The focus on a few specific men in the history of Mongolia can be attributed to the long focus on a monarchy-led country—with few leaders exercising great control over the majority. Socialism changed this focus to a degree, investing in educating both women and men; however women’s representation was still limited. Democracy even further transformed the social landscape of Mongolia, yet women’s ability to create change has been largely formed within organizations, rather than political representation.

A report commissioned by Mongolian Women’s Fund (MONES)—“The Field of Women’s Organizing in Mongolia” (2009), co-authored by T. Undarya, National Coordinator for the National Network of Mongolian Women’s NGOs (MONFEMNET) and D.Enkhjargal, Director of the National Center against Violence (NCAV)--sheds light on the history of women’s groups in Mongolia.

Socialism Supported Mongolia’s First Women’s Organization

According to the MONES report, the recorded history of the women’s movement from an organizational perspective began during the socialist era the former Soviet Union. This time period invested in social structures that educated both women and men, purporting to be egalitarian. In 1924 the Mongolian Women’s Committee (MWC) was formed under the umbrella of the Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party (MPRP). This action was also a symbolic move to transition from Manchu rule’s feudal system. The MPRP evolved in a communistic direction with the MWC assuming a supportive position, aided by Soviet women.

From 1924 to 1940, the MWC’s primary goals were to increase literacy levels among women and to get women to attend the MPRP’s public meetings. The time period of 1940-1960 was characterized by enduring the war efforts of the time and after that, creating cooperatives, collectives, and social improvements such tailoring, home economics, and local cultural performances (singing and dancing) and better hygiene. The MWC brought women further into the development of education, employment opportunities, sciences, and public administration during the period of 1960-1990.

The nineties were a tumultuous time, where the former communist structure was disbanded which affected women’s groups as well as the economy. New political groups were formed, which included pro-democracy Women for Social Progress Movement (WSP)—which was previously the Mongolian Social Democratic Women’s Movement during the transitional late 80’s. The Mongolian National Democratic Party created an offshoot for the women members called Liberal Women’s Brain Pool (LEOS).

The MWC, directly related to the dominant MPRP and seeking to keep its large network from the days of socialism, rebranded itself as the Mongolian Women’s Federation (MWF). The group became a non-governmental (NGO) entity with no political party affiliations, hoping to include all women’s groups. They invited other groups to join under their umbrella. The newly emerged Mongolian Women Lawyers’ Association accepted the invitation but the LEOS and WSP—democratic in nature—rejected the invitation as they saw the MWF as communist in origin, according to the MONES report.

Women’s Groups Birth Civil Society in Mongolia

The MONES report details that not only were LEOS and WSP the first women’s groups created since the fall of communism, they were also the 1st citizen initiated groups not created by the State. Though they were birthed out of political entities, they functioned as independent organizations. Thus the beginning of the civil society movement in Mongolia found itself stewarded by women. Whereas men controlled the political sphere, women focused on civil society initiatives.

“While men gravitated towards political parties and eventually the decision-making positions, women gravitated towards civil society wherein they quickly came to play an active and visible role. So much so that some analysts have referred to the Mongolian civil society as matriarchal” (“The Field of Women’s Organizing in Mongolia,” 2009, pg. 16).

T. Undarya and D.Enkhjargal theorize that this was facilitated in part by the focus the development community had towards women in Mongolia, seeing them not just as women but particularly as women from Third World countries and in need of empowerment. Rather than donors consulting with women’s groups on what their unique needs were, funding favored “women’s issues” rather than political ones (a common requirement for NGO funding). The newly formed women’s NGO’s were in need of financial assistance and with a lack of options, framed themselves within the limitations imposed by donors, which the authors felt contributed to the predominance of women in the civil society arena.

Types of Women-Led Organizations in Mongolia

The MONES report found the predominantly women-led civil society structure to be heterogeneous in nature. The mixture reflects a continuum of women within Mongolian society as a whole, as well the perspectives on activism within the country.

T. Undarya and D.Enkhjargal note that women’s organizations were created with varying purposes. Some hold traditional values yet advocate for democracy using different terms, while at the opposite end of the spectrum are feminist-identified groups which actively promote gender equality. All groups have in common goal of working toward the betterment of civil society, ending gender violence, and increasing women’s representation in politics but go about it in different ways. For example, conservative women’s groups tend to focus on economic issues such as poverty reduction, while the more liberal groups work on gender equality. Yet there is some crossover.

A more in depth breakdown of the differences can be explained thus (“The Field of Women’s Organizing in Mongolia,” 2009, pgs. 59-60):
On the traditional end of the spectrum are groups which are: “Patriarchal organizations and individuals who generally advocate complementary and harmony between men and women. If they support gender equality, it is more likely to mean equivalence in separate spheres seen as naturally and distinctly masculine and feminine.”

Then there are groups which work on women’s issues and who “see themselves as promoting gender equality but stay within a patriarchal paradigm. These actors either support gender equality in only certain spheres or only to moderate degrees. Thus, they may prescribe and even advocate patriarchal gender norms and gender division of labor within the family while strongly supporting gender equality in the economic or the political realm.”

Occupying the middle-ground are groups which work on women’s issues and gender equality yet: “…do not identify themselves as feminist. This group tends to identify itself as working for development and serving all members of the society, without distinguishing anyone by gender.”

Moving further toward the human rights end of the spectrum are groups which: “…do not identify themselves as feminist and do not actively promote gender equality and women’s rights but do, as a matter of principle, support gender equality as an integral element of democracy and human rights. These actors often closely cooperate with the feminist actors, forming tight coalitions such as for civil society development, anti-corruption, democratic governance and human rights and tend to be consciously political.”

At the opposite end of the spectrum are organizations that identify as feminists and “actively promote gender equality as an integral part of democracy and human rights, frame women’s and gender issues explicitly in a human rights framework and consciously challenge patriarchy.”

Shared Goals

According to the MONES report, all the women’s groups worked together in late 2007 when it was discovered that two conservative members of Parliament introduced a measure to cancel a 2005 amendment which had supported a 30 percent quota from women in parliament. With surprising speed, Parliament passed this measure but was caught off guard by the great outcry from women’s groups ranging from conservative to more liberal. Eventually, through the lobbying of women’s groups as well as advocates from men’s civil society groups combined with wide media support, the President vetoed the measure and restored the quota with support from Parliament. However, a presidential veto does not have the same powers that can be seen in countries such as the US. The 30 percent quota was again revoked by Parliament. While the outcome was unfortunate, the incident illustrated the strong commonalities shared by women’s groups with divergent belief systems.

The following election in 2008 resulted in one of the lowest levels of women in parliament globally just 3.9 percent. The MPRP, a holdover from the communist time period, won the majority vote which was challenged and resulted in widespread dissatisfaction, riots and looting. The MPRP building was burned during the riot.

Mongolia in 2012

The MONES study was commissioned in 2009 to explore ideological differences and similarities for the purpose of understanding the future direction of promoting women’s rights and to expand their representation within Mongolia beyond civil society. T. Undarya and D.Enkhjargal’s research revealed common areas of interest in both conservative and more liberal women’s groups. Their insights have proven fruitful. The 2012 parliamentary elections—which utilized the newly reinstated 20 percent quota for women in parliament—resulted in nine women gaining seats. This is three times the number of the previous parliament. After being elected, the women who hail from different parties (Democratic to the MPRP), chose to form a Women’s Caucus to further their shared goals and to connect with civil society better, according to their official statements made to local press in July of 2012.

Author’s note: This article originally appeared in the UB Post in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia in 2011 and was updated to include the recent changes to women’s political representation in 2012.

Twenty years after Mongolia dismantled communism, changed to a free market economy and installed elections, the country is ranked by the Economic Intelligence Report (EIR) on a democratic scale as 69 out of 167 countries. Mongolia is a democratic beacon surrounded by authoritarian and hybrid regimes. Though not ranked as a “full democracy” yet, Mongolia shares its category of “flawed democracy” with several developed countries, such as France and Italy. According to the Freedom House Index, the country has been rated “free” for the past several years, though problems have been noted in the area of gender as women have had scant representation in parliament. Globally, Mongolia has had one of the lowest representations of women in government at a mere 3.9 percent according to the Intra-Parliamentary Union. However the reinstatement of a quota system this year to 20 percent for electing women in parliament ushered in 12 percent representation in the 2012 parliamentary elections on June 28. The new parliament is in the process of being established.

Despite these impressive gains, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community is a specific area of gender that still faces a great deal of repression within Mongolia. Freedom House detailed the difficulties the country’s first LGBT non-governmental organization (NGO) faced trying to register with the government. The LGBT Centre—the first human rights-based organization of its kind in the country, though founded in 2007, was denied governmental registration for two years as its name was not seen as “Mongolian” in nature.

• Ts. Otgonbaataar representing Mongolia's LGBT Centre in Geneva. •

Local women’s groups and the National Human Rights Commission in Mongolia (NHRCM) lobbied on the Centre’s behalf and challenged the registration issue, helped by international organizations. Ts. Otgonbaatar said “Until December 16, 2009, when the Centre was officially registered, we had strong support from international organizations such as IGLHRC, Human Rights Watch, Forum-ASIA, etcetera … and Mongolian organizations and individuals such as NHRCM, Ts. Oyungerel, President’s Adviser on Human Rights and Civil Participation.” The blockage to registration was overcome within the year and granted in December of 2009. “After the registration throughout the UPR lobbying and until now, we work with our women’s and human rights organizations as well as civil society, in particular, Open Society Forum, Center for Human Rights and Development, Globe International, MONFEMNET National Network, National Center Against Violence, etc. “

The LGBT Centre now has strong ties with women’s groups working in the area of gender equality. Ts. Otgonbaatar currently sits on the board of MONFEMNET; an umbrella organization for NGOs dedicated to gender issues within the human rights framework.

• Ts. Otgonbaataar talking with Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in Geneva. •

Ts. Otgonbaatar now hosts a TV show— “We Are Youth”— which tackles mainstream social issues. He credits his success to his grounding in issues beyond LGBT causes, such as education, media and professional legal training. He feels fortunate to have a supportive family as well. Yet for all his personal successes, he believes that the path to ending discrimination lies in establishing an anti-discrimination law—which Mongolia currently lacks.

This law is necessary to lay the foundation to establish due process for discrimination against sexual-orientation issues—as well as minorities, the disabled, the elderly, and women. Establishing this law would further enable the creation of legislation against hate crimes—a serious problem in Mongolia.

Hate crimes committed against LGBT in Mongolia have been instigated in particular by nationalist groups. The Centre shared this issue through a video created in 2010 and released that year at the annual “Through Women’s Eyes” human rights forum organized by MONFEMNET. The 20 minute video— called The Lies of Liberty – LGBT Centre Documentary— details LGBT individuals’ lives, hopes and expectations and can be viewed in seven minute segments on YouTube. While the intention was to educate the public about LGBT issues, there were death threats against a transgender woman who revealed her identity in the video. Other people featured in the clip hid their identities. She eventually left the country due to persecution and death threats from nationalist groups. Hate crimes affect all LGBT, but transgender in particular according to Ts. Otgonbaatar.

Politicians sensitive to gender issues elected in parliament would facilitate the passage of anti-discrimination laws. The perception of LGBT identities as “imported” by foreigners appears to be an obstacle to acceptance. Ts. Otgonbaatar previously stated to Eurasianet—a media group funded by the Open Society Institute—that nationalist attitudes are derived from communism and not Mongolian culture itself, noting that Buddhism and shamanism in Mongolia “tolerated” homosexuality. While tolerance does not denote acceptance, it is a far cry from sexual-orientation being perceived as a national threat. A 2009 study – Resisting resistance: Women and nationalist discourse in Mongolia - presented at the ASA conference by Franck Bille’ on gender perceptions, supports Ts. Otgonbaatar’s beliefs. Bille’ noted that the Soviets used Mongolians’ fear of the Chinese as a method to keep them in line with Soviet expectations and desires. This process of threatening to leave them to their fate with the Chinese - Bille’ argued - created a hyper-nationalistic state of mind where normative heterosexual procreation, in other words marrying and having children, was used as a tool to self-define against a foreign “other.”

Building up the population remains a governmental priority as Mongolia only has about three million people as estimated by CIA Fact Books and is recognized as one of the least densely populated countries in the world. President Ts.Elbegdorj recently gave an orientation to the Ministries of the new government and stated his intention to foster the “improvement of population growth and ancestral roots” through governmental ordinances and subsidizes to legal guardians who either give birth to or adopt a child under age two—as reported by local media on July 6 following the 2012 parliamentary elections.

Population concerns illustrate that nationalism is broad and culturally ingrained—not merely confined to racist groups. Prior to the creation of the LGBT Centre, three sexual health NGOs represented the gay community. Youth for Health has sex education and sexual health services; the Support Center offers counseling and social events for Mongolians to learn about HIV prevention; and the Together Center has free HIV testing and medication for HIV + Mongolians. These organizations operate under the term MSM, or Men who have Sex with Men, but do not address gender identity. Though widely used in sexual health programs, MSM lacks the diversity of LGBT. Funding for these organizations primarily comes from HIV prevention organizations which see sex as a behavior. While MSM can be a useful umbrella term for alternative sexual orientations without challenging mainstream views, it does not adequately serve effeminate males, transgender women and men, and lesbians—nor does it address human rights issues.

The United Nations’ Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), COC Netherlands, Forum-ASIA and Open Society Forum in Mongolia has been highly supportive of the Centre’s work, sending Ts. Otgonbaatar to Geneva to learn and network at UN meetings. He currently documents cases of imprisonment and abuses using the UNHCR human-rights framework. When asked how many people have died due to LGBT discrimination, he says it is difficult to verify as suicides and victims of violence tend to be covered up by the families, who list other causes of death.

Ts. Otgonbaatar has found his media presence to be highly useful at connecting him with a wider audience. The “We Are Youth” TV show has been running for eight years and he has been hosting it every Tuesday since March of 2011. Mongolia has a very young population as one third of all Mongolians are under age 25, according to government statistics. This demographic can be key to challenging the current political system. Though it focuses on mainstream social issues, he said “the TV [show] started focusing on human rights issues since I took over. I sometimes address discrimination in a wider sense, not only on discrimination against LGBT people. Too much emphasis on LGBT rights and discrimination might distance the viewers from the show.”

When asked about his thoughts on the recent election, Ts. Otgonbaatar says “As for the election results, I am more or less glad that there are more women in the parliament now—from three to nine—especially including some strong voices from the Democratic party, Ts. Oyungerel, and Civil Will and Green Party, S. Oyun. On the other hand, it was a significant election in the sense that the most powerful civil society representatives/pioneers raced for the election from the Civil Movement Party. In the next four years, civil society will maintain its momentum and definitely run for the parliamentary election in 2016 with more experience and hopefully with a lot of success. Those candidates representing minorities such as people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, etc should be given a chance to reflect the views and needs of their corresponding communities.”

With greater political representation, hopefully anti-discrimination legislation will come soon for Mongolians; representing further growth in the country’s standing as a democracy in Asia.

This article originally appeared in the UB Post newspaper in July in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, following the 2012 parliamentary elections.

Tweet

MONFEMNET was established in 2000 as a network of women’s NGOs and civil society organizations dedicated to human development and women’s rights within Mongolia. The group expanded their reach in 2007 by including any Mongolian civil society organization or informal group committed to promoting gender justice, human rights, social justice and substantive democracy.

Every March since 2006 in honor of International Women’s Day MONFEMNET, hosts a forum—“Through Women’s Eyes”--to analyze and increase the knowledge of a specific policy issue from the perspective of human rights and gender equality. Previous topics include: Governance, Economic Development, Human Rights and Civil Society (2006), Ethics in Politics and Media and Movement Building (2007), Civil Society Women’s Policy Objectives (2008), National Security (2009), Protection of Fundamental Human Rights (2010), and Open Governance (2011). For example, in 2009 MONFEMNET sought to reframe “National Security” from a traditional state-centered perspective and increasingly popular ethno-nationalist framework centered on the purity of the Mongolian gene pool towards a concept of human security squarely framed based on human rights and gender equality. MONFEMNET proposed to view human/national security taking into account gender-specific vulnerabilities, viewing violence against women and children, sexual exploitation and prostitution, labor exports and migration as human/national security issues. Furthermore, MONFEMNET advocated viewing the development of a strong civil society as a guarantee of Mongolia’s national/human security and foundation of Mongolia’s democratic development.

This event draws about 300 people from a variety of areas such as media, arts, international organizations, the government sector, communities and civil society. The forum has developed into a strategic platform for building national consensus on key policy/strategic issues and building capacity not only for analysis but also for collective action to promote progressive social change in Mongolia.

Undarya Tumursukh, National Coordinator for MONFEMNET, has agreed to discuss the organization’s current activities.

UB Post: The 7th Annual “Through Women’s Eyes” Forum is scheduled for Wednesday the 7thof March at Chinghis Khaan Hotel Conference Hall in honor of International Women’s Day. What theme is MONFEMNET focusing on this year and what do you hope to accomplish with this year’s event?

Tumursukh: This year, our theme is “Human Rights Based Development Policy.” This forum and the theme is particularly important given 2012 is the parliamentary and local election year. We want to use this opportunity to promote human rights/gender-equality based development policies to political parties and candidates so as to ultimately influence the Government Plan of Action for 2012-2016.

We are strongly concerned that the political parties, particularly the two main parties, lack strong understanding of the human rights based approach to development and propose policies that are elitist, populist as well as paternalistic. We are also strongly concerned that the processes whereby the predominantly male political institutions develop policy propositions seriously lack meaningful and equal participation of various social groups, including women, rural population, low-income people, youth, ethnic and sexual minorities, people with disabilities, etc.

Thirdly, we want to promote policies that are balanced, not so centered on mere economic growth fueled primarily by the mining sector, policies that support human development in all its aspects (not just material wellbeing), that empower women, youth, children and communities, that promote social equity and social justice instead of broadening the gap between the haves and have-nots, maintain ecological balance and promote democratic consolidation.

To achieve the development that is beneficial to all members of the society, we are convinced, we must implement the human rights based approach at all levels and in all areas. And just to be clear, gender equality, i.e. equal participation of men and women, full protection of women’s human rights and fundamental freedoms, and progressive achievement of gender equality are integral to the human rights based approach, sustainable development and substantive/participatory democracy.

Hence, in the first part of the forum, we will expressly address the increasing trend of discrimination against women in both private and public spheres, the rise of traditionalism and cultural fundamentalism, and revival of socialist party-state’s pro-natalist policies that view women primarily as reproductive machines, i.e. as instruments to be used for the promotion of the national (and nationalist) goal of increasing the population size – a goal defined by male-dominated institutions (political parties, government and parliament) without women’s own participation.

UB Post: I noticed that the previous theme in 2011 addressed “Open Governance.” Do you feel that the passage of the Law on Preventing Conflict of Interest in Public Service is a positive step in addressing the concerns of last year’s forum?

Tumursukh: Yes, absolutely. The law is very important. However, what is even more important is IMPLEMENTING this law as well as other important laws and regulations such as the Law on Freedom of Information, Budget Law (which includes new sections on ensuring transparency and citizen participation), and Income Statements of Public Officials (currently, while these are filed with the Anti-Corruption Agency, there is no system of verifying their validity and ensuring those who filed untruthful statements are held accountable). As a civil society organization committed first and foremost to citizen empowerment, however, MONFEMNET believes that the key is to raise critical consciousness of the people, awaken their self-confidence and sense of people power, build their capacity to take collective or individual action to hold the state bodies/public servants accountable and responsive to their needs and inspire them to action. Unless this work is done, no amount of good laws will bring the changes we wish.

UB Post: The last time I interviewed you was at the beginning of November, 2011 for the story about women’s organizing: http://ubpost.mongolnews.mn/index.php/community/29-community/6658-the-collective-action-of-mongolias-women. The article described MONFEMNET’s 2008 research paper, which you co-wrote, about the strong history of women’s representation in civil society in Mongolia, while discussing the problem of political representation, especially the 2008 revocation of the 30% quota system of women in Parliament. In light of that unfortunate loss for Mongolian women while considering their organizational strengths, in what ways is women’s representation in civil society crossing over to politics? What does MONFEMNET hope for in the next year in regards to increasing women’s political involvement?

Tumursukh: The new election law does include a women’s quota. However, it is too low – 20% and there are no guarantees that women candidates will have the same chance to be elected as male candidates. The field is far from being level for women as well as many other social groups who lack money power or culturally legitimate status (ethnic minorities, low-income people, rural population, etc.). This is a serious drawback of the Mongolian political system in general and the party system in particular – lack of representativeness.

However, activists are engaged in activism precisely because the reality we have is not the reality we want to have and we have faith in our collective ability to bring about positive changes. Therefore, our strategy has been to develop effective capacity-building strategies to raise political/critical consciousness of women, build their solidarity and equip them with transformative knowledge and skills to conduct gender-sensitive democracy education. With the support of the US Women’s Issues Fund, we developed an innovative and participatory training package on “Building women’s political leadership and advocacy” capacity, involving both older and younger women activists, developed a pool of skillful trainers, and conducted TOT workshops in half of the aimags. We received extremely positive feedback from both trainers and workshop participants and we believe we are on the right track with this approach of empowering women from the grassroots, from the local levels.

At the same time, at national level, we hope to promote solidarity, networking and consultation mechanisms with partisan women’s NGOs, women politicians, and women in public service as well as women in media and other sectors of society. Solidarity building is not going to be an automatic process as women, just as men, are a diverse group. Women come from different backgrounds and have diverse, sometimes conflicting views. Hence, solidarity-building is not going to be an automatic process and not everyone is going to join us as allies. Rather, we are looking to build a critical mass. I should also say we don’t only work women and we don’t see women’s issues as only women’s issues. We continuously build partnerships with men who share our values and beliefs and our commitment to justice, human rights and democracy, as well as with other civil society sectors. We also intensively work with youth. Needless to say, this work goes beyond 2012 – we see our work is a long-term process.

UB Post: I really enjoyed watching one of your translated workshops on gender equality last November and seeing the positive response from both men and women. In a country that embraces masculinity as much as Mongolia, it was interesting to see how you discussed gender power imbalances without criticizing men. What do you think is a common misconception men in Mongolia have toward feminism?

Tumursukh: Well, to start with not many Mongolians are even familiar with the word ‘feminism’ – men or women. Then those are, again both men and women, seem to have a generally negative relationship to this word. It is hard to say definitively what the general public thinks when they hear this word since there has not been a single study on this. Hence, I can only convey my impressions, which are that people generally hold that feminism is against men, against culture and tradition, that it is about establishing a matriarchy in lieu of a patriarchy, i.e. gaining higher privileges for women, and that it is very militant and aggressive and strips women of their ‘natural’ softness and, in general, a dangerous and foreign ideology that threatens the ‘natural’ order of things.

I can speak with more confidence about what women active in the various NGOs think about feminism as we included this question in our survey while conducting the study you mentioned on the fields of women’s organizing in Mongolia. I should first clarify that when I say that while there are perhaps over a 100 women’s NGOs in Mongolia, only a minority of them are actually women’s rights NGOs, the rest tend to be conservative groups, which function within the patriarchal framework. Majority of the women who participated in the survey stated they were not feminists and gave various reasons. Some were overtly opposed to feminism and supported patriarchal power system and ‘natural’ roles of men and women. Some saw feminism as too radical and therefore unnecessary or even counter-productive to the goal of achieving gender equality in Mongolia. Interestingly, several women maintained that patriarchy is a thing of the past in Mongolia – that we got rid of it during socialism, hence feminism was not so necessary in Mongolia.

MONFEMNET, of course, is a feminist organization. We have and continue to make an effort to help people understand feminism as a framework of analysis and action that is fundamentally based on universal principles and values of human rights, fundamental freedoms, non-discrimination, humane and compassionate society, social justice and substantive democracy. MONFEMNET adheres to what we have come to call holistic feminism, which is committed to resisting and seeking to fundamentally transform all the interlocking systems of power hierarchy, based on gender, sexuality, class, ethnicity, age, etc.

In the Mongolian context, given the most consistent (and human rights based!) advocacy for humane, democratic and just society in fact only comes from women-led civil society, it is necessary and inevitable that we, as feminists, promote human rights, social justice, democracy, sustainable development and environmental protection as well as gender equality as these concepts and phenomena are fundamentally interlinked.

And vice versa, we also seek to enlighten those who are engaged in promoting justice and democracy that gender equality is a part and parcel of what they hope to achieve and that, therefore, they (meaning primarily other civil society sectors such as environmental groups, anti-corruption groups, etc) must adhere to the principles of gender equality both in terms of the process and in defining their conceptual frameworks and goals.

This article originally appeared in the UB Post in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

Tweet