Estijos, Latvijos ir Lietuvos pripažinimas de facto ir de jure Norvegijoje 1918–1921 metais
| Author |
|---|
Grigaravičiūtė , Sandra |
| Date | Issue | Start Page | End Page |
|---|---|---|---|
2022 | 2(34) | 27 | 57 |
Remiantis publikuotais ir nepublikuotais Estijos, Latvijos, Lietuvos ir Norvegijos archyviniais šaltiniais bei lietuvių ir užsienio šalių istoriografija, straipsnyje analizuojamas Estijos, Latvijos ir Lietuvos pripažinimo de facto ir de jure procesas Norvegijoje ir jį stabdę ir skatinę veiksniai. Atliktas tyrimas svarbus tuo, kad jame pirmą kartą lietuvių kalba publikuojami Norvegijos Lietuvai suteikto pripažinimo de facto ir de jure tekstai, Estijai ir Latvijai suteikto pripažinimo de jure tekstai, atskleidžiami trijų Baltijos šalių tarptautinio pripažinimo Norvegijoje ir kitose Skandinavijos šalyse ypatumai. Trijų šalių pripažinimo procesų lyginamoji analizė leidžia pamatyti tarptautinės teisės nuostatų įgyvendinimo specifiką XX a. pirmojoje pusėje.
The object of this study is not only the process whereby Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were recognized de facto and de jure by Norway but also the factors that alternately slowed down and hastened this process. Accordingly the research embraces the period from February 12, 1918, when the Lithuanian National Council in Lausanne requested the recognition of Lithuanian independence, to October 4, 1921, when Norway granted de jure recognition to Lithuania as reported in a telegram sent by the Norwegian Foreign Affairs minister to the Lithuanian Foreign Affairs minister. The research is based on Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Norwegian published and unpublished archival sources and on Lithuanian and foreign historiography. Methods used include the “logical-analytical” method (applied to the semantic analysis of information provided by the content and the sources of documents in the Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, German, French, and English languages); the “synthetic” method (supplementing new information obtained from the sources with data making the rounds in historiography); the comparative method (comparing facts in Norwegian archives with historiographic facts); and the “descriptive”, “inductive”, and “interpretative” methods (reconstructing the intention and the meaning behind the source contents, with regard to the way the questions are phrased). The first section of the article evaluates the sources and the historiography devoted to an analysis of the process whereby from 1918 to 1921 Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were recognized by Norway. It reaches the conclusion that even if there is a sufficient quantity of available and/or published sources, two problems remain: the fragmentary nature of the information as well as the language barrier. Historiography in the English language does not solve these problems because a historian from a specific non-English speaking country is sometimes unable to take a multifaceted approach from a variety of perspectives to the object of research. The second part of the article is devoted to an analysis of the process whereby from 1918 to 1921 Estonia was recognized by Norway de facto and de jure. The analysis shows that Estonian representatives very adamantly sought a formal declaration of Norway’s recognition and persistently demanded an explanation concerning the circumstances under which the Norwegian government might do so. Representatives of Norway’s government attempted to make it clear to Estonia’s representatives abroad that Norway’s attitude differs from that of the Entente and that even the eight requests made by Estonians to recognize the independence of Estonia will not force Norway to make a decision for which the time has not yet come. The third part of the article reveals that in the matter of de facto and de jure recognition of Latvia it was much more important to the Latvian government from 1919 to 1921 to secure financial and intellectual support from the government of Norway rather than to establish de facto relations and to request recognition which the Latvians did not regard as a pressing issue. Accordingly the Norwegian government took its time in responding to the Latvian government’s official request to recognize Latvia de jure; coordinating its position with Denmark Norway did not plan to respond before the major powers in Paris actually decided to recognize both Latvia and Estonia de jure. The fourth section of the article discloses the fact that Lithuania started to request Norwegian recognition of its independence the earliest (on September 9, 1918), when it had as not as yet finished putting together its own government. On the other hand, the process of requesting Norwegian recognition also took the longest, because both sides were satisfied with the de facto relations entered into on January 23, 1919. Norway’s decision to recognize Lithuania de jure was prompted by the very active position of the government of Sweden, which was supported in this by Denmark, as well as Lithuania’s accession to membership in the League of Nations. The fifth part of the article discusses the factors that hindered or alternatively speeded up the process of recognizing the three Baltic States de facto and de jure by Norway. It turns out that for Norway, Sweden, and Denmark the biggest factor slowing down de jure recognition of the Baltics was the idea of an “indivisible Russia,” championed by the major powers, as well as the Scandinavian countries’ own territorial problems taken up by the League of Nations on which the Scandinavian governments had to take into account of the views of the big powers. In the case of Latvia an additional drawback was created by trade problems with Denmark which impeded recognition of both Latvia and Estonia, whereas Lithuania was negatively affected by its dispute with Poland over Vilnius. The recognition of Estonia and Latvia was eased by a decision the great powers made in Paris on January 26, 1921, while Lithuania was helped by its admission to the League of Nations on September 22, 1921.