The Main Issues Confronting the Minorities of Latvia and Eesti

Front matter

THE MAIN ISSUES CONFRONTING THE MINORITIES OF LATVIA AND EESTI

by

Baron A. Heyking, Ph. D., D. C. L.

Preface

PREFACE.

The present publication consists of an historic survey of Latvia and Eesti, a chapter of separate cases concerning the breach of the minorities' rights in these countries and four papers bearing on the Baltic minorities' rights. The latter, having been abridged to avoid repetition and certain passages amplified, give useful information about a question which deserves the immediate and earnest attention of Europe before it is too late.

London, June 1922.

The Author

Chapter I

Chapter I. An Historic Survey of the Cultural Conditions of the Baltic Lands.

The beginnig of the history of the Baltic States resembles early English history in so far as the Saxon founders of the English heptarchy were of the same racial origin as those of Livonia. Up to the present the Estonians, natives of Estonia and Livonia, call the people of Teutonic descent inhabiting the Provinces, "Saxons". Looking through the historic vista of the past, the English Saxons may be reminded that there is a close relationship between themselves and the Baltic Saxons, although centuries of a different fate have, to a certain extent, obscured the remembrance of the tie between the people of these happy islands and those of the severely tried Baltic shores. Since their foundation by the Saxons, both countries have been over-run by various invaders, but neither actually lost touch with the other. Two illustrations of this fact may be quoted: King James of England gave the island of Tobago, one of the Lesser Antilles, as a present to his godchild, James Duke of Courland, of the Kettler Dynasty; then again, many British families such as Hill, Scott, Jacobs, Addison, Magnus, Miller, Proctor, Armitstead, Gregg, Gordon, Bruce, Keith and others emmigrated to the Baltic lands and intermarried with the local nobility and bourgeoisie.

In prehistoric times Finnish—Mongolic tribes occupied the territory stretching from the Caspian and Ural seas to the shores of the Baltic. In the times of early Russian history, Slavonic tribes which had their habitation west of the tribes of the Mongolie race, succeeded in subduing them and subsequently intermingling with them, thereby making a wide breach in their previous uninterrupted chain running from south to north. In the south the Kalmucks, Kirghiz, Teheremis and other tribes in the north, Finns in Finland; the Estonians (who up to the present time populate Estonia and the northern half of Livonia), the Lives (who held the southern part of Livonia) and the Coures (inhabiting Courland) were not slavonized. But the Lives and the Coures fell a prey to the Letts, who together with the Lithuanians, pushed forward from the south and occupied the territory which afterwards formed the principality of Lithuania, Courland, and the southern part of Livonia. The last deseendants of the Lives could some fifty years ago still be found in the west of Livland, and of the Coures in the west of Courland, but both tribes must nowadays be considered as allmost extinet. The reason why the Letts fought their way towards the Baltic shores was the necessity for having an outlet to the sea.

In the twelfth century, German adventure brought about a new change in the fate of the Baltic shores, by sending colonists from the north of Germany, chiefly from Bremen, Lübeck, Hamburg, Hanover and Westphalia, the abode of the great tribe of hardy Saxons, who gave Charlemagne so much trouble in subjugating and christianising them.

In 1201 Riga was founded by Bishop Albrecht. Just as the Saxons had themselves been converted to christianity by fire and sword, so they turned the same methods prevalent in that time, upon the Letts, and Ests. The Pope of Rome gave them his blessing and under his auspices the Holy Livonian Order of the Brother-Sword-Bearers was formed with a view to stamping out paganism in the Baltie lands. These fighting monks eannot be regarded as Conquistadores, as they were imbued with the high religious ideas of that time. They had to give a triple oath of life-long obedience to their superiors, and swear to poverty and chastity. In their fortresses and castles they lived an austere life. of prayer, and waged battle whenever they were called upon to fight. It was a hard task to convert the Baltic pagans, and in the fifteenth century crusades were preached in northern Germany under the auspices of Rome for the Christianising of the Baltic shores. These efforts helped the Order of the Livonian Sword-Brothers to foster emigration from Germany and to become a powerful State, which, however, had to defend itself against insurrections and the growing weight of Moseovia, Poland and Sweden. The Livonian Order of the Brother - Swordearers, under the leadership of the Herrmeister Walter von Plettenberg, inflieted many a defeat upon the Moscovians, but Ivan the Terrible succeeded in devastating and subjugating the land. The State of the Livonian Order was hard pressed on three sides by the Moseovians, Poles and the Swedes until in 1561, the last Herrmeister Gotthard Kettler had to surrender the Order, albeit, securing for himself Courland as Temporal Dukedom, suzerain to the Crown of Poland. The Dukedom was held throughout the Kettler and later, the Biron dynasties.

The Livonian Order as already stated ceased to exist in 1561. Livonia at first became a Polish province, thence, after a series of fierce wars between Poland and Sweden it passed into the hands of the latter; and subsequently was lost to Russia by Charles XII in the XVIII century, after his disasterous campaign against Peter the Great, by the Peace of Nystadt in 1721. Later, in 1795, after the third partition of Poland, which, as already mentioned, held suzerainity over the Duke of Courland, the Duke had to abdicate, and the Diet of the Nobles petitioned the Empress Catherine to incorporate the province into Russia. From these incessant wars between three great Powers surrounding the ancient State of the Livonian Order, it appears that each considered its possession as a condition sine qua non for further development, especially the Moscovian Tzars, and Peter the Great, who, finding it imperative to "open a window towards the west of Europe" deemed it necessary to possess that territory for the further development of the State, as the geographical position of these provinces is such that their position as an outlet to the sea, or as an essential prolongation of the coast-line, was indispensable to the growth of a first-class Power in the north.

During the progress of the last Great War, the Baltic Provinces. were occupied by Germany, but after her defeat, and the Armistice, Germany had to withdraw her army from Russia, and the Baltic Provinces thus remained unprotected. Thereupon a Baltic Militia was formed composed of Russians, men of Baltic-Teutonic descent. Letts and Ests, the attacking Bolshevik forces being also made up of Russians, Letts and Ests. It is a hopeful sign for the future that different races and different classes of the Baltic inhabitants had to unite in cominon defence of their homes against the Bolsheviks. In Estonia they fought with better success than in Livonia and Courland. The task of defending these two lastnamed provinces against the onrushing Bolsheviks was from the beginning doomed to failure, owing to the fact that the Lettish battalions of Lenin and Trotsky had carried on a very active propaganda in the provinces through their agents. Moreover, the Baltic proletariat of the towns and a certain number of the peasantry had strong Bolshevik leanings. An open rebellion of battalions composed entirely of Letts ensued, declaring themselves for the Bolsheviks. It was at this critical juncture that the British Fleet, which was at anchor before Riga, came to the rescue of the Baltic Militia on December 18th 1918. The mutinous Lettish battalions were surrounded, and since they would not surrender, their barracks were bombarded by the British Fleet until they capitulated. In order to further assist the Militia, the English Commander organised a patrol of military police in Riga, while the Militia advanced to meet the Bolsheviks. On January 1st 1919, a battle was fought in which, after severe fighting, the Militia was forced to retreat before the enemy. This brought Riga into imminent danger, and when on January 2nd it became known that the British Fleet would no longer grant assistance, but was under orders to sail from port, it was clear that Riga could no longer be held. By this time a great part of the population began a precipitous exodus. Families of women and children swept along the road on foot or on sledges in the greatest disorder, carrying with them all the property they could save. The rigours of the winter weather added to the horror of these refugees flying in terror from the Bolsheviks hard on their heels. Riga. Mitau, Dorpat and other towns became the scene of untold outrages and wholesalc murder.

But the Baltic Militia, viz. the Balts, Letts and Estonians strongly supported by german volunteer forces succeeded in finally driving out the Bolsheviks, and then the Letts and Estonians, availing themselves of self-determination, which had been proclaimed as a fundamental principle of International Law at the Treaty of Versailles, were able to declare themselves as independent States. Latvia included the fortner province of Courland, the northern part of the province of Vitebsk, and the southern part of the province of Livonia; and Eesti consisted of the northern part of Livonia and the province of Estonia. As indepedent States they have been recognised by the European Powers and admitted to full membership of the League of Nations.

An episode in the military operations in Latvia, which merits special mention, is the expedition of the so-called Western Volunteer army under Bermont which was considered by the Letts as a treacherous attack against them. The army under Colonel Bermont was composed of Russians and Germans, (not Balts), numbering 50 000 men, was intended to proceed by Bologoje to Lithuania to fight the Bolsheviks, and had the approval of the English representative in Latvia, Colonel March. As a matter of fact, the relations of this army to the Lettish and Lithuanian governments, were at the beginning quite satisfactory, as the territory of these two States was used only for the mustering of the troops, and the public administration of these governments was not interfered with in any way.

Bermont's forces were part of the north-western anti-Bolshevik front under the leadership of General Yudenitch, who appointed Bermont to the command of the so-called western army. On the 16th Octo ber 1919 all was ready for the march on Bologoje, when Bermont unexpectedly received the order from General Judenitch to embark at Libau for Reval and to march from thence to Narva. Bermont did not obey this order, and instead planned to march on foot through Latvia. To this effect, he asked the Lettish government by wire for permission to pass through Lettish territory. The answer was given in the form of an attack on Bermont's forces at Olay, and thus began the war-like operations between the Lettish Republic and Bermont's forces, which ended in the discomforture of the latter. Had the Letts not opposed Bermont, he would have been able to join Yudenitch's army, and Petrograd would have been taken from the Bolsheviks.

Between the Letts and Estonians on the one side and the Balts on the other there are political differences of an historic nature which need to be cleared up. It is said that the Germans did the Letts a great. wrong when they occupied the country at the end of the twelfth century. This is not, however, corroborated by history. When the merchant adventurers from Lübeck and Bremen, found their way to the mouth of the Düna and were followed afterwards by the conquering monkknights, they found the Letts and Ests at a low stage of culture, and there can be no doubt that, by introducing order and founding a State with proper administration, the new-comers raised the natives economically, morally and religiously). In the first centuries of German occupation, serfdom did not exist. It only developed later on as an economic necessity when agricultural economic units were formed. Throughout the Middle Ages, in order to secure agricultural labour, the peasant was robbed of free movement and was bound to the land, glebae adscriptus. But the relation between the Lord of the manor and the serf was purely patriarchal. E. Seraphim in his history of Estonia, Livonia and Courland, gives the following account. He who calmly and justly weighs the problem, will realise that during the Middle Ages the relation of the Germanic-Balts to the natives bears no special trace of hardness. On the contrary, it corresponds entirely to the development which the peasant population in Germany underwent, and which led, little by little, to the introduction of serfdom. It may be conceded that the racial difference between the rulers and the ruled made this position more oppressive to the latter, but this cannot be regarded as a slur upon the former. Moreover, it cannot be denied that those responsible for and conducting the affairs of the country, were always alive to the needs of the peasant population." It should also be borne in mind that in judging the past of the Baltic lands, it is not fair to apply modern moral standards to bygone centuries. It is really difficult to see how things could have developed otherwise judging by the standards of that time. European civilisation and culture and the Christian religion were in the Middle Ages implanted all over the world by more or less forcible methods. To speak of special wrongs having been perpetrated upon the native inhabitants of the Balticum, is simply measuring a time of legalised violence by modern standards of legalised freedom, evidently, a fundamental logical error.

Until some fifty years ago, the Baltic burghers and nobility lived in close and amicable relationship with the Lettish and Estonian people of the town and country districts. The former patriarchal state of affairs had, of course, to give way to more democratic political and social constructions and the ruling gentry endeavoured to bring this about. While serfdom was abolished in Russia proper as late as 1861, Estonia, Livonia, and Courland liberated their peasants in 1816, 1817 and 1819—viz., nearly half a century earlier. The manner in which the peasantry was liberated in the Baltic Provinees differs greatly from the methods adopted in Russia proper. Guided by the Utopian idea of providing all the peasants with land, the Russian government foisted upon them the communistic idea of the common ownership of land. A certain part of the property was expropriated from the landowners, and a price for it was paid from the States Exchequer. The land thus acquired was handed" over to the villages under the stipulation that each village en bloc should repay the State by yearly instalments until the sum total originally paid to the landowners should be redeemed.

In the Baltic Provinces, Estonia, Livonia and Courland, as no financial facilities could be expected at that time from a government which had not yet recognised such a measure, the liberation of the peasants had to be brought about in a less ambitious way, though more practical and beneficial. Each estate was divided up into lots; there were those that were given over to the peasants and those that were retained by the original land-owners. The peasants' land was at first leased to individual farmers among the peasants themselves, and afterwards sold to them as freehold by the help of local Societies of Credit. founded by the gentry for this special purpose. Altogether the transition was carried out much more gradually; the landowners did not receive the price for the sale of their land in a lump sum, and individual property was introduced among the peasants form of ownership which, even from an agricultural point of view, proved superior to that of the common ownership in Russia. Of course it was not every peasant who could become a freeholder, but only those who through their own capability and industry were able to buy land and maintain themselves upon it. Others entered the various trades. becoming workmen, hiring themselves out to peasant or gentry land- owners. This mode of procedure secured to the provinces a high degree of efficiency in the culture of the land and an all-round prosperity. The liberation of the peasantry in the Baltic Provinces has, therefore, borne much better results than in the rest of Russia, as has already been stated; in neither case was the land given to the peasants as a free gift, they had to pay for it, the difference consisting only in the manner of payment. In the Baltic Provinces only those paid for it who acquired it as a personal free property, while in the rest of Russia, the whole. peasantry had to pay for it.

It was a further advantage of the Baltic Provinces that the landowners administered the estates themselves, living on the land, whereas in Russia proper, many of the nobility abandoned their landed property to the use of the peasants, receiving in exchange an annual royalty, the Obrok.

But what about agrarian murders and the spirit of revolt which made itself felt in the Baltic lands long before the Revolution? The local social constitution was certainly out-of-date, but all efforts made by the nobility and bourgeoisie towards local reforms, in a liberal sense, were systematically thwarted by the central government. During the last fifty years the Dicts of the three provinces submitted to the Imperial government a series of projects of progressive reform in order to bring the Letts and Ests into line in equality of rights with the Balts, themselves. But, all these, projects found an early grave in the archives of the Government, since it was deemed expedient by the Russian Bureaucracy to keep open the grievances of the Letts and Ests as a constant irritant against the Balts: Not content with this insidious policy of playing one part of the population against the other, the Russian Government endeavoured to instigate the Lettish and Estonian peasants against their land-lords, by infecting the schools with extreme socialistic propaganda, and by disorganising the whole economic and social fabric of the country. The bureaucracy sowed the storm and reaped the whirlwind! It was in 1905 that the Russian socialistic revolution overthrew also in the Baltic provinces the Russian governing power for the time being, and in 1917, that a Lettish Bolshevik regiment took a prominent part in establishing the Bolshevik regime in Petrograd.

The present crisis which has been precipitated on the Balts, has a two-fold root, one of which is related to the European cultural evolution, and the other to circumstances peculiar to Baltic life.

European culture is at present, in a transition stage, which is chiefly brought about by the ascendency of the manual labourer, the peasant and the proletarian. This process has been gathering strength from strike to strike, and revolution to revolution of the lower strata of the population which, favoured by the modern principle of personal freedom, aims more and more at levelling down the community to one position in life.

As long as the Constitution dividing the population into separate classes, existed, and the bidding for equality was limited, cultural evolution was not very apparent in public life, but when the barriers separating the classes had been done away with, in favour of a new social equality—which found its apotheosis in universal suffrage before the simple, uneducated man of the people, arose a new Fata Morgana of Equality, which changed his former contentedness into a delirium of envy and ambition. He regarded his services henceforth exclusively from the point of view of supply and demand. There was a constant demand for his work as no agricultural or industrial production is possible without the labourer. He therefore made his supply of work conditional on higher and higher demands for pay, in order to procure for himself a better financial and social position, as he was conscious of his own power in regard to the numerical superiority of his class, in comparison with the educated class, and universal suffrage gave him the opportunity to take advantage of it.

The process of levelling the different classes of society in their mode of life which is now going on in Europe, is nowhere more noticeable than among the Balts, who almost throughout belong to the educated classes, while the. Letts and Estonians fill the ranks of the peasants, manual workers and proletarians, and as the difference of class here, coincides with the difference of race—more or less—the socialistic attack was the more vigorous, being supported by nationalistic aspirations. The Balt appeared in the eyes of the Letts and Estonians as an adversary in a double sense—as an educated man and also as not belonging to the Lettish or Estonian race.

The Letts and Estonians were caught by the nationalistic tendency of the age, which grew up amongst them stronger and stronger in opposition to the Slavophil policy of russification. Apart from the fact that for an Empire constituted of such heterogeneous elements as Russia, a forceful russification was dangerous, and a contradiction in terms, the Great Russians were in Russia in the minority (48%) in comparison with the total number of the rest of the population; force produces opposition, attack—resistance, proscription of ideal values, such as racial individuality or religious conviction, enhances fidelity to personal individuality and faith. The Letts and Estonians became more and more nationalistic as they were subjected to a system of ruthless russification, and finally, when by the Russian revolution and the favour of the Entente Powers, they were given the possibility of separating from Russia, the consciousness of their racial individuality produced the desire for complete political independence. They took advantage of the nationalistic formula of self-determination and attempted to bring into effect the principle proclaimed by Bluntchli, by which humanity must chrystalise into as many States as there are racial individualities: "Each racial individuality a State, and each State a racial individuality".

Thus, when the inauguration of Latvia and Eesti took place, the Balts found themselves in the position of an alien element in their own country. They were in the minoritiy, their vote could not carry, and they were only able to take an indirect share in the foundation of these States on racial lines, simply because they were not Letts and Ests. At the same time, from masters they became servants, from superiors they were relegated to underlings, from rulers they became ruled, bound hand and foot to the majority.

The change was so sudden that it was deeply felt, more so as it was carried out in rather a brutal way, and an orgy of licence by people who, for centuries, with few exceptions, had been kept at a level with the lower classes, broke out unrestrainedly. But it should not be forgotten that the Balts were an essential factor in bringing about Lettish and Estonian self-determination, having assisted these races to retain their national individuality. The Letts and Estonians have, therefore, at the moment of their political self-determination, every reason to consider the Balts, not as their enemies, but as their friends, to whom they owe their very national existence from being submerged.

There is no reason to anticipate the return of the old conditions of life in the Baltic lands; the Balts have, therefore, once and for all to reckon with the fact that a new era has arisen in the municipal and social life of Europe, and that their position in such racial States as Latvia and Eesti, must necessarily be different from that of the old Constitution. No illusions about that should be entertained. In purely democratic States, equality before the law is the chief pillar on which all conditions rest, therefore the Balts cannot demand anything more, but also nothing less, than to be on an equal footing with the Letts and Ests in all matters pertaining to public life. They can coalesce no longer in classes, but in political parties, and thus have the full advantage of acting according to their own poltical persuasion. In this way will they build up a faith in themselves and establish the justness of their claim to be treated as native co-citizens in Latvia and Eesti.

Generally speaking, minorities are more self-conscious of their individuality than the majorities, who, knowing their power, easily stagnate in their aims and ambitions. The poet says:—"Only he merits freedom in life who wins them every day". In the dynamic of human society, those on a lower strata continually struggle for the upward trend, these to whom Fate brings difficulties and hardships are invigorated all the more by their very struggle for life. The Baltic racial minorities will not be crushed out of existence. The Christian religion states that those who are called to bear, are also given the strength to endure.

Latvia and Eesti have all the conditions for prosperity at their disposal, provided they desist from the oppression, persecution and pauperisation of their minorities. Not enmity and strife, but good-will and peace provide the pledge for welfare and permanent success. Hatred damages not only others but eneself. To live at peace with one's neighbours and co-citizens, does not prejudice anyone.

What then is the real reason that the minorities in Latvia and Eesti, and especially the Balts, are looked upon with suspicion and hostility? Certainly not because the Letts and Estonians doubt their love for their homeland or because they are considered as useless drones! No, it is well known that the Balts desire to be useful to their country, and judging from a great number of them who have found a livelihood in countrics even where there is a large supply of educated mcn, there is no doubt that they are a constructive element in any State. That which makes the minorities objectionable to the Letts and Estonians, is simply because they are not of the same racial stock. Now, that the Letts and Estonians in their newly created States are themselves the rulers, they should apply to their own racial minorities the same principles they would have appreciated when they were under foreign domination.

The Letts and Estonians are also very hard in their judgment of the socalled "emigrants" who, in the majority of cases, are not emigrants in the strict sense of the word. Indeed, these "emigrants" are chiefly composed of people who against their will, left the home-country, or those, who for the time being, have managed to find a living abroad, or, those who were driven out of their homes by Lettish and Estonian nationalism and have lost the possibility of earning a livelihood in the Baltic lands—finally, those who fled before Bolshevism and who are now refused the permission to return home. All these people will be glad to return to their country as soon as the political situation there allows them to do so. At present, in Latvia and Eesti self-determination has produced an extreme self-assertion followed by ruthless intolerance. As if, because of self-determination, each State should consist of only one race!

Chapter II

Chapter II. The Baltic Minorities' Rights. Their Relation to Municipal and International Law.

Lecture delivered at the Grotius Sóciety in London, November 1921.

Gentlemen.

The civilised world is gravitating towards two opposite poles: Internationalism and Nationalism. Internationalism, which conceives of humanity as a whole, irrespective of differences of race, ethics and religion and Nationalism, which is an appreciation of the affinity of racial origin, moral conception or religious persuation, are indeed, divergent, lying in different planes and cannot, therefore, be compared and measured one against the other. But, both these political forces are at the present time extremely active in bringing about fundamental changes in the internal and external affairs of the civilised world. Religious—so-called "black" Internationalism, extols the uniformity of faith. above all other vital interests, and revolutionary, or "red" Internationalism, assuming an even more pugnacious attitude, demands universal class-warfare, in an endeavour to stamp out all inequality, while Nationalism indulges in racial exclusiveness and intolerance. By their excesses both movements engender an atmosphere of strife and universal antagonism which, fanned by the fatal economic consequences of the war, is kindling the so-called Christian world into a blaze of hatred—a hell of deadly enmity!

But, in this cataclysm of varying political opinions. amid the clamour of warfare, in the turmoil of revolutions, if humanity is not to be submerged in an apocalytical upheaval, it must strike bed-rock on which to lay the foundations of future civilisation, upon which it can construct its Commonwealth. Let governments, State constitution, religion and ethics be subject to grave changes, the natural conditions of human existence will always be the same, as long, as human life. shall run. The procreation of humanity rests on the maintenance of the family, which, together with other families related to each other, form an ethnographic unity, aggrandised by the coalescence of racial elements of the same origin, forming the tribe, the population of a given district, and finally, the nation. The natural course, of national revolution has, in the past, often been diverted aside by conquerors in their lust for power, but, in spite of Imperialism, racial affinity vindicates its natural birth-right as the chief constructive principle and mainstay of the State. Nowadays, all races claim the right of existence by themselves and for themselves, and this right has been acknowledged by the common conscience of man.

Self-determination has also been butressed by a limitation of the sovereignity of the State. In early times, the individual was supposed to be neither more nor less than a mere particle of the community, as exemplified by the inexorable discipline enforced by the Spartan State. But the old idea of the State as the supreme arbiter of right or wrong, the one and only creator of public and private law, could not be maintained in the face of the requirements of an International community and the rigths of the single individual. Intervention or non-intervention,—no civilised State can any longer consider itself an entirely self-contained, and consequently, independent entity. Even between States, which only yesterday were at enemity with each other, there exists a community of interests, which if ignored, brings about a displacement of the economic balance of the world. While unemployment occasions to the Allies and the United States losses which arc much greater than any reparations which could be wrung from Germany. the Germans, owing to the increase in the cost of raw products from abroad, the fabulous rise in the price of commodities—as a direct result from the depreciation of the German currency—are also no better off. There is something wrong in the state of the world, since the economic and financial solidarity of the nations have been so put out of gear by chauvinism and international hatred. The tragedy of the world war, as affecting the whole organism of civilised mankind, has made it clear to the vanquished as well as to the victors, that both are parts of one and the same world-wide economic, financial and political Commonwealth, just as disease afflicting one member of the human body necessarily affects the whole system.