740.0011 Mutual Guarantee (Eastern Locarno)/172
The Chargé in Latvia (Cole) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 27.]
Sir: I have the honor to report that on November 4, 1935, 1 talked with Mr. Vilhelms Munters, Secretary General of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, concerning the present situation of the negotiations for the conclusion of an Eastern European security pact. Mr. Munters again stated, as he has done several times before and as the Legation has already reported to the Department, that the Eastern European security pact was in a state of “desuetude,” there being no movement in the question for the time being, and none being likely for a considerable time. Europe, Mr. Munters said, seemed to have settled down contentedly into the situation left by the conclusion of the Franco-Soviet and Soviet-Czechoslovak pacts, the prompt refusals of Poland and Finland, and the ultimate refusals of Latvia and Estonia to enter such a system.
In this connection I enclose a translation of an excerpt from the Riga Russian language daily Segodnya of September 22, 1935,65 quoting an interview given it by Mr. Munters in Geneva. Mr. Munters stated that “the problem of the Eastern pact has lost its foremost importance.” He regretted this and referred again to the proposals made by Germany66 at the time of the Stresa Conference.
In connection with the statements made by Mr. Munters previously concerning the possibility of the formation of a bloc of states to include Finland and Poland and those in between, it is of interest to note that in the interview he returned to this subject, first, in approving references to Finnish foreign policy and, secondly, in mentioning “some kind of a Baltic Sea pact” which would include not only the so-called Baltic States but also Poland, presumably both Sweden and Denmark, and Finland.
Reference can be made in this connection to this Legation’s confidential despatch of October 25, 1935 (No. 936),65 enclosing a memorandum entitled “Evidence of Changes in Latvian Attitude Regarding Eastern Security Plans.”
A further development along this same line, slight, indeed, but perhaps significant, is to be found in a phrase used by the new Latvian Minister to Estonia, Mr. Edgars Krievinš, in presenting his letters of credence at Tallinn on November 7th. He said: “Latvia believes that through intensifying the relations [of]67 friendships and sincere [Page 310] cooperation between the Lettish and the Estonian peoples it will be possible to overcome all current difficulties and also to work together with other neighboring peoples to promote, in this manner, to the general advantage, [the solution of]68 its own special tasks on the coast of the Baltic Sea.”
In his reply the Estonian Chief of State said: “The common fate shared for centuries by Estonia and Latvia, the common battles for liberty and the reestablishment of national independence, as well as their present geo-political situation, create the feeling of an inseparable unity which found its actual expression in the strengthening of our treaty of alliance and a firm basis for a lasting friendship and brotherly cooperation.”
Since it may be taken that the address of the new Minister was either written in the Ministry at Riga or edited there, under the supervision of the Secretary General, this is another occasion on which Mr. Munters has suggested the possibility of a larger political grouping of states in the zone between the U. S. S. R. and Germany. Mr. Päts’ reference to the similar geographical and political situation, or political situation arising out of geographic location, common to both Estonia and Latvia, while not specifically hinting at a larger grouping of a number of states, may nevertheless clearly be taken as referring to the two great powers mentioned.
Respectfully yours,