government in restor- the Ukraine and the Caucasus.”9 ing Inner Mongolia to its original size was to include as few The declaration further stated “The Mongolian nation in Chinese as possible and provide a stronger population base for Inner Mongolia can organize themselves according to their Mongolian autonomy.Ulanhu was later criticized by Mao own will.They have the right to organize their own lives Zedong at the Chengdu Conference in 1958 for his efforts to according to their own principles and establish their own gov- increase the IMAR’s power base and promote ethnic autonomy. ernment.They also have the right to form a federation with Mao Zedong emphasized that Communism—not national- other nations or to be completely independent.”10 ism—should be the article of faith for cadres.15 However, the territorial restoration was limited to the But in fact, enlarging the IMAR actually brought more Chi- IMAR’s administrative jurisdiction. Mongol land rights turned nese cadres into the IMAR government.And because the incor- out to be a more complicated issue for the IMAR authorities porated areas were mostly agricultural regions where Chinese when Inner Mongolia, together with the rest of the country, peasants typically outnumbered Mongolian peasants, their underwent land reform and the cooperative movement. incorporation also substantially increased the overall Chinese In 1947, when Ulanhu united and secured the support of population, which already made up the majority of the IMAR. the eastern Mongolian nationalists,11 the capital of the Joint Although provincial border controls and the PRC’s household Inner Mongolian Autonomous Movement was moved from registration (hukou) system greatly restricted free movement, Ulaan Hot in eastern Mongolia to Kalgan.The capital relo- the incorporation of populated agricultural areas into Inner cated once more in 1952 to Guisui (“return and pacify” in Mongolia opened the door for residents of these areas to ”At present allgrasslandsandgrazinglands inallpastoral Itnoted, of InnerMongoliabelongedto the Mongolianpublic. thatsion oftheState thegrasslands Councilin 1953affirmed fangmu) der, In 1967Chinabegantodeploy itsown forces alongthebor- Soviet troops were stationed alongtheMongolia-Chinaborder. golian People’s treaty Republic underwhich signedasecurity theSoviet UnionandtheMon- andin1966, tural Revolution, IMAR. ledtotheslicingupof politicalcontrol, the aimofinternal coupledwith defense consideration, regarded asthefront.This withInnerMongolia defensive war against aRussianinvasion, alevel such tilities hadreached that Chinaprepared for amajor Sino-Russianhos- that time, size.At region tohalfitsoriginal andby law, reducingthe impositionofmartial theIMAR IMAR. thenew ofthe authority IMAR Revolutionary Committee, was assignedtoheadthe Zone, mander oftheBeijingMilitary owned by theMongolianpeople, acknowledged that alllandinInnerMongolia was commonly involved. oflandownership becausethere was nochange reform,” Inner Mongolia’s pastoral areas was called “democratic thelandreform conductedbetween 1947and1952in son, For that rea- useofgrazinglands. tocertain attached privileges but rather only the didnotenjoyaristocracy landownership, Mongolian sidered oftheMongolianpublic.The theproperty basisfor autonomy.its territorial gradually tolandownership losttheirrights andtheIMARlost Mongols From 1947to1958, asoriginallyintended. rights administrative area failed toresolve theissueofMongolland andenlarge theIMAR’sThe effort tounifyMongolianterritory ofMongolianland State ownership harsher inInnerMongolia, factor combinedwiththeethnicfactor madethepurge much cadres inInnerMongoliawere ideological purged aswell.The Ulanhuandhisethnic the outsetofCulturalRevolution, at of conservative bureaucrats orso-called “capitalist roaders” reduced theMongol-Chinesepopulation ratio. where they further migrate tomore sparsely populated areas, Mongol deaths. and equal rights ofgrazingthrough a and equalrights “free grazing” IMAR government reiterated public ownership ofgrassland decided to restore the original boundaries oftheIMAR. boundaries decided torestore theoriginal theCCPCentralCommitteeandState Council lution ended, aftertheCultural Revo- 1979, However, onMay 30, Liaoning. Jilinand Heilongjiang, , provincesboring ofGansu, otherthree leagues wereZuu.The intotheneigh- incorporated UlaanChab andIkhe Shilinggol, reduced toonly three leagues: Sino-Russian relations further deteriorated during theCul- during Sino-Russian relations deteriorated further The purge inInnerMongoliawas accomplishedthrough Between January andOctober1970, uigtedmcai eom theIMARCCPCommittee thedemocratic reform, During thegrasslandsofInnerMongoliawere con- Before 1947, When MaoZedongpurged theChineseCommunist Party 18 and in 1967,TengApril Haiqing, 23 policy.A documentissuedby theNational Commis- 17 16 leading tomore than100,000 22 n npsoa ra,the and inpastoralareas, 19 20 the deputycom- the IMARwas (ziyou 21 out theIMAR.” grassland andreadjustment ofgrasslandisextendedthrough- owned policyoffree grazingon by theMongolianpublic.The are now leased landbetween different nationalities ortribes, ormighthave anindividualoramonastery, been ality ortribe, mighthave which formerly belongedtoawholenation- areas, toral areas. ofthedemocraticsued aspart reform inInnerMongolia’s pas- mostofwhomwere Chinese. it landlesstenants, confiscate landfrom bigMongolianlandowners andallocated for bothherdowners andherdsmen.” mutual benefit andnoclassstruggle, no classcategorization freedom ofgrazing, policy of “public ownership ofpastures, inlanduseaccordingtotheofficialIMAR lition ofprivileges but rather abo- toral landdidnotinvolve ofownership, change For thisreason thereform conductedonpas- exploiting class. hencethere was no class control ofthemeansproduction, ofprivate landowners thelack meantno Chinese landreform, had beentenantswithinMongolianbanners, ChinesepeasantsinInnerMongolia before thelandreform, For centuries allocated tobothChineseandMongolpeasants. andagricultural tobe landstarted owners ofnon-pastoralland, cmie”co-ops “combined” outaccordingtowork. was carried distribution in which cooperativesliminary were upgradedtoadvanced cooperatives thepre- Bytheendof1956, was based onshares. distribution ofwhomweremajority Chinese)were theshareholders and preliminary agricultural cooperatives peasants(the inwhich wereand otherbasicproduction materials collectivizedinto farm land BytheendofJanuary 1956, from 1953to1958. agricultural areas from 1953to1956andinpastoralareas also extendedtosomepastoralareas. the policyofclassdistinctionapplied inagricultural areas was and guidelinebywas stilladoptedasaninternal somecadres, class distinction inpractice, differentiation andclassstruggle, Despitethedeclared policyofforswearing class government. between ChineseandMongoliancadres andwithintheIMAR government policieswas reflected indifferences of opinion between Chinesecentralgovernment guidelinesandIMAR Oftenthedifference policies basedonclassdistinction. between andmore radical therecognition ofMongolianrights of MongolianandChinesepeasantsreflected acompromise farmland toChinesetenants. peasants were allowed toemploy Chinesepeasantsorlease Mongolian ofthelandafterreform, Holding themajority cent was given toMongolsand20percentChinesepeasants. 80per- that ofthelandstaken over from Mongolianlandlords, is sal hns n ogl SinceMongolianpeasants usually Chineseand Mongol. ties, MnoinRn”paidby Chinesetenantfarmers, “Mongolian Rent” theIMARlandreformtaken was toinvalidate during the measure Oneimportant was owned by Mongolianresidents. rm14 o15,a“ocassrgl”policywas pur- a “no classstruggle” From 1947to1957, ttesm ie Mongolsceasedtobeconsidered the At thesametime, Chinese cadres andChinese peasantswere keen onso-called Rural cooperatives were established inInnerMongolia’s The different typesoflandreform anddifferent treatment The landreform that applied inagricultural areas ensured 27 According to the Marxist doctrine appliedAccording totheMarxistdoctrine in 24 (lianhe she) consisting ofmultiple nationali- 28 25 where allland 26 and to

DEVELOPMENT FOR WHOM? 33 CHINA RIGHTS FORUM NO. 4, 2006

typically owned more land than Chinese peasants before the People’s Congress.The fact is, however, that there would have collectivization, they contributed more land to the collectiviza- been no difficulty in getting these regulations approved by the tion process. In pastoral areas, herdsmen’s livestock were ini- standing committee if anyone had taken the trouble to do it. tially taken by the preliminary cooperatives as shares, and Throughout the early and mid 1980s, the IMAR govern- eventually became the collective property of the advanced ment applied Chinese agricultural reform to pastoral areas, cooperatives. Many monasteries and large livestock owners in with the difference that Chinese peasants were granted land the pastoral areas were obliged to join state farms together use rights by agricultural collectives, and the grazing rights of with their livestock and grazing land, with the remainder col- Mongol herdsmen were authorized by the gacha (the equivalent lectivized into cooperatives. In advanced co-ops, in which of a Chinese administrative village).While agricultural collec- everyone was an equal shareholder and income was distrib- tives were acknowledged as the owners of agricultural land, uted according to individual labor input, the distribution however, the gachas were not clearly recognized as owners of Mongols received did not reflect their relatively larger contri- pastoral land.This legal ambiguity opened the door to ruthless bution of property and livestock to the collective. land grabs and abusive practices by Chinese business interests During the radical industrialization drive of the Great Leap and officials at various levels. Forward (1958–1962), the previous distinction between The PRC Grassland Law of 2003 stipulates that all grassland minority and Han Chinese was no longer accepted. In October is owned by state or rural collectives if specially defined by law, 1958, the communization of agricultural cooperatives in Inner and that the state council represents the state in owning the Mongolia was completed, and by July 1958, cooperatives were grassland.The IMAR Grassland Administrative Law of 2004 established in pastoral areas, with communization beginning does little to clarify the issue, stating that “the grassland is either in September and October of 1958.The guidelines of the CCP owned by the state or by collectives.”The law further says that on the people’s communes emphasized a gradual transition the government at banner(equivalent of county) level has the from the socialist collective ownership to the socialist people’s power to convert collective grassland into state-owned land by ownership, and from socialism to communism based on own- allocating the grassland to state-owned businesses, state organi- ership by the production team.29 But in practice, in the four- zations and the military.There is still no law that defines and year period between the and the Cultural demarcates Mongolian collective grassland, but the law grants Revolution (1966–1976), collective land ownership was the government the power to designate Mongolian grassland as replaced by state ownership. “Combined communes” were state-owned land.As a result, Mongolian collectives on pastoral encouraged in Inner Mongolia, and in the process, Mongolian land do not have land certificates indicating collective owner- land rights were abolished once and for all, with the Chinese ship the way Chinese agricultural collectives do. state assuming ownership of the Inner Mongolian grassland. Of course, agricultural collectives are landowners only in Mongols argued that the transition of grassland ownership theory,since the state and governments at various levels can was contradictory to the Chinese policies on the people’s com- take over use of any collectively owned rural land at their dis- mune30 and the 1954 PRC Constitution, and that no law stipu- cretion and at whatever price they see fit, with no bargaining lated state ownership of IMAR grasslands except for those power on the part of the agricultural collectives and adminis- occupied by the state and PLA. However, the Chinese could trative villages.The common practice is for the government to point to the stipulation in the 1954 Constitution that “wild take over rural land at a low price and sell land use rights at an land” belongs to the state,31 and as a result, the question of enormous profit to developers and other businesses.The how to interpret “wild land” became crucial to the issue of resulting land grabs and other abuses have become a source of grassland ownership.The Chinese tend to regard all land that is immense misery to landless peasants throughout China. Given not cultivated for farming as wild land, and have always that Mongolian herders’ land use rights enjoy even less protec- referred to the cultivation of grassland as “cultivating unused tion, land grabs have become even more common in Inner or useless land” (kaihuang). Mongolia’s pastoral areas. It is not unusual for pastoral land 10 Ownership of the grasslands was gradually clarified. In times the area of or Shanghai to be illegally occupied 1963, the National Commission and the Agricultural Ministry or leased to Chinese government and business interests with- of the State Council issued a 40-article regulation on working out a single penny in compensation paid to local Mongol land- in pastoral areas that stated: “The production teams have fixed users.33 rights to use the grassland within their sphere according to particular conditions and historical custom.”While this article Nationalism and legitimacy issues did not mention grassland ownership, the IMAR Grassland The history of the co-op system and the establishment of rural Management Provisional Regulations issued in 1965 stated communes in Inner Mongolia shows that Mongols have con- that “the grassland of the IMAR is owned by the state (quanmin tributed more than their share to the Chinese state. Much of suoyou).” State ownership of the IMAR grassland was reiterated the Chinese Communists’ early legitimacy and popular sup- in the Grassland Management Regulations promulgated in port resulted from a social contract under which landless peas- 1973.32 Mongols objected to these two regulations on the ants stood to become landowners by supporting the grounds that they were not passed in accordance with the legal communist army in the civil war against the nationalist gov- procedures stipulated by the Constitution, which at the time ernment.34 In this process, the Chinese Communist authorities required approval by the standing committee of the National made the offer, and Chinese peasants were the recipients. In

1960s. regarded asanideological split withtheSoviet Unioninthe Chinese nationalism alsoplayed inwhat apart istypically and downplaying theSino-Japanese classconflictduring War. emphasizingtheunitedfront for example, different periods, whichever ofthetwo themesworked totheirbestadvantage at ChineseCommunists emphasized ethnic distinctions.The gives which classdistinctionsprecedence over class politics, and emphasizesthecultural line, which between nationalism, munists were able toaccommodate theideologicalconflict whole. orethnicgroups for industries thegoodof tain groups, rationalization ofuneven development ofcer- and thesacrifice economic nation falls ofthepoliticalnation short isinits means tothesamegoalofbuilding apowerful the state.Where way toaneconomicnationalism that offered analternative andtheformerideologicalnation began giving ship ofcapital, involved notonly but alsoprivate owner- private landrights the openingupofeconomy tomarket forces increasingly hostilities. common socialisteconomy andthespecterofinternational tural nation offered aforward-looking ideologybasedona cul- unlike thehistorical which class-based politicalnation, through thenotionofa i.e., mainly politicalandideological, established amongtheirMongolalliesinInner Mongoliawas legitimacytheChineseCommunists munal landrights.Any classhadnevertocracy andruling deprivedherdsmenofcom- becausetheMongolaris- relationship withMongolherdsmen, thesamecannotbesaidoftheir ership toChinesepeasants, munist government was mainly basedonproviding landown- system. bureaucracy hasresulted inafailure ofthewholeautonomy failure tofunctionasanethnicautonomous position.Their abuses avulnerable that putMongolherdsmeninsuch legal local interests becomecomplicitintheland-grabs andother golian cadres whoabandon theirmoralobligation toargue for Mon- enjoy politicalrepresentation are government officials, where theonly peoplewho asChina, Inastate such yes-men. have reduced Mongolian cadres tolittlemore than since then, high-handed officialattitude toward Mongoliansentiments contract was effectively nullified. thissocial cials at thebeginningofCulturalRevolution, purgedcentral authorities Ulanhuandotherearly Mongoloffi- theChinese by makingpromises ofnational liberation.When amongtheMongols whogainedsupport nists andnationalists, but MongolianCommu- Mongolian herdsmenandpeasants, therecipients were not madetheiroffer, munist authorities however, whentheChineseCom- the caseofInnerMongolia, h ie nteerypro fteIA,they regarded the oftheIMAR, Intheearly period the time. depending onthemeansandendsat Communist nationalists, and couldbecalledMongoliannationalist Communists or and hisfollowers usedbothnationalist logicandclassanalysis, In the same manner, Mongol Communists such asUlanhu MongolCommunists such In thesamemanner, theChineseCom- ofthepoliticalnation, theperiod During whenChinaembarked oneconomicreform, Since 1978, ifthelegitimacyofChineseCom- In abroader sense, andthecontinued The CulturalRevolutionary purges, negated and reversed inaneraof economicreform andinter- interests oftheChineseruling-class. but only the promote theinterests oftheChineseasawhole, and theKMT’s oppressive policiestoward theMongols didnot theactionsofChinese warlords sive policies, Manchu-Chinese theCCPheldthat theoppres- ofclassstruggle, interms history Interpreting toprevioussuperior oppressive Chinesepowers. to present themselves totheMongols asdifferent from and based onChineseMarxismallowed theChineseCommunists nese firstbefore init? takingpart why shouldthey haveinevitable, tobeassimilated by theChi- ifglobalization is a questionfor non-Chineseminorities: trends raise current compensate for itsideologicalvacuum.The to emphasisonChineseculture andhistory not putsomuch supranational future ifthepost-Communist Chinesestate had integration andglobalization mighthave pointedtoasimilar mon future isenvisaged by theeconomicnation? Economic Butwhat com- other peoplesinastateless andclasslessfuture. mate goalofMongolsindifferent joiningwithall countries new Chinesestate asatransitionalstepontheway totheulti- I wishyou would forever bemy kin! anddeathUpon theendlesswheelofbirth Serve asthehingeofreconciliation. Of lightningbolt?—whomakes astiflingfate Yet perhaps justone—what kind there’s aman, bloodlinesAnd certain gradually mixed; A love there isthat never cametopass, nightslike nowhere else! O Lhasa, Can’t lure areincarnate kinsmanback. ever soseductive, Illusions countless, egosinks.A poolwherein theposturing This plague?—who fleeting seebright Time asbut justafew—whoYet spread there are people, withdust; getbegrimed And sometimesgarments bluebirdA certain may have never chirped, nightsofwoe! O Lhasa, For akinsmanwhomthey couldn’t keep. it’sAnd if(invisibly) only they weep, Seems Paradise for banishmentself-chosen. whomthisroaming feast spirit?—to Them withsuch justafew—whoYet blessed there are people, Sometimes awineglassshatters at atap; lotusmayA certain have never bloomed, dreamlike nights! O Lhasa, BY WOESER Lhasa Nights Rendered intoEnglishby A.E.Clark hsrvltoayve fhsoyhs however, been This revolutionary view has, ofhistory therevolutionary view ofhistory In thepoliticalnation,

DEVELOPMENT FOR WHOM? 35 CHINA RIGHTS FORUM NO. 4, 2006

national integration.While dealing with Hong Kong, state becomes too weak to maintain its already fragile and lim- and investment from overseas Chinese, China has emphasized ited ethnic autonomy system, Mongol collective rights and common cultural and historical ties while completely aban- identity could disappear even faster. doning class politics.The slogan “one country two systems” itself sends a nationalist message to non-Chinese people, who may ask why non-Chinese minority regions cannot enjoy the NOTES degree of autonomy enjoyed by Hong Kong and Taiwan. 1. Editor’s note: Historical materialism, articulated by Karl Marx, saw development and change in human society as the result of the way in In terms of an inner mechanism to hold a nation together, which humans collectively make their living, thus applying economic the market economy,albeit one run and regulated by govern- analysis to social class, political structures and ideologies. ment officials, has destroyed the economic uniformity under the 2. Ulanhu, also known as Ulan-Fu (1906–1988) was the chairman of the former central planning system and has created huge regional, People’s Government of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. He social, and urban and rural disparities under which ethnic peo- was also one of only two ethnic minority individuals ever to serve in the ples are even less likely to see themselves as part of a new Central Political Bureau, the second highest level of the CCP leadership. national entity.This is especially true of Mongols, who because Liangyu, of the Hui minority group, is the other. of the lack of legal protection of their collective rights are espe- 3. Mongolian nationalism before 1949 combined radicalism against the cially vulnerable to the encroachment of private Chinese busi- Mongolian feudal ruling class and anti-colonialism against Chinese ness interests and international investment on Mongolian lands. political oppression and economic exploitation.This gave rise to Mon- In terms of external factors, Mao’s class-based analysis golian Communist nationalists and nationalist Communists, most of whom were purged in the early years of the . strengthened the sense of a political nation through the depic- 4. The early Soviet leadership, for both tactical and ideological reasons, tion of a hostile international environment in the form of capi- promised non-Russian peoples within the the right of talism, the hegemony of American imperialism and Soviet secession and independence. But by the end of the Second World War, social imperialism. But the present international economic inte- when the Soviet Union had regained control over all the remaining peo- gration and interdependence are not the kind of negative exter- ples of the old Russian Empire (with the exception of the Finns), the nal forces needed to reinforce a strong sense of unity for the Soviet authorities asserted that a nation’s right to self-determination economic nation; rather, trans-national economic activities and should not take precedence over Marxist and socialist principles. Never- trade tend to blur state borders and downplay state sovereignty. theless, the right of secession was included in the Constitution of the The ideological transition from a political nation to an eco- Soviet Union throughout its existence. nomic nation has fundamentally changed the Mongols’ rela- 5. The first documented CCP avowal of non-Chinese self-determination tionship with the Chinese state, and created a crisis of can be found in “The Declaration of the Second National Congress of the ,” July 1922, Zhonggong Zhongyang Wenjian Xuanji legitimacy.Given the timidity of the Mongol political elites, (Selected Documents of CCP Central Committee), CCP Central Archive and the lack of legal protection for Mongol property rights, Library,Vol.1 (1924–25), CCP Central Party School Press, 1988, p.99. Chinese environmentalists have emerged as the most vocal lob- The same sentiment is reflected in “The Resolutions on Minority Peoples bying force for protecting the Mongolian grassland. Many of Within China,” passed during the First Chinese Soviet National People’s these environmentalists were sent to Inner Mongolia as edu- Congress of Workers, Peasants and Soldiers in 1931, and also referenced cated youth (zhishi qingnian)35 during the Cultural Revolution, in “The Chinese Soviet Republic’s Constitution,” Ibid. vol.7 (1931), and spent some of their best and most formative years with p.490.The same promise was made again in the famous 1935 Declara- Mongol herdsmen in Shilinggol pastoral land. tion made by Mao Zedong on 10 December, i.e. “The Chinese Soviet The weak ideological justification for a multi-ethnic state and Central Government’s Declaration to the People of Inner Mongolia,” the harsh reality facing Mongols have given rise to a growing Ibid.Vol.10 (1934–35), p.880. Mongolian nationalism; but this nationalism expresses itself in 6. Heilongjiang, , Liaoning and provinces. 7. Jehol and Suiyuan were Chinese provinces established on Mongolian ter- more negative than positive terms, given the difficulty of main- ritory. taining a positive nationalist goal such as a nation state or a legit- 8. Zhonggong Zhongyang Wenjian Xuanji (Selections Of CCP Central Committee’s Docu- imate territorially-based autonomy.Instead, Mongolian ments),Vol. 10 (1934–1935), CCP Central Party School Press, 1991. nationalist sentiments are expressed mainly by denial of Chinese 9. Apart from ideological affinity with the Soviet Union, the Chinese Com- national identity and passive rejection of Chinese state authority. munists had practical reasons for stressing Mongolian issues after they For example, many Mongols would support any foreign team reached Yanan and set up their main base there.At the time, Mao Zedong against a Chinese team in international sports, and they would considered Mongolia a convenient route through which the Chinese regard any non-Chinese or foreigner more favorably than a Chi- Communists could establish supply links with the Soviet Union. For fur- nese individual.To some degree, these same negative character- ther information on the strategic significance of this supply link, see istics are discernible in other forms of non-Chinese nationalism. Chen Jing, Shi Yan Shi (History in Poems); Zheng Yi, “Uncovering the For that reason, various non-Chinese nationalist groups tend to Truth of the ,” Jiushi Niandai (The Nineties), January 1997, p.98; and Edgar Snow, Red Star Over China (London:Victor Gollancz Ltd., form trans-ethnic alliances more easily than would be possible 1937) p.28. among advocates of a more positive nationalism. 10. The 1935 Declaration was made by Mao Zedong on December 10 (“The The negative aspect of Mongolian nationalism is sympa- Chinese Soviet Central Government’s Declaration to the People of Inner thetic to any force, for example, economic liberalism or politi- Mongolia”), Zhonggong Zhongyang Wenjian Xuanji (The Selected Documents of CCP cal liberalism, that weakens the authoritarian state.The Central Committee),Vol. 10 (1934–35), p.880., ed. by CCP Central Archive dilemma facing Mongolian nationalism is that if the Chinese Library,Vol. 1 (1924–25), p.99, CCP Central Party School Press, 1988. 6 Tumen andZhuDongli, 16. 1 fe h aaeeam urnee tteedo h a,somepro- AftertheJapanese army surrenderedat theendofwar, 11. 2 i igigadZegGagh,ed., LiuJingpingandZhengGuangzhi, 12. 5 a eog MnosadCieesol oprt lsl,and “MongolsandChineseshouldcooperate closely, MaoZedong: 15. onIMARParty Propaganda “Speech Working Ulanhu, 1957, Meeting,” 14. hewas by lineage AlthoughLigdenKhanonly the controlled Chakhar, 13. 7 codn oPol’ al Nv 1 90,346,000peoplewere 1980), AccordingtoPeople’s 21, Daily (Nov. 17. reddrn h utrlRvlto. e akwa,“An SeeJankowiak, Anthropolog- theCulturalRevolution.” during friend that “there was notasingleMongolwhodid notloseacloserelative or anthropologist concluded total Mongolianpopulation at thetime.The slightly lessthanonetenthofthe and that 100,000died, ing thepurge, survey results ofall Mongolswere suggestthat onequarter dur- arrested and 11households(17percent)lostat least oneimmediate relative.The 56 households (30percent)hadat leastonepersonarrested households, by a among186pastoralandurbanMongolian Western anthropologist, toasurvey conducted theentire CulturalRevolution.According during althoughthismay includeallthosewhodied golian deadtotals100,000, Mongolianintellectualsbelieve that thenumber ofMon- NIMPRP purge. whilesome120,000were the permanently maimedduring were killed, andthat 23,000-50,000 that asmany as800,000Mongolswere arrested, ButMongolsintheIMARhave privately estimated were torturedtodeath. theCulturalRevolution inInnerMongoliaduring arrested and16,222 book isoneofthefew publications published inChinaonthepurge. Inner Mongolian Autonomous Movement lian EconomicDevelopment ), 99,MnpoMnhyPes 1971. Mingpao Monthly Press, 1959), the NewIMPRPCase), April 3rdConferenceApril in1946”, on “Speech SeeBoyanmandu, Communist Autonomous Movement. Mongoliannationalists intohispro-Chinese thoseeastern incorporating Ulanhuplayed akey role in but down was turned by both. Mongolia, oftheMPRandKMTgovernmentport for amerger withindependent andsoughtthesup- parliamentandanarmy, government, constitution, a acquiredfeatures quickly allnecessary ernment ofasovereign state: autonomousgov- andBoyanmandu was electedChairman.The ment, Mongolian setuptheEastern Later theparty Party. Autonomous Govern- Revolutionary Party astheNew InnerMongolianPeople’s Revolutionary Inner Mongoliarevived InnerMongolianPeople’s thelongdormant Temurbaagen of part andotherMongoliannationalists intheeastern Penstag, Hafenga, ing themerger ofInnerMongoliaandtheMPR. officials issuedtheInnerMongolianEmancipation Declaration advocat- young intellectualsand Soviet Mongolcommunists andrevolutionaries, Wang, Ding 1958. delivered inMarch, ontheNationality Issue,” “Instructions Mao Zedong, but notlocalism.” Localityisimportant, Communism first. nationalism orCommunism? Ourprofession shouldbe our profession, but thenationality issueshouldnotjudgedby history.Which shouldbe peoplesanddroveChinese conquered minority themtothemountains, Inhistory, but were by formed many different peoples. to beginwith, Chinesewere notabignationality nationalities. made cleartominority andhow pointshouldbe hebelieves much inCommunism.The not, thingtoaskiswhetherheaCommunist thefirst or nationality orthat, this southornorth, Nomatter where thepersonisfrom, same province. provincial officialisnotnecessarilyapersonfrom the should oppose.A but isavery badmanwhomwe Ch’iangKai-shekisaChinese, minority. Stalinwas Marxwas alsoanethnic aJew, ornot. you sidewiththetruth but rather whether nationalityWhat you matters isnotwhich belongto, other. each nationalities shouldtrust should believe inMarxism.All cit.)p.169. (op. Liu Jingping, golia was annexed byQing Dynasty. theManchu Mon- Southern afterwhich Tiancong (Hung or in1634, Arvkhai) Taiji, Hewas defeated byEmperor Manchu orthodox khanofallMongolia. Mao ZedongXuanjiFulu(Mao Anthology Addendum), ejn:CCCnrlPrySho rs,1995.This Press, CPCCentralParty School Beijing: ne ogla epesPes 99 p.169. 1979, Inner MongolianPeople’s Press, Kang ShengheXinNeiRenDang An Jian(Kangshengand Archive CollectionOf The Joint CommitteeOf AciePes 99 p 50–51. 1989)pp. (Archive Press, Nei MengguJingjiFazhan (InnerMongo- o.3(1949– Vol. 0 h P eta omte nDcme 9 1969madethe”Decision TheCPCCentralCommitteeonDecember 19, 20. Dis- thenthedeputycommanderofBeijingMilitary Teng Haiqing, 19. 1 TheIMARSurvey andMapping Bureau, 21. 4 Theemancipation ofChinese peasantsby ChineseCommunists is 34. 3 “900,000mu ofpastorallandis ‘mysteriously missing,’” 33. cit. op. NiDongfa, 32. 18. Michael B.Yahuda, Michael 18. 24. “A Basic Summary of “ABasicSummary ProductionAnimal Husbandry inIMARand 24. cit.)p.111. (op. LiuJingping, 23. cit.)p.106. (op. LiuJingping, 22. 1 TheConstitutionof1954madeitclearthat nationality “each 31. “Regulations ofthe Work thePeople’s Concerning Communes inthe 30. “ResolutiononSeveral IssuesofthePeople’s passedby the Communes,” 29. Meetingon11 atChinaBureau Sub-branch theNorth “Speech Ulanhu, 28. no noclassstruggle, two beneficials”: Thepolicywas called “three nos, 27. cit.)p.106. LiuJingping(op. 26. Mongolianadministrative unitequivalent toaChinesecounty. 25. 35. Urban high school studentswere Urbanhighschool by senttothecountryside MaoZedong 35. ed., Hao Weimin, controlled allactivitiesinInnerMongolia. which mand, formedtheInnerMongolianFront LineCom- Zone, the BeijingMilitary togetherwithhisdeputiesandcommissarsof Commander, tition.The Zoneexercised lawitary generalmartial inInnerMongoliaafterthepar- theBeijingMil- underwhich on thePartition Law andMartial ofIMAR,” himtojustice.for bringing althoughthefamilies ofMongolvictimspetitionedstrongly punished, different postsuntilhisretirement high-rankingmilitary withoutbeing had goneoutofcontrol andsidelined Teng Haiqing.Teng later assumed Inner Mongolia.Two MaoZedongrecognized that thepurge years later, Mongols afterleadingthe21stField Army from ShanxiProvince into presided over thepurge oflocalMongolianofficialsandordinary trict, don andNew Routledge)p.62. York: same timetorelieve urbanemployment pressure. andat the theCulturalRevolutionduring to from thepeasants” “learn htm. http://www.law.cn/shequ/xswc/2005111141339.Right Legislation),” nvriy 90 d p.320. ed. 1990, University, ical Study ofaChineseCity”, described in described William Hinton’s bookF by Inner Mongolian 2006. Television,Augustland hasbeenCultivated” 7, Shibao (ChinaFinancial Times), ed., Gefu, the GrasslandinIMAR,” ne ogla nvriyPes 90 p.53. 1990, Inner MongolianUniversity Press, tde nt nvriyo abig,1992). University ofCambridge, Studies Unit, Chinese Village. IMAR Maps) Sui [ belongtothewholepeople belongtothestate, laws, ing toparticular accord- wildlandandotherresources which, theforest, rivers, “mines, Italsostipulated: autonomous region isaninseparable ofthePRC.” part cit. op. (draft),” Countryside 446. cit.)pp.227, LiuJingping(op. (commonly known asthe “60 Articles”), Work thePeople’s Concerning Communes(draft),” intheCountryside “Regulations ofthe 6th Meetingofthe8thCCPCentralCommittee. seeHao cit.)p.92.May,Weimin 1952,” (op. SeeHao cit.)p.38.Weiminand herders. (op. tobothlivestockowner tobebeneficial noclasscategories; confiscation, mal Husbandry), Fazhong Youguan Nongcun Tudi QuanliFa quanmin suoyou yuan Nei MengguLishi(The RecentHistoryofInnerMongolia), iga n ijag;N oga “Two NiDongfa, KindsofOwnership Qinghaiand ”; , InrMnoi esPbihn os,1989)p.3. (Inner MongoliaNews Publishing House, otl eiwPes 97 SeealsoQu Tao, 1967. Monthly Review Press, . SunXianfang, ].” ne ogla epesPes 99 p.335. 1989, Inner MongolianPeople’s Press, The Politics International ofthe Asia-Pacific,1945–1995 uut9 06 “Why 700,000 2006; August 9, Occasional Papers The Laws ofNationality Regional Autonomy, (The RuralLandRightwithinProperty Xumu Yelun Wenji( CollectionofPapers on Ani- anshen:A DocumentaryofRevolution ina anshen:A Nei MengGuDi Tu Ji(The Collectionof (Mongolian andInner Asia Inner Mongolian Zhongguo Jinrong “Wuquan Fali mu of Grass- (Lon-

DEVELOPMENT FOR WHOM? 37 CHINA RIGHTS FORUM NO. 4, 2006