at Chita had unanimously voted to amalgamate with the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic. I avail myself of this occasion to express the hope of the people of the Russian Far East for a closer unity between the peoples of Russia and United States of America. I am [etc.] 661.01/812 B. SKVIRSKY The Chief of the Division of Russian Affairs, Department of State (Poole) to the Under Secretary of State (Phillips) [WASHINGTON,] December 4, 1922. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Skvirsky, the sole remaining member of what was formerly known as the Commercial Delegation of the Far Eastern Republic, called this afternoon and advised me of the final consummation of the amalgamation of the Far Eastern Republic with Soviet Russia. He said that he had received word from Chita of the organization there of a Dalrevkom (an abbreviation for Eastern Revolutionary Committee), similar to the Sibrevkom (Siberian Revolutionary Committee) which has been functioning for some time at Novonikolaievsk. The Chita committee embraces seven members, Mr. Skvirsky said. He did not know who they all were but the President was Sokolov, who was recently sent to Chita from Moscow and served as President of the Far Eastern Republic during its last days. Jansen, the late Foreign Minister of the Far Eastern Republic, is also a member. I asked Mr. Skvirsky how the committee had been formed but he was unable to tell me. He thought that the dissolving national assembly of the Far Eastern Republic possibly named it or that it was merely a provisional committee which would function until the Soviet machinery was in complete operation. The truth undoubtedly is that it was appointed from Moscow. Mr. Skvirsky said that he had been informed from Chita that no changes were contemplated in respect to economic matters. He said that he had been negotiating with a number of business groups in this country and was now able to assure them that the absorption of the Far Eastern Republic by Moscow would not affect in any material way the business contemplated. One group, he said, which was negotiating for a gold mining and timber concession in the Amur valley had, in fact, despatched a representative to Chita only two days ago. He said that the proposed contract would have to be perfected at Chita and, of course, the ratification of Moscow obtained. In reply to a question on my part, Mr. Skvirsky said that the concession held by the Sinclair Oil Company 83 was not affected by the "For exploitation of oil fields in the northern part of Sakhalin Island. change in Government. This change was purely legal, he said, and the assets and liabilities of the Far Eastern Republic were taken over and maintained as they stood. Upon Mr. Skvirsky's referring to the situation in Manchuria, the threatening character of which he said was one of the principal reasons for the amalgamation of the Far Eastern Republic with Soviet Russia, I asked him what was going to happen with regard to the Chinese Eastern Railway. He said that this was a matter for negotiation with China and that Joffe was still in Peking for the purpose of such negotiations. The unsettled governmental situation in China had, he presumed, prevented progress up to the present. He said that Russia's interests in the Chinese Eastern Railway were vital and China would have to consent to joint Chinese and Russian control, the existing situation could not be permitted to continue and the railway zone could not be a resort for anti-Bolshevik adventurers. He indicated that Soviet Russia intended to take a strong stand with China. Finally Mr. Skvirsky referred to his own status here. I said that this was legally only the status of a private citizen and it was not my view that recent events had altered it in any way. I said that I did not anticipate any objection to his continuing here on the basis of the past and that I would be glad to see him informally whenever he might care to call at the Department. I said that we should be glad to continue the American Consular offices at Vladivostok and Chita for the present; that it might not be found necessary to continue the office at Chita indefinitely but that there was no immediate change in contemplation. The office at Vladivostok was more important for us, I said, and would probably be continued indefinitely provided no difficulties arose. D. C. POOLE RECOGNITION BY THE UNITED STATES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF 84 ESTONIA, LATVIA, AND LITHUANIA " 860n.01/49 The Commissioner at Riga (Young) to the Secretary of State No. 1916 RIGA, April 6, 1922. SIR: I have the honor to submit the following observations in reference to the status of the so-called Baltic States. Although in view of the impending Conference at Genoa it might be more expedient and advisable to delay the preparation and trans 84 For previous correspondence, see Foreign Relations, 1921, vol. 1, pp. 752 ff. mission of a memorandum on this subject until after the termination of the Conference, nevertheless, it may not be amiss now to transmit a brief report, since the work of the Conference may extend over a considerable length of time, and since it is not as yet at all certain that the status of these States will be, to an important degree, affected by any decisions which may be reached at the Conference. It would seem clear that the future status of these States will depend in no little measure upon their ability to maintain, as regards their economic and financial condition, that plane of political stability which is essential to the successful functioning of the machinery of State. Further, the continuation of their status as independent States may also well depend upon the strength or weakness of the present or any future government in Russia, and on the relationship which shall in the future exist between Russia on the one hand and the three so-called Baltic States on the other. A careful and searching survey of conditions today unquestionably brings one to the conclusion that, given a continuation of conditions as they are at present, these States will encounter comparatively little difficulty in maintaining themselves as political entities. It is true that the same searching inquiry reveals many points of weakness, not only in the machinery which they have erected for the purpose of carrying on administrative work, but also in certain features of their economic and fiscal policies. It is, however, equally true that, on the whole, each one of these so-called States has made very considerable and very substantial progress in the primary and essential work of the successful administration of their several territories. It is also important to bear in mind the fact that in each one of these countries the nationals of the government in power make up the great majority of the population, that their national elections have been held openly and have afforded the electorate a free expression of its wishes at the polls; in short, that these governments exercise their power by and with the consent of their respective peoples. Although, as I have stated above, the machinery of government in each of these States contains many weak parts and although the officials and authorities not infrequently give evidence of their lack of experience in statecraft, yet one must record the fact that the operation of the administrative machinery has on the whole been attended with a very large measure of success. All three States are now functioning under either permanent or provisional Constitutions. In each country, National Assemblies were elected more than two years ago. These Assemblies, in a peaceful and orderly manner, have enacted such legislation as was deemed requisite for the welfare of the population. Taxes have been imposed and collected in a legal and orderly manner. Small, though well trained and disciplined, armies have been organized and equipped. Commerce and trade is being carried on with neighboring countries and with the world at large. Law and order is fully maintained. In short, each of these countries unquestionably today fully meets all of the requirements, which so far as the recognition of their governments is concerned, may reasonably be exacted. In the conduct of their foreign relations they have met with no less measure of success. The old petty jealousies and bickerings which existed in the early days of their statehood no longer prevail. The Vilna controversy is the one outstanding adverse factor. The leaders in these States fully realize that the strength of one lies in the strength of all. That this spirit and feeling now underlies their relations with each other was clearly evidenced at the recent Conference at Warsaw. A full report of the agreements there effected has been forwarded to the Department.85 These same leaders also fully realize that they must facilitate in every appropriate way communication and trade through their ports between the world and Russia. I am convinced from the many informal conversations which I have had with the leading men in each of these States that they are determined to maintain an attitude which under no circumstances may be used to support the argument that the continued independence of these States will result in retarding the restoration and recovery of Russia. It is idle at this time to discuss the question as to whether the Letts, the Esthonians and the Lithuanians were morally justified in proclaiming their independence in the hour of Russia's weakness. The simple fact is that these nationalities, though unquestionably animated by nationalistic aspirations, preferred the creation and establishment of what may be termed modern civilized governments to their existence either as a part of Soviet Russia under a communistic regime or with the status of autonomous soviet republics. Whatever their future may be, it is certain that their action in proclaiming their independence has resulted in the maintenance of at least this part of the former Russian Empire free from the ravages and destruction of communism and bolshevism. It is entirely possible, or even probable, that some time in the indefinite future these so-called States may once again become an integral part of Russia. It seems most probable, however, that until that time comes they will be able to maintain their political stability, and with that their independence. Further, it seems most probable that for much time to come these nationalities will exercise a predominating influence on this fringe of territory. Admitting 65 Not printed. that, from our view point, a strong Russia is greatly to be desired, it is still difficult for an observer here to suggest any course of action other than the immediate recognition of these States. Personally, I am not of the opinion that the recognition which has been accorded to these States by the European powers tends in any way to retard the restoration of a strong and stable Russian Government. Rather does it seem that through a certain measure of encouragement to the so-called States one may make certain that this part of Russia will remain free from the ravages of the present Moscow regime. Later, it is not improbable that through the operation of fundamental economic laws these countries will become a part of a federated Russia or will retain autonomous powers, but will be linked with the Russian government through close economic and political treaties and agreements. While our policy has been consistent, I am not at all certain that a continuation of this policy in the future would be either wise from the viewpoint of our own interests or helpful as regards the restoration of Russia. I have [etc.] EVAN E. YOUNG 860n.01/49: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Commissioner at Riga (Young) WASHINGTON, May 15, 1922-5 p.m. 59. Your despatch No. 1916 of April 6. Telegraph briefly whether Vilna Plebiscite constitutes in your opinion such a solution of the Polish-Lithuanian controversy as would justify recognition of Lithuania at the same time with Esthonia and Latvia. HUGHES 860n.01/50: Telegram The Commissioner at Riga (Young) to the Secretary of State RIGA, May 16, 1922-3 p.m. 70. Department's 59 May 15, 5 p.m. No plebiscite has been held in Vilna district. In January last there were elections to the Vilna assembly. Lithuanians in that district refrained from voting. The so-called Vilna district is now administered openly as an integral part of Poland and it is not believed here that Poland will consent to a reopening of the question. The neutral zone established by control commission of the League of Nations still exists and serves for all present purposes as boundary between the two countries. |