| Abstract | It was in this climate that MAHN adopted what struck many people as a rather quixotic position. N. Enhbayar, the newly elected head of the MAHN faction in the Ih Hural, saw no reason for MAHN to apologize for the repressions that had occurred under its one-party rule.(2) In fact, the party launched an offensive against those who suggested MAHN bore responsibility for what had happened sixty years previous. In response, the Democratic Coalition which held a majority of scats in the Ih Hural hammered MAHN for its stance.(3) The banner headline in the Coalition's newspaper Ardchilal (Democracy) in November called for MAHN to halt all its activities and to be taken to the world court. The main photograph on the front page was of MAHN headquarters with a large "X" across it. Other groups quickly joined the fray, urging MAHN to accept responsibility, which it refused to do.
This was the charged atmosphere when the fall session of the Ih Hural opened in October 1997. Two related issues, both involving MAHN, quickly came to the fore. One was the debate over control of the MAHN archives. The government claimed them as government property, while MAHN refused to relinquish control, arguing that they dealt with party, not government, issues and history. This was a signal of what was to be MAHN's combativeness over the next few months.(19) This debate deserves to be mentioned briefly because control of the MAHN archives was, both symbolically and literally, control of the past. It was thus linked at several levels to the larger debate which was to follow. Although most of the archives relating to the repressions most likely reside in the archives of the State Security Office (successor to the Ministry of Internal Affairs), much information doubtless is still in the MAHN archives. Such documents, if they exist, could undermine the very argument MAHN would shortly put forward. To lose control over the archives would be to lose control Over the past, the very thing MAHN was fighting to maintain. (Interestingly, one of the workers at the Memorial Museum to the Victims of Political Persecutions told me she had spent over a year unsuccessfully trying to get MAHN to allow the museum access to party archives dealing with the repressions.)
Other groups also criticized MAHN. As noted above, Ardchilal devoted most of its issue that came out at this time to dealing with MAHN. It even ran a (slightly different) version of Enhbayar's letter, with editorial comments: "MAHN is not the main culprit? The Mongolian people and honest MAHN members know this [MAHN's guilt] well."(30) The newspaper also carried the Human Rights Subcommittee's statement, Delgermaa's additional comments and the statement from the Union of Victims of Political Repression. The first appeared under the provocative title "The Revolutionary Party Was Not Exterminated as a Class, but Exterminated Classes," an apparent reference to Nyamdorj's claim in the Ih Hural debates. The title of the second was equally inflammatory: "There Is No Principle about the Use of Violence in the Constitution." The Union's statement in contrast was referred to simply as a "Statement," seeming to imply that it was a balanced, nonpartisan pronouncement.(31)
|
