LATVIA AND RUSSIA
LATVIA & RUSSIA
ONE PROBLEM OF THE
WORLD-PEACE CONSIDERED
BY
ARVED BERG
(_Member of the National Council of Latvia_)
[Illustration]
1920
LONDON AND TORONTO
J. M. DENT & SONS LTD.
CONTENTS
PAGE
The World-Peace and the Civil War in Russia 9
The Paris Conference faced by the Russian Sphinx 10
The Representatives of Russia 11
Relations between Russia and the Borderland
Peoples 13
Proposal to postpone the Solution concerning “the
Borderland Peoples of Russia” 14
Practical Consequences of the Postponing of the
Question 16
It is doubtful whether the Russian People will soon be in a
Position to participate in the Solution of these Questions 18
Right of the Russian People to participate in the Solution
of the Lettish Question 23
A Definite and Immediate Solution of the Question of Latvia is
necessary 26
The Reconstitution of Russia 27
Project of an All-Russian Federation 28
Point of View of the Russian Groups in regard to the Federation
of Russia 29
Impossibility of a Russian Federation 33
Historical Impossibility of an All-Russian Federation 34
A Common Civilisation, indispensable to a Federation, does not
exist 36
The Economic Problem of a Federated Russia 40
The All-Russian Federation from the Point of View of
Constitutional Law 44
The Leaning of the Peoples of Russia towards Independence 49
Economic Disadvantage of Separation from Russia 50
Settlement of Accounts between Latvia and Russia 51
Economic Interests of Latvia 53
Aspirations of the Letts 55
Protests of the Russian Groups 58
Economic Interests of Russia 59
Strategical Interests of Russia 62
Guarantees of the World-Peace 70
Principle of Political Equilibrium 70
Russia as a Factor in Political Equilibrium 71
Internal Weakness of Russia 72
Political Leanings of Russia towards Germany 74
Russia as a Probable Destroyer of the World-Peace 77
Russia’s Policy in the Baltic 79
The Political Rôle of the New States 83
The Dominium maris Baltici 86
Line of Partition between Russia and Germany 87
Conclusion 90
[Illustration: MAP OF LINES OF COMMUNICATION OF LATVIA]
LATVIA AND RUSSIA
THE WORLD-PEACE AND THE CIVIL WAR IN RUSSIA
No world-peace is possible before peace in Russia is re-established!
Indeed, how can we talk of universal peace when 180 million men are
still in the throes of a most disastrous and terrible war, a war which
leads, not to victory, but to annihilation?
There will be no peace in the world if there is no peace in Russia, for
the boiling lava in eruption may well submerge the whole of Europe at
any moment. That is why the Paris Conference will remain powerless if
it cannot terminate the civil war in Russia. All that the Conference
has done and is doing at the present time will be brought to nothing
and will be a waste of time unless a normal and peaceful state of
things is established in Eastern Europe. Until the Peace Conference
has settled these questions, humanity will continue to be overshadowed
by the menace of such a catastrophe that the disasters of the four
years of war will appear in comparison as mere child’s play.
THE PARIS CONFERENCE FACED BY THE RUSSIAN SPHINX
The Peace Conference finds itself facing the Russian sphinx, whose
problems a mind of western culture can neither comprehend nor solve.
The agglomeration of heterogeneous peoples in Russia leaves the
ragged Hapsburg empire far behind. In Russia you have the complicated
psychology of the Oriental, barely intelligible to his western brother.
You have also the tangled economic questions and the centuries-old
crimes of corrupt governments, the devastation of a world-war, and
still more the material and moral destruction brought about by the
awakening instincts of the half-barbaric masses which call themselves
Bolsheviki. And all this is intermingling and boiling over in an
indescribable chaos which even the liveliest imagination could not
conceive.
THE REPRESENTATIVES OF RUSSIA
There is no lack of amateurs ready to solve the riddle of the Russian
sphinx. Each government represented at the Peace Conference possesses
its own point of view on the Russian question; each political party,
each organ of the Press has its own remedy for saving Russia. Nor is
that all, for there are Orientals who have come to plead on behalf of
their Fatherland before the world’s Forum. Russia teems with people
and opinions, so each group of the crowd assembled in Paris brings
forward a programme of salvation. There is the RUSSIAN POLITICAL
CONFERENCE, consisting of Sazonoff, Tzarist ex-Minister of Foreign
Affairs; the prince Lvoff, ex-Premier; Tchaikovsky, President of
the NORTH RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, and Maklakoff, ex-Ambassador
of Russia under the Provisional Government. This Conference has a
theorist, an ex-director of the Juridical Department of the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of Russia under the Provisional Government, M.
André Mandelstam, who has published a series of pamphlets in which
he sets forth the theoretical and practical bases of the views of
the Russian Political Conference. Outside this Conference, Kerensky,
ex-Premier, is busying himself; and with him, Avksentieff, Zenzinoff,
Argounoff, Rogovsky, Minor, Sokoloff, Slonin, all members of the
All-Russian Constituent Assembly. We find also the PARIS SECTION
FOR THE REGENERATION OF RUSSIA and the RUSSIAN REPUBLICAN
LEAGUE. Add to these the representatives of the government of
Admiral Koltchak and of General Denikin. From the South of Russia comes
Schreider, ex-mayor of Petrograd, at present the president of the
“Committee of the South,” who was compelled to leave the four other
members of his delegation behind on the Prinkipo island. Finally, to
close the name-list, there is A. N. Briantchaninoff, “Chairman of
the Slav Congress in Moscow and of the Russian National Committee
in London.” In the _Pages Modernes_ are collaborating Savinkoff, L.
Andreeff, Strouve, etc. Briefly, the Russian chaos is completely enough
represented, and the plans of salvation are not lacking.
RELATIONS BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE BORDERLAND PEOPLES
The problems which the following pages deal with are somewhat more
modest in comparison with the Russian imbroglio. They are those
concerning the so-called “borderland peoples of Russia,” _i.e._,
nationalities which have for a long time suffered under the Russian
domination, which have been relegated to second and third class, and
which, quite tired of this intolerable position, are looking for a
better lot and greater possibility of development in an independent
national life, by means of separation from Russia.
They have formed, for that purpose, a series of small independent
States desirous of getting their independence recognised by the Peace
Conference, which, in solving the riddle of the Russian sphinx, will
have to pronounce the decisive word on this question. Every one, be he
Russian or a representative of the nationalities, is trying to solve
this question in accordance with his point of view. The aim of the
following pages is to elucidate it from the point of view of Latvia.[1]
PROPOSAL TO POSTPONE THE SOLUTION CONCERNING “THE BORDERLAND
PEOPLES OF RUSSIA”
Let us first consider the proposals of the RUSSIAN POLITICAL
CONFERENCE:--“The question of the Russian borderland peoples must
be postponed until it can be decided with the co-operation of the
Russian people, for the questions relating to the future status of the
nationalities included within the borders of ancient Russia cannot be
solved outside the Russian people and without their consent.” That is
what the Russian Political Conference proposed in its note of the 6th
March, 1919--the solution of the problem must be postponed as long as
the Russian people is not in a position to make its will fully known
and to take part in the settlement of these questions.
Evidently perceiving how impossible this proposal is, the Russian
Political Conference is considering a compromise, and proposes “to
apply in the meantime, before a definite settlement is arrived at, a
provisional régime in accordance with the present necessities” of the
States that have separated themselves from Russia, but “no definite
solution should intervene.” In other words, the Russian Political
Conference proposes to recognise the _de facto_ governments of the
States detached from Russia on the condition that, in an undetermined
future, the Russian people, expressing its will by the voice of
the Constituent Assembly or by other means, shall say the final and
decisive word.
PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE POSTPONING OF THE QUESTION
It is supremely clear that this compromise of the Russian Political
Conference would not give any practical solution, either at the present
time or in the near future. The proof of this is in Latvia’s desperate
struggles on two fronts--against the Bolsheviki who have thrown
themselves on her, and against the German army of occupation which has
no wish at all to surrender the territory. In such circumstances, of
what importance would be the recognition of the _de facto_ situation?
Moral help is indispensable; besides, it is necessary to have a solid
juridical basis, recognised by the Powers, in order to exact from the
Bolsheviki and the Germans, not another _de facto_ situation in the
place of the one they have caused, but the substitution of Right for
their illegal tyranny. Without this, the success of the struggle
against the Bolsheviki and the Germans would become impossible, or
at least more complicated. Consequently, arms and munitions become
indispensable. Were they supplied by the governments backing up the
Letts, means for the equipment and maintenance of the army would yet be
lacking. These means cannot be obtained if the country does not provide
its own finances, which in turn cannot be established until the State
is judicially recognised. Strong in such a recognition, the Lettish
army, for instance, would long since have occupied Riga and delivered
it from the Bolshevist tyranny, but it simply dared not do it because
of the lack of revictualling for the inhabitants. Assuredly, who
would risk delivering goods on credit without knowing who is legally
responsible for the debts? To be successful in the struggle it would
be indispensable to restore the means of transport, the communications
destroyed by the Bolsheviki, and to replace the rolling stock carried
away by the Germans. But who would concern himself with that and
invest his capital in such an enterprise if there is no one judicially
responsible, and if one does not know to whom the country is to belong
and who is to rule it in the future?
The recognition of the present situation would in no way help the
Lettish people to hasten its resurrection, so that it represents no
progress towards the practical solution of the question in dispute.
IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE WILL SOON BE IN A
POSITION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SOLUTION OF THESE QUESTIONS
Of necessity, one could come to an agreement on this point if it were
possible to foresee that such a situation would not last too long,
but would soon disappear in the presence of durable and well-defined
juridical relations. But this cannot be foreseen by anybody if the
Lettish question is made dependent on the Russian people. Who would
venture to affirm that the Russian people will soon be in a position
to manifest freely its will and share in the settlement of these
questions?
Admiral Koltchak, for instance, has obtained, on certain conditions
accepted by him, the promise of support from the Allied and Associated
Powers, and he is backed up by the Russian Political Conference. But
he is as yet only in Siberia; much time will elapse before he reaches
the Volga, and from there Moscow is yet far; but after all Moscow is
not the whole of Russia. Meanwhile, in the South, the Bolsheviki have
decided, it appears, to give final battle to Admiral Koltchak. Even
supposing that Admiral Koltchak wins the most brilliant of victories,
much time will pass before tranquillity returns to the country, before
he succeeds in re-establishing the administrative machinery, and a
Constituent Assembly is elected in which the “Russian people will be in
a position to make its will known freely.”
Even leaving these arguments aside, can one be sure that the government
of Admiral Koltchak and the Constituent Assembly convened by him will
be recognised as authoritative and as the expression of the free
will of the Russian people? It is evident that in no case will this
happen without the hottest opposition. Kerensky and his above-named
colleagues, the Paris Section of the Union for Russian Regeneration,
and the Russian Republican League in their declaration (_Humanité_,
21st May, 1919) say, evidently aiming at the party of Koltchak, “It is
necessary that the governments of the free peoples declare openly that
they will never recognise, in Russia, any government whatsoever which
is a dictatorship of one man or of a group and does not acknowledge
the principle of popular sovereignty nor take the essential measures
for its realisation.” In another direction, the Russian National and
Democratic Union (_Bloc_), comprising the various leagues set up for
the regeneration of Russia, protests violently against the conditions
imposed by the Allied and Associated Powers on Admiral Koltchak and
accepted by him (_Patrie_, 15th June, 1919). So the future opposition
to the future Russian government is already there, and even makes an
appeal for support to all the free peoples. But who can say definitely
that with this support either Kerensky or Koltchak will be in a
position to get the upper hand?
And again, should the government of Lvov-Kerensky, or simply that of
the latter alone, be recognised as enjoying legal continuity?
It is doubtful that the Russian Political Conference and Admiral
Koltchak are agreed. M. A. N. Briantchaninoff, the Chairman of the
Slav Congress in Moscow and of the Russian National Committee in
London, talks openly of the unheard-of inability of the Lvov-Kerensky
and Co. government (_Daily Telegraph_, 24th May, 1919). And the
All-Russian Constituent Assembly of the 5th January, 1918, under the
famous presidency of M. V. Tchernoff, which included Messrs. Lenin
and Trotsky? But M. Gregory Schreider proves that the members of the
Constituent Assembly of 5th January, 1918, were shot by order of
Admiral Koltchak (_Daily Telegraph_, 28th May, 1919). Koltchak would
perhaps like to continue in the same way. In any case, before taking
up the case of Latvia, the Constituent Assembly would have to decide
the question of summoning Admiral Koltchak to judgment; and that might
take up much time, considering the complexity of the question and the
bias of the representatives of the Russian people, entailing debates
of indefinite length. Consequently, whoever the candidate may be whose
power will be recognised as expressing the free will of the Russian
people, one may be quite confident that a violent struggle will ensue
against him. For, to talk of free expression of the will of the people,
either with or without the assistance of a foreign commission, in a
country devastated by war and corrupted by Bolshevism, is naturally
inadmissible until the most elementary order is established and the
billows of political passion have subsided. And thus years will pass
by, during which the question of the countries detached from Russia
will remain without solution.
RIGHT OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SOLUTION OF THE
LETTISH QUESTION
Outside the purely practical reasons, there is a matter of principle;
and looking more closely at the proposal of the Russian Political
Conference, one cannot but be amazed by it. By what right do they claim
that the question of the Lettish people “cannot be solved without
Russian knowledge and consent”? Who made the Lettish people Slaves of
the Russians? Who made the Russians guardians of the Letts? President
Wilson has declared the equality of nations and their equal right to
dispose of themselves. The second paragraph of President Wilson’s
message of the 22nd January, 1917, says: “The equality of nations on
which peace must be founded in order to be durable, must imply the
equality of rights; the exchanged guarantees must neither recognise nor
imply a difference between the big nations and the small, between those
that are powerful and those that are weak.” In the speech delivered on
the 27th September, 1918, Wilson declares: “The impartial justice we
want should not make any difference between those in regard to whom we
are willing to be just and those in regard to whom we are not willing
to be just. It should be a justice not knowing any favouritism, but
only the equal rights of the different peoples.” Then, after such clear
declarations on the part of President Wilson, can one who declares
himself in agreement with this theory and expresses (like the note
of the Russian Political Conference) his sympathy with the peoples
detached from Russia, can he require the other nations to wait and not
proceed with the restoration of their affairs until the Russian people
has had the leisure to manifest its opinion? And, after the Lettish
people have got rid of Bolshevism at the price of inconceivable efforts
and have, with the assistance of the Allies, liberated Latvia from the
German armies of occupation, and when they have finally succeeded in
restoring their economic and intellectual life, by what right would
the Russians, recovering themselves and facing a problematical future,
arrogate to themselves the authority to possess and rule a people
for the regeneration of which they have not moved a finger? Granted
the right of the nations to dispose of themselves, how could the
Russian Constituent Assembly or the government of Admiral Koltchak be
competent to decide the fate of the Lettish people and yet the Lettish
Constituent Assembly or the Peace Conference be incompetent--the latter
having already decided the destiny of many races?
To all these painful questions there is only one possible answer:
Would not the Russian Political Conference admit that at the bottom
of its proposition there shows itself all too clearly a point of view
habitual to the old Tzarist régime, according to which the borderland
peoples have no other right than to be the object of the dominant
nation’s rights? But with such opinions, borrowed from the old Tzarist
régime’s domestic habits or home-policy, it would simply not be safe
to appear before the Peace Conference, which has proclaimed a just and
happy future for all peoples, inaugurating a new era of international
justice. Undoubtedly, the Russian Political Conference is cruelly
deceived, both in regarding their proposition as “a practical way out
of the present situation,” and even in thinking they have given “a real
proof of the new spirit of Russia.” In point of fact, there is neither
a new spirit nor a practical solution of the question.
A DEFINITE AND IMMEDIATE SOLUTION OF THE QUESTION OF LATVIA IS
NECESSARY
The question of the formation of a State for the Lettish people must
be settled definitely and as soon as possible. The Lettish people can
claim it as a right, for it finds itself in the first rank of the
peoples who have suffered from the war. The interests of the other
nations also require it, for they will feel the greater security the
fewer undecided questions there are, the fewer centres of trouble and
disorder.
The definite solution can be arrived at in two ways: either by the
reconstitution of Russia in her former boundaries, excluding perhaps
Poland, which would find its ethnographic frontiers again, and that is
the proposal of the Russian Political Conference, of M. A. Mandelstam,
and other people and institutions pretending to represent the Russian
people; or by the absolute recognition of the independence of the
peoples which have separated themselves from Russia, and that is what
their representatives are working for.
THE RECONSTITUTION OF RUSSIA
However, M. A. Mandelstam, the literary idealist of the Russian
Political Conference, declares, in his _Memorandum on the Delimitation
of the Rights of States and Nations_ (Paris, 1919), that the interests
of the countries detached from Russia, their right to free development
of their economic and intellectual culture, will be guaranteed and
can only be guaranteed by their reunion with Russia. This reunion, he
adds, is necessary not only in the interests of Russia, but also in the
interests of these same countries.
PROJECT OF AN ALL-RUSSIAN FEDERATION
It is certain that they do not propose the reconstitution of the
old Tzarist régime, which, according to M. A. Mandelstam, is no
less detested by the Russian people than by those of the border
countries; their aim is rather to form a new Russia built on a quite
different foundation and distinguished by a perfect justice towards
all the peoples inhabiting her territory. “Russia, emerging from the
Revolution,” says the Russian Political Conference, “and definitely
divorced from the centralising tendencies of the old régime, is largely
disposed to satisfy the legitimate wish of these nationalities to
organise their national life. The new Russia does not conceive her
reconstitution otherwise than in a free co-existence of the peoples
forming part of her, on the principles of autonomy and federalism.” And
M. A. Mandelstam, forgetting that it is very difficult for him, not
being of Russian origin himself, to speak and make promises in the name
of the Russian people, asserts: “The Russian people has never been
in agreement with the old Russian policy in regard to the borderland
peoples, and has always suffered with them from the same absence of
political rights. It will only wish to be allowed to work side by side
with its non-Russian brethren, mindful of their rights as it will be of
its own.... The common life could be organised on the basis of autonomy
or on that of the federative principle, or else on that of union. In
any case, the borderland peoples would no longer need to fear any
attacks on their personality on the part of New Russia.”
POINT OF VIEW OF THE RUSSIAN GROUPS IN REGARD TO THE FEDERATION OF
RUSSIA
No doubt, there are many good intentions and nice promises abroad; but
nevertheless we will allow ourselves slightly to doubt their perfect
sincerity, be it only in regard to some of the representatives of the
Russian groups.
How, for instance, do they reconcile this crop of promises with the
following facts? When, at the beginning of the year 1917, _i.e._,
even before the Revolution, the Lettish deputies in the Imperial Douma
raised the question of self-government for Latvia, M. Miliukoff,
then the all-powerful genius of the Progressive Coalition (_Bloc_),
expressed a hostile opinion on this question, and underlined it with
the following words: “Then it will be necessary to grant autonomy
even to the Samoyedes!” When, the same year, but already after
the Revolution, under the régime of Kerensky, the law concerning
self-government for the Baltic provinces was in elaboration, and
the Lettish deputies pointed out the absolute necessity of fusion,
compact and with well-defined boundaries, of all the territories
inhabited by the Letts, in a unity of self-government without which the
development of the Lettish civilisation would become difficult, the
Russian Government replied with a refusal, based on the inconvenience
of altering the existing departmental boundaries. More recently, in
the _Pall Mall Gazette_ of May 6th, 1919, M. C. Nabokoff, emphasising
his status as a Russian diplomatic representative in London, puts the
Letts and Esthonians in the same rank as the negroes of Texas. Their
leaning towards autonomy is described by him as a “self-determination
in a nursery,” and he regards the Letts and Esthonians as “victims
of Teutonic propaganda,” to which he, M. C. Nabokoff, will never and
in no circumstances submit. Consequently, as regards the promises of
the Russian Political Conference and the assurances of M. Mandelstam,
we have testimonies of the representatives of the different Russian
political groups at different periods in their different situations,
before the Revolution, after the Revolution, and after the second
Revolution; testimonies, thoughtless perhaps, and ill-calculated, but
so much the more sincere.
However, the “Russian diplomatic representative in London,” who, from
the service of the Tzarist government, has gone over, without much
effort, to that of the government represented by M. Mandelstam--after
having acquired a fuller knowledge of Texas, and even without this,
will be quite willing to change his views about the Letts and the
Esthonians in accordance with the views and intentions of his new
chiefs. No doubt M. Miliukoff, who has been able to master his
antipathy to Germany, will, for reasons of necessity, vanquish also his
aversion for the self-government of Latvia. But how can the Lettish
people, or the Peace Conference as it decides the fate of nations, be
assured that in the future and under new conditions, Messrs. Nabokoff
and Miliukoff will not reconvert M. Mandelstam, Admiral Koltchak, etc.,
along with themselves and the Russian Political Conference? Can one
expect the Lettish people or the Peace Conference to have faith in
their word when the Russian groups themselves have not full confidence
in one another?
Kerensky and his colleagues do not believe a bit in the promises of
Admiral Koltchak in regard to the convening of the Constituent Assembly
on a democratic basis. M. A. N. Briantchaninoff categorically rejects
M. Kerensky. M. Miliukoff, as it appears, professes no confidence in
the Constituent Assembly presided over by V. Tchernoff, and Admiral
Koltchak even shoots its members, which crime M. Schreider will never
forgive him. If there exists such a complete mistrust among the Russian
groups in regard to one another, if people who know the valuable
qualities of their fellow-countrymen release floods of accusations on
one another, what faith is it possible to have, I will not say in the
sincerity of their promises, but in the possibility of fulfilling them?
IMPOSSIBILITY OF A RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Besides personal confidence or mistrust, there are also much deeper
reasons of an objective kind which clearly show that the promises
of the Russian groups are, in spite of their good will, absolutely
unrealisable. One would need to be imbued with an absolute Bolshevist
disregard for the laws of historical continuity to admit that Russia,
by the mere force of a decree and solely by the good will of honest
people, will straightway pass from being a country subject to Tzarist
despotism and unaccustomed to the respect of rights, of personality,
and of nationalities, to a régime of equality of rights and justice
for all. There are no big jumps in History; and if they are attempted,
they are paid for grievously. The proof of this is afforded by the
happenings in Russia, which, it was boasted, had passed without
bloodshed from the autocratic régime of the Tzar to the “freest régime
in the world”--the Lvov-Kerensky régime; but streams of blood and
unheard-of cruelties have followed. Russia has fallen to ruins under
the despotic régime of Lenin and Trotsky.
HISTORICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF AN ALL-RUSSIAN FEDERATION
The history of centuries, customs and habits, rooted usages and
popular psychology are much more effectual than the best intentions
and decrees, which in the most favourable circumstances can only bring
about an external change. But under the mask of the latter the Past
continues to exist. We have already shown that in the proposal itself
of the Russian Political Conference, under a new phraseology, there is
concealed at the bottom the psychology of the Tzarist bureaucracy, of
which the Russian Political Conference has not succeeded in freeing
itself. If the old psychology is so sturdy in the minds of the best
sons of Russia, who are accustomed to direct themselves according to
the best theoretical conceptions, and who have been brought up in
the atmosphere of European ideas, what then can be expected from the
over-excited instincts of ignorant masses reared in utter contempt of
another’s personality and rights?
It is certain that the rebirth of Russia will coincide with an
extraordinary upheaval of the nationalist wave, a quite natural
upheaval after the humiliation of national dignity suffered by Russia,
an upheaval of which all that is foreign and non-Russian will be
the inevitable victim. This wave will clear the ground for Messrs.
Mandelstam, Sazonoff, Kerensky, Schreider, etc. M. C. Nabokoff will
incontestably allow himself to be carried away by that wave, and if
Admiral Koltchak and General Denikin do not, at least those that will
come after them, perhaps M. Briantchaninoff, will benefit by it.
A COMMON CIVILISATION, INDISPENSABLE TO A FEDERATION, DOES NOT
EXIST
What will be the effect of this Chauvinist wave on the All-Russian
Federation planned by the Russian groups, and composed of a series of
national States? In accordance with the laws of reaction, the Russian
nationalist upheaval will call forth a similar movement in the other
nationalities of the Russian Federation. Besides, these peoples are
even now in different stages of civilisation. They are being besought
from various directions, and the exasperation of the national feeling
in each of them will set up another and a still more sensitive
difference. There will not be that spiritual community without which a
free co-existence is inconceivable. This spiritual community did not
exist under the Tzarist régime, which however tried to create it by
enforced russification, going even so far as to prohibit the use of the
mother-alphabet and the public use of the mother-language, and ordering
that teaching in the elementary schools should be given in Russian to
children who did not understand a word of it. By such proceedings, a
kind of spiritual community among the peoples of Russia has indeed been
created; no one doubts it--there is unanimous opposition against such
means of furthering Russian civilisation.
No harmony of civilisation could exist, even in the projected
All-Russian Federation. Within its limits there would be nations which,
owing to favourable geographical situation and greater activity, have
long led the intensive life of western civilisation; and there would
also be peoples which are as yet in the first stage of civilisation.
For instance, what harmony is it possible to imagine as existing
between the Letts and the Samoyedes of M. Miliukoff, or between the
Esthonians and the Fetishists of Siberia? Russia is populated by
nations unable to understand one another, not only on account of the
difference of language, but also because of the contrasting customs
and habits, ideas, religious creeds, and popular psychology. No one of
these nationalities possesses such a strong preponderance in the matter
of numbers and civilisation, nor such powerful influence, that the
other peoples should submit to it of their own free will.
M. Victoroff-Toporoff finds (_Pages Modernes_, No. 1, April, 1919,
p. 24) that there is something which unites all the nationalities
of Russia--“the great intellectual force of the people of Greater
Russia,” which through the medium of masterpieces of the famous
Russian teachers and writers, has spread broadcast among all the
peoples of Russia. It is certain that no one will try to minimise
the importance of Russian literature, nor dispute the place which is
its due among the literatures of the world. But Russian literature
by itself is not yet world-literature, and the literature of other
nations as well has exercised an enormous influence on the peoples of
Russia. For instance, the influence of the French masters on Lettish
culture is far stronger than that of Russian art. But apart from this,
each nationality detached from Russia has its national literature,
which we all admit does not perhaps possess great masterpieces like
Russian literature, but has nevertheless its individual character, and
consequently stands nearer and dearer to its people and is capable of
greater influence on it than all the masterpieces of foreign art.
The All-Russian Federation has no common basis for its diverse members
in the field of civilisation. Consequently, there are two courses open
to it:--either to give to each people the liberty of development, in
which case the nationalities would very soon disperse intellectually in
all directions; or to revive the russifying centralist tendencies, the
likelihood of which is made evident by the expected rising of Russian
chauvinism. In both cases there remains nothing of the Federation.
THE ECONOMIC PROBLEM OF A FEDERATED RUSSIA
If between the peoples of Russia there are no interests in common as
regards intellectual culture, there is still less in common in the
economic relationships of the different parts of Russia.
It is well known that Russia, since the ministries of Vishnegradsky
and Witte, leaned more and more consciously towards the protectionist
system; and having created the autonomous Customs tariff of 1893,
leaned towards the creation Of a self-supporting economic unit. This
policy was based on balancing the agricultural interests on the one
side and the industrial interests on the other. Industry was protected
at the expense of agriculture, but without exceeding the limits which
allowed the world’s markets to be preserved for Russian agricultural
products, for otherwise this would have led to the destruction of
Russia’s commercial equilibrium. This was a quite reasonable policy,
and indispensable from the point of view of a one and indivisible
Russia with an economic system completely centralised. And this policy,
supposing its necessity, must be reverted to in a reunited Russia.
But it is also quite clear that to the interests of this policy,
indispensable to a self-sufficient economic unit, important interests
of the different parts of Russia have been sacrificed. For instance,
the corn-growing central provinces of Russia have lost the English
market, with difficulty retaining the much less profitable market in
Germany.
On the other hand, Latvia, in no way interested in the export of
cereals, was obliged, in order to assist the Russian grain export,
and in virtue of the commercial treaties concluded between Russia and
Germany in 1894 and 1904, to submit to concessions in regard to German
industry which were incompatible with her own industrial interests.
By the case of Finland, it is possible to form an idea of the results
of such an economic system. From the importation of Russian corn,
Finland passed to the importation of German and American flour;
instead of Russian sugar she used German. In return the products of
Russian industry have not been able to conquer the Finnish market, in
view of the impossibility of their competition with German products.
Finland, having Customs frontiers with Russia, was able to avoid the
too disadvantageous consequences for her of that Russian economic
policy which sacrificed local economic interests to a centralised
economic system for Russia. If there had not been Customs frontiers
between Finland and Russia, Finland would have had to pay much dearer
for her bread and to purchase industrial products at a much higher
price. The other parts of Russia, not enjoying economic autonomy, have
not been able to avoid the disastrous consequences of the Russian
policy as Finland has done.
Consequently, the founders of Federated Russia will have to solve the
following question: Must we revert to a centralised policy and neglect
the local interests of the different parts of Russia, or must we grant
the right of an autonomous economic policy to the different members of
the Federation? In the former case, there would remain very little of
the “free co-existence of the peoples forming part of it on principles
of autonomy and federation.” From this point of view the nationalities
would be less favoured than Finland, which, as is well known, was far
from feeling outside the danger of Russian pretensions. If, on the
contrary, the founders of the Federated Republic of Russia propose to
give to the various States the right of an autonomous economic policy,
then the Federation will very soon fall to pieces, for the economic
interests of the different States tend in different directions, and
economic interests are much more powerful than historical memories.
The economic problem will therefore be solved either to the
advantage of a Russia which supports herself, but is at the same
time centralised, or to the advantage of the independence of the
nationalities which have separated themselves from Russia. In either
case there is no place for federation!
THE ALL-RUSSIAN FEDERATION FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW
There still remains to be elucidated the project of an All-Russian
Federation from the point of view of constitutional law, _i.e._, the
possibility of creating, with the aid of the nationalities of Russia, a
durable State on the basis of federation.
The definite and authorised answer to this question was given by the
late M. Kokoshkin, professor at the University of Moscow, in his
report (Summer, 1917) to the Congress of the Constitutional Democratic
Party on the subject of the desirable form for the future State of
Russia. He proved the utter impossibility, from the point of view of
constitutional law, of reconstructing Russia on a federative basis; and
the Congress of the Party entirely subscribed to his opinion. There
remains little to say after the view of Professor Kokoshkin.
All federations of States can work on one condition only, viz., that
there is one among them which has the power, owing to its importance
and influence, to support and unite all the other members. Germany
gives us an instance of this law. First, in 1866, Bismarck was
compelled to exclude Austria by force from the German Confederation,
on account of her competition with Prussia, so that he could, in 1871,
gather round him the German Federation, in which Prussia, both by
her real force and in accordance with constitutional law, became the
predominant partner. And the Prussian spirit guided Germany. Prussia
was the cause of Germany’s extraordinary development, and also of her
unprecedented defeat. The contrary is instanced by Austria-Hungary,
which tottered in proportion as German Austria increasingly lost her
preponderance.
Can one reckon on finding, among the nationalities of Russia, a member
of the projected Federation with enough authority, from the point of
view of constitutional law, to unite and support the other members
of the Federation? To this question Professor Kokoshkin has given a
negative and categorical reply, and we must abide by this opinion.
Evidently, the section of the Great-Russians could, in the first place,
lay claim to such a part. But they count only 65 millions out of the
180 millions forming the population of Russia. Besides, this section is
far from having preponderant economic importance, and it has remained,
in the matter of civilisation, well behind the other members of the
projected All-Russian Federation. If the leading part is given to this
section--a majority of votes in the Council of the Federation, for
instance--it would be a great injustice to the other nationalities,
and they would never consent to it; an otherwise senseless injustice,
because the section of the Great-Russians will evidently never be in a
position to perform the part assigned to them, nor could they perform
it except by using physical force, _i.e._, by re-establishing the
policy of centralist absolutism, the policy which has sustained so
complete a defeat, and that not only by a mere historical chance.
If there is no directing centre, it is clear that the All-Russian
Federation will fall to pieces on the morrow of its foundation on
paper, for there will be no power in a position to reconcile the
divergent interests of the various members of the Federation. Georgia,
for instance, will never consent to vote credits for the development
of Northern railway systems. Latvia will give no contribution for the
construction of Black Sea ports; and Ukraine will not send her sons to
defend the Baltic Sea. The combination of these interests, so different
and so scattered, would only result in a State-structure so weak that
it would fall to pieces at the first serious blow.
Thus, from the point of view of constitutional law, we arrive at the
same conclusion to which the analysis of the tendencies of civilisation
and economic life led us--that the All-Russian Federation will
transform itself either into a centralised State maintained by force,
or it will divide itself into independent States.
There is no place for a Federation in Russia! Neither the land nor
the men upon it were made for it; this is proved by History. The
history of Russia in her beginnings shows us a certain number of
principalities, independent of one another, and on the whole not
subject to any authority. Owing to the efforts of the more powerful
princes, and under the duress of the Tartar yoke, the principalities
united, not into a Federation, but into a centralised State; and each
principality, deprived of its independence, did not become a member of
a Federation, but passed into another State.
The same course was followed in regard to the contiguous and
neighbouring countries conquered by Russia.
Not only Finland and Poland, but also the Baltic, Ukraine, and Georgia
were united to Russia, and received from her at least the guarantee
of their special rights and of their separate position in the Russian
State; but Russia did not keep her word in regard to all these States,
but had them all subject to a centralised policy, after having
destroyed, or attempted to destroy, all the individuality of these
countries. And this is in no way by mere chance. The Russian plain,
having almost no natural divisions, is not a favourable field for the
creation of a Federation, and the Russian soul, understanding no _via
media_ between “all” and “nothing,” is not the cement with which it
would be possible to build a Federation always based on the limitation
of one will by other wills, and on a clever and experienced blend of
the different inclinations.
THE LEANING OF THE PEOPLES OF RUSSIA TOWARDS INDEPENDENCE
Not being able to put their trust in the All-Russian Federation and not
finding therein enough guarantee for their natural rights, the peoples
of Russia have separated themselves from her and are building up their
independent national life. This is what is rousing the opposition of
the representatives of the Russian groups. The grounds for it are
given by M. Mandelstam in several pamphlets published by the Russian
Political Conference.
ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE OF SEPARATION FROM RUSSIA
First of all, M. Mandelstam finds that the independence to which the
nationalities detached from Russia are aspiring is disadvantageous
to these peoples themselves: “So they would merely find in their
independence a satisfaction of their national vanity, too heavily paid
for by the loss of their economic prosperity.” (_Memorandum on the
Delimitation of the Rights of States and Nations_, p. 79.) Concerning
Latvia in particular, M. Mandelstam foresees that the commerce of her
ports will enormously suffer, for they will lose the benefit of the
Russian transit trade. Agriculture, which will lose the Russian market,
will equally suffer from it; her industry will be deprived of fuel
and raw materials (p. 60). Finally, Latvia will not be in a position
to guarantee “the reimbursement of the enormous amounts spent for the
development of her economic prosperity and for her defence” (p. 79).
SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS BETWEEN LATVIA AND RUSSIA
Let us take the last point first, viz., the mutual settlement of
accounts between Latvia and Russia.
It seems that here M. Mandelstam wishes either to frighten us or simply
to “overcharge” us.
Now from the statements of the Ministry of Finance it is evident that
Latvia has given yearly to the State a surplus of revenue over and
above the expenditure, which is valued at about 30 million roubles,
after having paid out of her own revenues all the expenses of the State
within the boundaries of Latvia, including expenditure on numerous
institutions, on strong armies and frontier guards, etc. In how many
yearly instalments does M. Mandelstam intend to repay that surplus to
Latvia?
It is absolutely impossible to understand of what expenses for the
defence of Latvia M. Mandelstam is speaking. Latvia’s share in the
State Budget, including army and navy, as we have already seen, is paid
off with a surplus for the Russian Budget. Of what other expenditure
then is M. Mandelstam speaking? Of war expenses for a defence which was
a failure and brought Latvia nothing but destruction and ruins? Who
would pay for a task so badly done? And if that is the expense referred
to, what is the cost M. Mandelstam puts on the senseless and aimless
devastation carried out in Latvia by Russian armies? They are very well
depicted in the exhaustive work by M. J. Sahlit, member of the Imperial
Douma.[2]
Another indiscreet question: At what rate of exchange does M.
Mandelstam suggest paying the mass of Russian credit-notes with which
Latvia was deluged, and against which the Russian Government has
received goods of a fixed weight and at a fixed price?
If a reckoning is set up--for conscience’ sake, naturally--Latvia will
have to receive from Russia amounts which will be a considerable
balance in the establishment of her own finances.
ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF LATVIA
Concerning the economic interests of Latvia, it is scarcely probable
that M. Mandelstam need defend them against the Letts themselves. This
time M. Mandelstam has evidently gone to unnecessary trouble. If the
economic interests of Latvia so weightily necessitate her reunion with
Russia, the Letts, being accustomed to calculate quite dispassionately,
will soon see their advantage and will be anxious to adhere to the
All-Russian Federation projected by M. Mandelstam of their own free
will. Consequently, why does M. Mandelstam insist on establishing
Latvia’s happiness by force and compulsion? Is it possible he has
forgotten that he who tries to prove too much proves nothing?
Besides, M. Mandelstam appears to be ill-informed on the economic
life of Latvia. It is not true that Latvia needs the Russian market
for her agricultural products. It will not be difficult for her to
find a more profitable market in the West. It is equally not true
that Latvia will be deprived of the transit trade of Russia, for her
ports are the most convenient transit points for Russia; and Latvia,
for the purpose of increasing and developing this transit trade, will
do her best to further her own interests. M. Mandelstam is equally
mistaken as regards Lettish industry. Fuel, in the shape of coal, has
been supplied to her up to the present not by Russia, but principally
by England, and Russian iron ore could easily be replaced by Swedish.
Generally speaking, one may say that Latvia, being in a better economic
situation than Russia, can rightly hope that the latter will look for
normal economic relations with Latvia, and it would have been more
comprehensive and more natural if M. Mandelstam had only taken up the
defence of Russia’s economic interests.
ASPIRATIONS OF THE LETTS