ESTONIA’S INDEPENDENCE.

Putaruru Press, Volume VI, Issue 232, 12 April 1928, Page 3

ESTONIA’S INDEPENDENCE.

A TRANSIT STATE. Estonia —that appears to be now the accepted spelling— does not figure largely on the European map, but it is considered important enough to be the recipient of Britain’s congratulations on her attainment of the tenth anniversary of her independence Estonia is one of the sitlallest of the European members of the League of Nations. Her position on the Baltic of ice-free harbours makes her a “transit State” standing very much in the same relation to Russia as Holland or Belgium to Europe. The Ests in . the Middle Ages were a maritime race and possessed an ancient culture Conquered by the' Danes, they came successively under the sway of the Germans, Poles, Swedes and Russians. In April, 1917, after the first Revolution, the Russian Provisional Government declared Estonia an autonomous province, and the reins of power passed from the “landtags” of the Barons, who represented the dominant caste of a German overlordship of longstanding, to a National Council on a democratic basis. There was no demand at this time for separation from but when, with the second Revolution, came the Bolshevist terror, this Council declared Estonia to be an nidependent republic, The danger of a Communist endeavor to establish a dictatorship by the same methods as obtained in Russia was averted by the German military occupation which though harsh and repressive, saved the country from invasion. With the withdrawal of the Germans in December, 1918, Estonia became involved in a serious struggle with the Bolshevist armies, but they were finally repulsed after twelve months fighting, with the aid of reinforcements from Finland and naval support by Great Britain. By the Treaty of Dorpat in January, ’920 Russia recognised Estonia’s independence, and granted her a concession for a railway system to Moscow, receiving in return a site in the harbour of Reval, which was agreed to be a free port. Both sides agreed to put no transit dues on each other’s commerce, and to refuse passage to troops or munitions intended for use against either party. Though recognised by Russia, Estonia did not at once secure full recognition from the Western Powers. It was questioned whether national sentiment in Russia would always tolerate the secession of the Baltic Provinces. At the first Assembly of the League of Nations

Estonia with other Baltic States', applied for membership, but though their plea was not disputed the Assembly did not feel able to assume the obligations of Article X of the Covenant in their case. At the second Assembly, de jure” recognition having been meanwhile accorded by the Powers, Estonia! was admitted to membership. It is evident that on her capacity fos fulfilling the role of a “transit State,” while maintaining her own domestic harmony, the welfare of Estonia depends. Her leaders early recognised this, and declard it to be their essential aim on the one hand to give every facility for communication betwwen Russia and the outside world, and on the other to secure equitable treatment forall minorities. While a Baltic League, with a pact of mutual guarantee, of Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania appears to be postulated by the circumstances, all attempts at forming such a combination have so far failed, the chief reason being found in the policy of Moscow. Moscow has done its utmost since 1921 to keep the Baltic States apart from each other. It has been pointed out that if Moscow can succeed in making such breaches in the line of Baltic States as to render the formation of a League an impossibility the proof that this will offer that its repeated statement that Great Britaian had created an entente of the Baltic State against tne Soviet was nothing but a fiction will be no comfort tothe British, for the Baltic is undoubtedly a British interest of some magnitude, if