The Economist missteps on the Steppe
April 29 (Ardchilal.com) I admire The Economist's ability to cover stories from around the world. I understand that it must be quite difficult to write with accuracy reports about every country, especially when it is too expensive to maintain resident reporters everywhere. So, I never expect absolute accuracy from any media covering the world stories. However, in the era of the Internet and cheap telecommunications, I do expect more precision than was possible in the 1990s for example.
The Economist's recent story on Mongolia, "Steppe in an ugly direction" was, I regret to say, poorly researched. So, I decided to do some fact-checking just to let The Economist know that it needs to respect its readers in Mongolia with more accurate reporting.
Fact One that The Economist missed: The Mongolian public was surprised at the high degree of obstruction of justice from Enkhbayar and his supporters, and the low degree of respect for law that Enkhbayar himself helped create during his years in government.
When police and the Anticorruption agency officials came to arrest Enkhbayar on the night of April 11, Enkhbayar's bodyguards obstructed the arrest. One of them pointed a gun directly at the Anticorruption Agency officer, who responded by pulling his own gun. Special Force police officers quickly disarmed Enkhbayar's bodyguard. His pistol was loaded and ready to shoot. In this process Enkhbayar's car window was broken.
The next obstruction the Police faced was Enkhbayar's supporters. At the gate of Enkhbayar's residence, police officers encountered scores of heavy-set guards blocking all entrances to the compound. Enkhbayar's backers pushed and pulled the police, knocking off their hats, slapping their faces and cursing at them. All of this was televised live by Mongolian television stations (including pro-Enkhbayar TV 9) and can be viewed on Youtube. No need for The Economist to go to the expense of sending a reporter all the way to far Mongolia. Heaven forbid. All one needs to do is turn on a computer, go to Youtube and look.
I wonder whether British police would have shown the same degree of restraint if, for instance, Rupert Murdock was indicted, and in response recruited scores of beefy guards to block, shove, and kick the police coming to arrest him – or if the Occupy Wall Street people had pushed and kicked the police away.
As for Enkhbayar's supposed respect for the law, the Mongolian public was shocked to learn he had been summoned to give testimony to the Anticorruption Agency some 10 times since October 2011 and each time declined to appear. That kind of brazen disrespect for the law is not tolerated from ordinary citizens in either Mongolia or Great Britain. We rightfully wondered how Enkhbayar felt entitled to just say "no" when summoned to testify. The Anticorruption Agency had heard enough "no's" from Enkhbayar when he was asked to put his shoes on and just picked him up and carried him out of his compound in his socks.
Fact Two: "The small hotel" and "a local newspaper" that The Economist talks about are big deals in Mongolia. Just look at their location. The "local newspaper" is housed in an historic building located in the most expensive location in city of Ulaanbaatar. It is less than 50 meters east of Parliament and by no means "small". Would any London "local newspaper" building be considered a small deal if it were located next to the Houses of Parliament?
Fact Three, timing: The Economist is quick to conclude that the timing of Enkhbayar's arrest shows that it must be politically motivated. The timing of the arrest is, indeed, critical but for quite different reasons. The timing dilemma confronting Mongolian law enforcement was created by the Parliament. When law enforcement agencies attempt to investigate allegations of corruption the train often leads to the doorsteps of Mongolia's newly rich oligarchs some of who can be found comfortably ensconced in Mongolia's Parliament -- as the costs of contesting a seat in Parliament are prohibitive for anyone other than the most wealthy or well-connected. During 2010-2011, the General Prosecutor's office twice investigated MPs, ultimately charging them with misusing their powers and mishandling government money. However, they were not arrested because Parliament had given its members immunity from prosecution and decided not to lift that immunity in their cases. The obvious message for politicians who are likely to be charged with a crime is, "get yourself elected to Parliament as soon as possible". The Mongolian public hates this of course and blames law enforcement for letting politicians slip from their grasp by not acting in a timely manner. In Enkhbayar's case, law enforcement faced a serious time dilemma: To arrest him before the election while he did not have parliamentary immunity or to delay and run the risk of enabling him to hide behind his parliamentary immunity perhaps for years. I wonder what would the British anticorruption agency do in that situation.
Fact Four: The Economist totally "missteps" in its conclusion about current president Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj. He is still the most dedicated democrat that Mongolia can find. He opened up public hearings and debates for the first time ever. He courageously established a moratorium on the imposition of the death penalty. He called upon his male colleagues to support women in politics. He has undertaken sweeping initiatives to reform Mongolia's weak judicial system. He actively participates in budget reforms initiating citizens' participation in budget planning. And most importantly, he remains a passionate supporter of a free media. TV9 Television, which devoted 90% of its news hours in support of its patron, Enkhbayar, during his presidential campaign and the months following, is under threat of being closed for its questionable origins involving the use of Japanese donations of equipment intended for Mongolian Buddhist organizations. However, it is President Elbegdorj and his team that has become the most effective guarantor of media freedom. The President's draft law on press freedom is striking confirmation of his democratic agenda and stands in marked contrast to the law draft put forward by the Ministry of Justice and Interior which is under the political control of Parliament's dominant party, the Mongolian People's Party (the old Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party whose name Enkhbayar's new party has co-opted).
When the day before his arrest Mr. Enkhbayar released internal government transcripts of the July 1, 2008 post-election disturbances, the Mongolian public was proud to read how Elbegdorj, alone, demanded a halt to the brutal beatings and arrests of hundreds of young men, demanding the arrest of the killers who shoot demonstrators, and demanded the prompt restoration of the free media after Enkhbayar had ordered the independent media (television and newspapers) shut down for a period of four days. The transcript suggest nothing like what The Economist concluded. I believe the document's English language version is still available on the UB Post's website. Obviously The Economist did not bother to google the transcript and read it.
Because I do want to continue reading Mongolia reports on The Economist, I would like to offer a small bit of advice regarding your future reporting on Mongolia. Please find more varied sources for your stories. Do not continue to rely on a handful of over-consulted and poorly researched books and biased few. One of well-known historian's grossly inaccurate and biased book on the history of Mongolian democracy begins with an inaccurate story. Instead of describing the Youth Cultural Center's modest square, it describes Sukhbaatar Square as if it was the first anti-communist rallies began there. Those who actually participated in the Youth Cultural Center's Square demonstration laugh at that book, pointing out that its sources who pretended they were there on December 10, 1989 were nowhere near the square. A few years back, only a few of the old time elites were able to converse in English and therefore become main sources on contemporary history of Mongolia. Nowadays, the English language is in everyday use here. The Economist should take advantage of this new reality and diversify its sources.
The Economist's recent story on Mongolia, "Steppe in an ugly direction" was, I regret to say, poorly researched. So, I decided to do some fact-checking just to let The Economist know that it needs to respect its readers in Mongolia with more accurate reporting.
Fact One that The Economist missed: The Mongolian public was surprised at the high degree of obstruction of justice from Enkhbayar and his supporters, and the low degree of respect for law that Enkhbayar himself helped create during his years in government.
When police and the Anticorruption agency officials came to arrest Enkhbayar on the night of April 11, Enkhbayar's bodyguards obstructed the arrest. One of them pointed a gun directly at the Anticorruption Agency officer, who responded by pulling his own gun. Special Force police officers quickly disarmed Enkhbayar's bodyguard. His pistol was loaded and ready to shoot. In this process Enkhbayar's car window was broken.
The next obstruction the Police faced was Enkhbayar's supporters. At the gate of Enkhbayar's residence, police officers encountered scores of heavy-set guards blocking all entrances to the compound. Enkhbayar's backers pushed and pulled the police, knocking off their hats, slapping their faces and cursing at them. All of this was televised live by Mongolian television stations (including pro-Enkhbayar TV 9) and can be viewed on Youtube. No need for The Economist to go to the expense of sending a reporter all the way to far Mongolia. Heaven forbid. All one needs to do is turn on a computer, go to Youtube and look.
I wonder whether British police would have shown the same degree of restraint if, for instance, Rupert Murdock was indicted, and in response recruited scores of beefy guards to block, shove, and kick the police coming to arrest him – or if the Occupy Wall Street people had pushed and kicked the police away.
As for Enkhbayar's supposed respect for the law, the Mongolian public was shocked to learn he had been summoned to give testimony to the Anticorruption Agency some 10 times since October 2011 and each time declined to appear. That kind of brazen disrespect for the law is not tolerated from ordinary citizens in either Mongolia or Great Britain. We rightfully wondered how Enkhbayar felt entitled to just say "no" when summoned to testify. The Anticorruption Agency had heard enough "no's" from Enkhbayar when he was asked to put his shoes on and just picked him up and carried him out of his compound in his socks.
Fact Two: "The small hotel" and "a local newspaper" that The Economist talks about are big deals in Mongolia. Just look at their location. The "local newspaper" is housed in an historic building located in the most expensive location in city of Ulaanbaatar. It is less than 50 meters east of Parliament and by no means "small". Would any London "local newspaper" building be considered a small deal if it were located next to the Houses of Parliament?
Fact Three, timing: The Economist is quick to conclude that the timing of Enkhbayar's arrest shows that it must be politically motivated. The timing of the arrest is, indeed, critical but for quite different reasons. The timing dilemma confronting Mongolian law enforcement was created by the Parliament. When law enforcement agencies attempt to investigate allegations of corruption the train often leads to the doorsteps of Mongolia's newly rich oligarchs some of who can be found comfortably ensconced in Mongolia's Parliament -- as the costs of contesting a seat in Parliament are prohibitive for anyone other than the most wealthy or well-connected. During 2010-2011, the General Prosecutor's office twice investigated MPs, ultimately charging them with misusing their powers and mishandling government money. However, they were not arrested because Parliament had given its members immunity from prosecution and decided not to lift that immunity in their cases. The obvious message for politicians who are likely to be charged with a crime is, "get yourself elected to Parliament as soon as possible". The Mongolian public hates this of course and blames law enforcement for letting politicians slip from their grasp by not acting in a timely manner. In Enkhbayar's case, law enforcement faced a serious time dilemma: To arrest him before the election while he did not have parliamentary immunity or to delay and run the risk of enabling him to hide behind his parliamentary immunity perhaps for years. I wonder what would the British anticorruption agency do in that situation.
Fact Four: The Economist totally "missteps" in its conclusion about current president Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj. He is still the most dedicated democrat that Mongolia can find. He opened up public hearings and debates for the first time ever. He courageously established a moratorium on the imposition of the death penalty. He called upon his male colleagues to support women in politics. He has undertaken sweeping initiatives to reform Mongolia's weak judicial system. He actively participates in budget reforms initiating citizens' participation in budget planning. And most importantly, he remains a passionate supporter of a free media. TV9 Television, which devoted 90% of its news hours in support of its patron, Enkhbayar, during his presidential campaign and the months following, is under threat of being closed for its questionable origins involving the use of Japanese donations of equipment intended for Mongolian Buddhist organizations. However, it is President Elbegdorj and his team that has become the most effective guarantor of media freedom. The President's draft law on press freedom is striking confirmation of his democratic agenda and stands in marked contrast to the law draft put forward by the Ministry of Justice and Interior which is under the political control of Parliament's dominant party, the Mongolian People's Party (the old Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party whose name Enkhbayar's new party has co-opted).
When the day before his arrest Mr. Enkhbayar released internal government transcripts of the July 1, 2008 post-election disturbances, the Mongolian public was proud to read how Elbegdorj, alone, demanded a halt to the brutal beatings and arrests of hundreds of young men, demanding the arrest of the killers who shoot demonstrators, and demanded the prompt restoration of the free media after Enkhbayar had ordered the independent media (television and newspapers) shut down for a period of four days. The transcript suggest nothing like what The Economist concluded. I believe the document's English language version is still available on the UB Post's website. Obviously The Economist did not bother to google the transcript and read it.
Because I do want to continue reading Mongolia reports on The Economist, I would like to offer a small bit of advice regarding your future reporting on Mongolia. Please find more varied sources for your stories. Do not continue to rely on a handful of over-consulted and poorly researched books and biased few. One of well-known historian's grossly inaccurate and biased book on the history of Mongolian democracy begins with an inaccurate story. Instead of describing the Youth Cultural Center's modest square, it describes Sukhbaatar Square as if it was the first anti-communist rallies began there. Those who actually participated in the Youth Cultural Center's Square demonstration laugh at that book, pointing out that its sources who pretended they were there on December 10, 1989 were nowhere near the square. A few years back, only a few of the old time elites were able to converse in English and therefore become main sources on contemporary history of Mongolia. Nowadays, the English language is in everyday use here. The Economist should take advantage of this new reality and diversify its sources.
Comments
Post a Comment