601.60C62A/10–3151
Memorandum of Conversation, by Valdemar N. L. Johnson of the Office of Eastern European Affairs
Subject: Contemplated Estonian “missions” at Paris and Bonn.
| Participants: | Mr. Johannes Kaiv, Acting Consul General of Estonia in New York City in Charge of Legation |
| Mr. Jackson, Assistant to Mr. Kaiv | |
| EE—Mr. Allan | |
| EE—Mr. Johnson |
Mr. Johnson referred Mr. Kaiv to the written statement accompanying the Estonian Consulate General’s draft budget for 19521 noting the desire to broaden the activities of Mr. Karl Selter to the point where he might in the future be “appointed” as the official Estonian representative at Bonn. Mr. Johnson explained that the Department was interested in this development principally because it apparently would pose the problem of increasing the Consulate General’s budget. Mr. Kaiv was invited, therefore, to outline present plans for the establishment of representation at Bonn and at Paris, as well, because of previous indications that the Estonians wish to establish a mission in that capital also.
Mr. Kaiv stated that the Estonians did wish to establish missions both at Bonn and Paris and that they desired, if possible, to have these missions recognized as official diplomatic establishments. He observed that, of course, the official character of the missions would be a matter for determination by the French and German Federal Republic Governments, but that these Governments had shown increasing sympathy for the Baltic cause which boded well for the establishment of official missions.
He stated that Mr. August Rei, President of the Estonian National Council in Sweden, was also interested in this problem to the [Page 1300] point where he, in the name of the Council, had indulged in some preliminary moves designed to set up the contemplated posts. This development, Kaiv said, pointed up the principal difficulty, namely, the determination of the appropriate Estonian person or group having the authority to establish the missions, appoint the officers, etc. While Kaiv did not claim this authority for himself, he observed that neither Mr. Rei nor the Estonian National Council in Sweden had such powers.
Mr. Johnson said that the Department was also concerned with this problem because it did not wish to approve the appropriation of funds for the support of the missions at Bonn and Paris if a majority or even a substantial part of the Estonian emigration might subsequently disapprove of the manner in which the posts had been established. He added that the Department, therefore, hoped that the Estonian emigration would approach this problem in a spirit of unity which would indicate clearly that the emigration as a whole approved of the manner in which the missions would be established. He emphasized that the manner in which the Estonian emigration might achieve this unity was purely an internal Estonian question but that the Department would be reluctant to approve expenditures for the contemplated missions unless the Estonian emigration exhibited the desired unity.
Mr. Kaiv agreed that the Department’s interest in this matter was valid. He noted that Mr. Rei had proposed that the post at Paris be filled by Mr. Alexander Warma, former Estonian Minister to Finland, and he stated his opinion that the Estonian emigration had no objection to Mr. Warma personally but that an objection would probably arise because of the fact that Mr. Warma had been proposed by Mr. Rei. He stated, therefore, that he hoped a way could be found to appoint Mr. Warma to this post without reference to the appointing authority.
At this point, Mr. Johnson reverted to the Estonian budget and reiterated the Department’s desire not to increase the budget substantially until such time as the Estonian funds in the United States might be invested and yield a return sufficient to justify an increase in the budget.2 He asked, in the event that the investment [Page 1301] program should yield a very small return, whether the Estonian Consulate General might wish to cut down the Estonian representation in South America for the purpose of establishing missions at Paris and Bonn. Mr. Kaiv said that this thought had also occurred to him and, that in his opinion, the Estonian representation in South America (Brazil) was becoming less and less important and that the interests of Estonia would be better served by establishing missions at Paris and Bonn at the expense of decreasing or terminating the present Estonian representation in Brazil, if necessary. Mr. Johnson asked whether, if this should take place, Mr. Kaiv would consider transferring some of the present Estonian personnel in Brazil to Paris or Bonn. Mr. Kaiv replied that Mr. Karl Ast, who is presently representing Estonian interests in Brazil, would be a very fitting representative in Paris and that he might well be transferred to that post at his present salary, thereby necessitating only a very slight change in the budget. He added, however, that he also had contemplated transferring Mr. Kaarel Pusta, Sr., from his position at the Estonian Consulate General in New York to the contemplated mission in Paris which would serve the same purpose as far as the budget was concerned. He recalled that Mr. Pusta had spent a great deal of time in France and that he undoubtedly had more personal contacts in the French Foreign Office than any other Estonian diplomat. He said, however, that Mr. Pusta seemed very reluctant to leave the United States but he added that he would again approach him concerning this possibility.
Mr. Kaiv said that he thought this whole matter could best be handled by “working quietly” with the appropriate officials in the French and German Federal Republic Foreign Offices. He did not specify the manner in which he proposed to handle the entire question but he did indicate that steps would be taken to secure the approval and support of the majority of the Estonian emigration.
Mr. Johnson stated that the Department would appreciate being kept informed of all current developments and he advised Mr. Kaiv not to implement the establishment of the contemplated missions in Paris and Bonn without the prior consultation with the Department.3
[Page 1302]During the above conversation Mr. Kaiv confirmed information previously provided by the American Embassy at Stockholm to the effect that the Estonian National Council has lost considerable standing in the Estonian emigration in the past year. He calculated that the Council is now supported by approximately two-fifths of the Estonian emigration in Sweden and that the remainder of the emigration supports the VEKO group. He said, in this connection, that Estonians in Canada and the United States were now in the process of organizing themselves into a unified group giving allegiance neither to the Estonian National Council nor the VEKO group.
- An Act of Congress approved April 7, 1941, entitled “An Act relating to foreign accounts in Federal Reserve banks and insured banks” (55 Stat. 131) authorized the Federal Reserve and insured banks to release funds from the blocked accounts of foreign states to their accredited representatives in the United States provided (1) the foreign state was recognized by the U.S. Government, (2) an accredited representative of such a foreign state had certified to the Secretary of State the name of a person authorized to receive blocked funds, and (3) the Secretary of State had certified the authority of such a person to receive such funds. In May 1941, a procedure was initiated for making funds available to Lithuanian, Estonian, and Latvian representatives from blocked accounts. The procedure involved the annual submission of a budget by the accredited Lithuanian, Estonian, and Latvian representatives to the Department of State.↩
- In April 1951, Kaiv revived the issue, first raised in 1942 (see Foreign Relations, 1942, vol. iii, p. 467), of moving his office to Washington while maintaining the Consulate General in New York. On April 19, 1951, the Department of State informed Kaiv that it appeared preferable to continue his mission in New York City in its current status, because there was no legal Estonian authority to request the establishment of a Legation in Washington and to appoint a chief of mission. The Department also stated that it was not disposed to increase the Estonian budget in order to maintain a Legation in Washington in addition to a Consulate General in New York. The Department added that such a move, “of questionable legal validity”, might “subject to scrutiny, and raise questions” regarding the status of all the Baltic missions in the United States. (Memorandum of conversation, April 19, 602.60B11/4–1951)↩
- Kaarel Pusta, Sr., Political Adviser to Estonian Acting Consul General Kaiv discussed proposed Estonian representation in Paris and Bonn with Vedeler and Allan of the Office of Eastern European Affairs on December 12. Pusta said he had information that the French Foreign Ministry would welcome a resumption of relations with Estonia “on a limited scale”. Pusta also mentioned having been told by Italian Foreign Minister Sforza, during a visit to Rome in 1950, that Italy might receive an Estonian representative “semi-formally”. (Memorandum of conversation by Allan, December 14, 601.60B51/12–1251) Kaiv discussed the proposed Estonian representation with Allan on December 19. Kaiv reported having been informed by August Torma, Estonian Minister in the United Kingdom, that August Rei had agreed not to question the authority to appoint representatives to Paris and Bonn so long as the persons appointed were acceptable. Kaiv and Allan discussed various possible appointments. (Memorandum of conversation by Allan (EUR/EE), December 19, 601.60B51/12–1951)↩