860n.01/49

The Commissioner at Riga ( Young ) to the Secretary of State

No. 1916

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 transmission [Page 870] 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 [Page 871] 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 [Page 872] 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
  1. Not printed.