Mongolia recently hosted the annual Ulaanbaatar Dialogue to discuss Northeast Asian security. With North and South Korea delegates present together for the first time, the conference presented an opportunity for all member delegates to raise concerns over Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions among other regional cooperation issues.  

At first glance, Mongolia seems an unlikely country to host an international dialogue on peace and harmony. As a result of the blood-thirsty depredations of Genghis Khan and his grandson Kublai in the 13th century, Mongolia became the centre of the largest contiguous land empire in the world, stretching from Ukraine in the west to Korea in the east, and from Siberia in the north to the Gulf of Oman and Vietnam in the south. More recently, Mongolia has been a part of China and then for 68 years a Soviet satellite.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1989, Mongolians staged a peaceful transition to democracy. Today, the country is governed by the Democratic Party, with the experienced politician Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj as its president. It welcomes foreign capital and workers to drive its burgeoning coal and minerals mining industries.

It also takes a concerned and responsible approach towards international relations. On 16 and 17 June 2016, the Mongolian Foreign Ministry hosted its third international conference on the thorny issue of Northeast Asian security. Speakers were from Mongolia, Japan, India, South Korea, Russia, Germany, the United Nations, United States and China, plus an articulate delegation from North Korea. Observers included several NGOs, the EU ambassador to South Korea, and the Australian Institute of International Affairs.

In his opening address, Dr Ganbat Damba of the Mongolian Institute of Strategic Studies said Mongolia wanted regional cooperation among all neighbouring countries and gave special privilege to none. North Korea’s ballistic missile and nuclear tests made the region more dangerous. Its neighbours should persuade Pyongyang to forsake these and pursue economic recovery.

His address was followed by very frank addresses from the North Korean and Chinese delegates. Choe Kang-il of the Institute for American Studies in Pyongyang said flatly that his country had nuclear weapons to deter the United States from attacking it and removing its leader. Proof of these intentions were regular US military exercises in South Korea deploying massive numbers of American and South Korean troops and nuclear bombers; simulated “de-capitation raids” against Kim Jong-un; and efforts to stifle North Korea’s economy. Washington’s ultimate purpose was to destroy the North Korean government, he said. On the nuclear issue, Washington held fast to a double standard. Of nine countries in the world with nuclear weapons, only North Korea was condemned.

Sun Ru of China’s Institute of Contemporary International Relations said China would not abandon its bilateral relations with North Korea because of its growing nuclear capability. China did not approve of this capability and would selectively support international sanctions against it, but China disapproved of threats or use of force to curtail it. Beijing was irritated when blamed for its failure to get Pyongyang to exercise restraint every time it detonated a nuclear device or launched a ballistic missile. Beijing was not, she said, on Washington’s “side” and objected to any attempt to interfere with North Korea’s internal affairs.

The Japanese and South Korean delegates restricted themselves to rather anodyne generalities about the need for more regional cooperation. Elena Boykova of the Russian Academy of Sciences speculated briefly on one elephant in the room–the  possibility of Donald Trump becoming president of the United States. Following through on his threat to abandon South Korea and Japan to their own defences would surely lead, she said, to the nuclearisation of the whole of the north Asian region. The Japanese and Koreans did not demur.

The American delegate Dr Alexandre Mansourov of Johns Hopkins University broadened the discourse by remarking on the closing stages of President Obama’s tenure. The world had watched this closely and some had judged him harshly. His pivot towards Iran and disengagement from the Middle East had antagonised Saudi Arabia and Israel. His policy on Ukraine had antagonised Russia, with which a new Cold War existed. His re-balance since 2011 towards Asia had riled Beijing. Trump wanted both to restore American hegemony, but perversely, to abandon its alliances in Asia. This would lead to the destruction of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But no one should think his ideas are unique. The US has been through periods of isolation many times in its history, notably before each of the two world wars. Clinton, a safer pair of hands, would maintain mainstream policy towards Europe and Asia.

The last session of the conference was on global warming and environmental protection. That global warming was occurring and that it was man-made was beyond disputation. That it was causing more dust and stronger winds from the Gobi Desert to pollute Beijing, Seoul and Pyongyang and, increasingly, Ulaan Baatar itself, was also indisputable. Several speakers gave learned addresses dense in scientific data. Dr Boykova of Russia suggested that despite the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power must join wind, solar, tidal, biomass and geothermal as future zero carbon emitting energy sources. One Japanese speaker disagreed.  But the consensus was that the problem was grave and getting worse. Environmental scientists were joining forces to re-forest swathes of country bordering expanding deserts in southern Mongolia. Dr Enkhbayar of Mongolia’s Economic Research Institute for Northeast Asia said countries must relinquish carbon-based energy, a point particularly relevant to Mongolia, which has some of the largest untapped coal deposits in the world. I was allowed to make a relevant observation about Australia, a country particularly threatened by global warming. In the middle of national elections, neither of the two major political parties had mentioned anything about whether the huge Adani coal mine in Queensland, close to the semi-bleached Great Barrier Reef, would be allowed to open or not. Only the Greens had had the temerity to say that under their watch, it would remain closed.

Logistics at the conference were faultless. The foreign minister hosted a dinner. The president shook our hands at his palace. It must have cost a small fortune. But for an isolated and sparsely populated country sandwiched between two colossi, Mongolia’s conference diplomacy certainly raises the country’s international profile.

Richard Broinowski is the president of AIIA NSW. This article is published under a Creative Commons Licence and may be republished with attribution. He will be presenting on “North Asian Security: A Perspective from Ulaan Baatar” at AIIA NSW on Tuesday 19 July.