Vahur Made

Estonian Government-in-Exile:
a controversial project of state continuation

This article asks what was the position of the Estonian Government-in-Exile in international context? Why it was created and why the same option was not used by the Latvians and Lithuanians? What was the position of USA, UK and Scandinavian countries vis-à-vis that kind of institution? And what was the interrelationship between the Government-in-Exile and Estonian diplomatic missions in the USA and UK?

A short history of the establishment and activities of the Estonian Government-in-Exile

In 1943, under the German occupation, the National Committee of the Republic of Estonia was established in Tallinn. The Committee represented the Estonian political elite (politicians, state officials, diplomats) which had ruled the country before the Soviet annexation in June 1940. It was led by Jüri Uluots, Estonian Prime Minister in 1938-1940. Members of the Committee recognised Uluots as the last ‘constitutional’ head of Estonian government giving the fact that the Soviet-installed Johannes Vares Barbarus Communist government (June-August 1940) was illegal and in breach with the 1938 Estonian constitution.
According to the 1938 Constitution the Prime Minister was obliged to function as an Acting President when the President was unable to fulfill his duties. Estonian President Konstantin Päts (1934-1940) was arrested in 1940 by the Soviet army and deported to Russia. Uluots proclaimed himself Acting President in April 1944. On September 18, 1944 Uluots, suffering of cancer, named Otto Tief the Deputy Prime Minister and formed a Government which consisted of 11 members selected out of the members of the National Council.  Among them was August Rei, the future President-in-Exile.
The Tief government did not include Alfred Maurer, the pre-1940 deputy chairman of the second chamber of the Estonian parliament and future main adversary of Rei in exile and founder of the parallel government-in-exile.
Uluots left Estonia to Sweden on September 20, 1944. He died in Stockholm in January 1945.
On September 20, 1944 Otto Tief government proclaimed Estonian state restored. Tief used the interregnum that was created by the withdrawal of German troops from and the advance of the Red Army toward Tallinn. His government never managed to take full control of the Estonian capital. Military units loyal to Tief clashed both with Germans and Russians. On September 22, 1944 Red Army took Tallinn under its control. Members of Tief government fled Tallinn. Only some members of Tief government, August Rei among them, managed to escape to Sweden. All the rest were arrested by Soviet authorities, executed or deported to Siberia. Tief survived the 10-years inprisonment in Siberia and died in Ahja, Estonia, in 1976.
It is clear that Tief government could not actually restore the de facto independence of Estonia. They operated underground and even in Tallinn they never had true control. Their military units, commanded by Admiral Johan Pitka, were too small and ill-equipped to really challenge either Germans or Russians. In addition Estonian units fighting in the ranks of Wehrmacht were completeley destroyed by the Red Army by that time.
However, the activities of Uluots in 1943-1944 and the formation of Tief government launched the processes that in 1953 lead to the establishment of two contesting Estonian governments-in-exile. The real reason behind such contest was strained relations between different Estonian politicians. However, formally the essence of the debate was based on the 1938 Estonian Constitution and on the different ways this document foresaw for the election of Estonian President and the appointment of a government in emergency situations.
Firstly the Constitution ruled that in case both President and Prime Minister are unable to govern the oldest member of the government should take the both responsibilities. In 1945 President Konstantin Päts was arrested in Russia, Prime Minister Uluots was dying and Deputy Prime Minister Tief was arrested by Russians as well. After Uluots died on January 9, 1945 Rei, being the oldest member of Tief government, declared that he had taken the responsibilities of the Acting President. Rei was supported by the members of the Tief government who had managed to escape to Sweden. He also enjoyed the support of the majority of Estonian politicians residing in Sweden.
But this support was not overall and did not reach beyond the Estonian community in Sweden. There were another group of Estonian politicians, led by Alfred Maurer, who pointed at the need to arrange the elections of  Estonian President and argued that according to the 1938 Constitution an Electoral Body consisting of politicians and higher civil servants  should be convened.  Maurer’s ideas were mostly supported by the Estonian communities in North America, Germany and Australia.
First Estonian Government-in-Exile was established on January 12, 1953 in Oslo by August Rei. Second one was established shortly afterwards on March 2, 1953 in Augustdorf, Germany, by Alfred Maurer. The second government held no meetings and ceased to exist after Maurer’s death in September 1954. Rei’s government emerged as the only Estonian Government-in-Exile. After Rei died in 1963 the following persons held the title of the Acting President and formed the governments-in-exile: Aleksander Warma (in office 1963-1970), Tõnis Kint (1970-1990) and Heinrich Mark (1990-1992). Between 1953-1992 alltogether five Estonian governments-in-exile were formed.
Meetings of the governments-in-exile took place in Sweden. Most of the government  members lived on the Swedish soil. The activities were rather low-profile. Governments-in-exile issued political declarations condemning Soviet occupation of Estonia and other Baltic states. They also tried to deal with technical matters like Estonian citizenship and passport issues.
On October 8, 1992 Heinrich Mark addressed Estonian Parliament with a speech and thereafter handed over his ‘creditentials’ to newly elected Estonian President Lennart Meri (in office 1992-2001). This ended the existence of  the Estonian Government-in-Exile.
Those who read the documents, memoirs and articles related to the establishment and activities of the Estonian Government-in-Exile soon grasp a strange feeling. It seems like the whole problem was purely legal and the outcome of the legal debates inside the Estonian exile community mattered most when the decisions of establishing the Estonian Government-in-Exile were made. Wider dimensions, international context, does not emerge. From the previous writing the following questions remain unanswered:
1) Why the three Baltic communities – Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians -  did not act together and did not develop a joint position on the establishment of governments-in-exile? It remains absolutely unclear whether Estonian political leaders in exile did have any discussions on that topic with the leaders of Latvian and Lithuanian communities.
2) Why the politicians behind the government(s)-in-exile did not cooperate with Estonian diplomatic representatives in New York and London? It seems that political leaders of the Estonian exile, often prominent politicians or state officials in pre-1940 Estonia, developed feeling that they had taken their former civil service and state apparatus together with them to exile. This notion, which also can be called ‘states-in-exile’-phenomenon, allowed to treat the process of establishing the Government(s)-in-exile as a ‘domestic’ process. Not a direct concern of diplomatic representatives and not something that should have been consulted with the countries supporting the policy of non-recogniton of the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states.

Diplomats and politicians
For the Estonian diplomatic representatives the Government-in-Exile was a topic of serious discussion. They also monitored the opinions of Washington and London on that respect.
It seems that Johannes Kaiv, Estonian Consul-General in New York (in office 1939-1965), was originally supporting the idea of Estonian Government-in-Exile. In July 1952 Kaiv visited Stockholm where he delivered a speech in the meeting of Estonian Committee, a leading organisation of the Swedish Estonians. Kaiv mentioned that a Government-in-Exile was a still unused option of Estonian resistance movement against the Soviet Union that was offered by the (pre-1940) Estonian constitution. Kaiv added that if such a government will be created it should enjoy the support of the whole Estonian community in exile. Otherwise it would not have been possible to guarantee international, particularly US recognition for that government.  
It is unclear whether Kaiv’s Stockholm statement in July 1952 facilitated the establishment of the Government-in-Exile. Probably yes. In fact Kaiv supported Maurer’s position. This may have activated Maurer and consequently also Rei. Competition between two groups intensified. On January 2, 1953 Maurer and his supporters held a meeting in Stockholm where it was decided to convene the Electoral Body. Knowing that Rei decided to act quickly. Together with his supporters he travelled to Oslo and proclaimed the Government-in-Exile. Maurer’s response in Augustdorf came two months later.
What is clear is that Kaiv did not manage to overcome the friction inside the exile community. This friction that led to the establishment of two governments-in-exile was clearly wisible in exile media debates and was immideately noticed by US and other foreign services. In US Department of State (DS) the emerging friction was observed with concern and it was decided not to support any kind of Estonian Government-in-Exile. This position was communicated to Kaiv.
During late 1952 and early 1953 Kaiv had several conversations in DS where the issue of the Estonian Government-in-Exile was touched upon. DS expressed clearly its negative stand towards the creation of such an institution. Kaiv was told that the US Government does not recognise any Government-in-Exile.  When Rei’s government was established in Oslo DS asked Kaiv not to recognise it. DS also expressed its regret that the Government-in-Exile question has splitted the Estonian community in exile. Kaiv was made to understand that this was actually the main obstacle that prevented US from recognising the Rei government.  DS had been warned also by the US embassy in Stockholm not to grant recognition to any of the Estonian governments-in-exile. The embassy observed with great concern the subsequent establishment of the Maurer government which threatened to split the Estonian exile community even more.
Additional fears emerged during 1953-1954. Both in DS and in Estonian diplomatic missions in New York and London it was feared that the establishment of a Government-in-Exile would undermine the position of all the Estonian diplomatic missions. This fear was echoed by the DS  but also by the former Estonian ambassador in London August Torma (in office 1934-1971). Contrary to Kaiv who originally (ie in 1952-1953) shared some optimism in Government-in-Exile question Torma rejected the idea from the very beginning.
In fact Torma’s position in London was much weaker than Kaiv’s position in New York. British Foreign Office did not recognise the existence of Estonian embassy in London and Torma’s position as an ambassador. Since 1942 Torma was merely granted by the Foreign Office the status of a person who enjoyed individual diplomatic privileges but was not recognised as a diplomatic representative of a foreign country.  Torma was afraid that if he and the (former) embassy in London should subordinate to the Government-in-Exile this would give even further legal pretexts to Foreign Office to weaken his personal position.
Torma justified his standing by associating with the arguments of the (former) Latvian ambassador to London Karlis Zarinð (in office 1933-1963). In February 1953 Zarinð mentioned Torma his complete opposition to establishment of Latvian Government-in-Exile. According to Zarinð Foreign Office refused to recognise governments-in exile and had stated him that in case Zarinð subordinates to such a government he will immideately lose  all diplomatic priviliges, even those attached to his individual person.  According to Torma also the former Lithuanian ambassador in London shared the same opinion. In March 1953 Torma clearly expressed to Kaiv that he can not recognise the Government-in-Exile as this would weaken or even destroy the fragile diplomatic position he had in London. 
Torma’s position was accepted by Kaiv during 1953. In October 1954 Kaiv delivered a speech to the Estonian National Committee in the USA where he stated that the legal continuity of the Estonian state rests upon the US non-recognition policy and that the Consulate-General in New York and other diplomatic missions are the only embodiments of that continuity. In Kaiv’s revised opinion the Government-in-Exile could never become as legitimated and influential institution of continuity as the diplomatic missions. 
In fact there existed some fear in New York that political circles behind the Maurer government could move its seat from Germany to Canada as in March 1953 Alfred Maurer named Johan Holberg from Toronto the Deputy Prime-Minister of his Government-in-Exile. The perspective that a government-in-exile may be seated in Toronto was clearly disturbing for the New York diplomats.
Kaiv’s position created Consulate-General’s attitude towards the Government-in-Exile. Kaiv’s successor Ernst Jaakson (in office 1965-1991) carried further the policy of never recognising the Government-in-Exile. Jaakson was in opinion that Latvian and Lithuanian embassies in the USA could operate much more effectively just because they did not have competition and criticism from the governments-in-exile. 

Attempts to create Latvian and Lithuanian governments-in-exile
Both Latvian and Lithuanian exile communities attempted to create governments-in-exile.
In case of Latvia all attempts to create a government-in-exile emerging from the Latvian community were strongly opposed by Zarinð who enjoyed the position of the head of the Latvian exiled diplomatic service. Zarinð was appointed the head of Latvian diplomatic service by the last Latvian government on May 18, 1940  and this position was also recognised by the US State Department. Zarinð did not hesitate to communicate his dislike of Government-in-Exile ideas to Washington. He briefed both the State Department and the Latvian embassy in Washington. It may well be that the anti-Government-in-Exile rethorics by which Kaiv was met in DS actually originated from Zarinð.
The Lithuanian exile community had probably best political conditions for the creation of the Government-in-Exile. In June 1940 Lithuanian President Antanas Smetona fled the country together with a number of leading politicians and state officials. In the Kybartai Declaration given by Smetona shortly before he left Lithuania the possibility of establishing the Lithuanian Government-in-Exile is also mentioned. However, the US Government while granting Smetona and his family entering visas in September 1940 declared that it will not recognise Smetona in the capacity of a head of state or a member of government.  This was clearly the main reason that prevented Smetona from creating a government-in-exile.
In 1941 the underground ‘government’ was formed in Lithuania. Members of this ‘government’ were either arrested by Nazi authorities or fled to Germany in 1944 and settled Würzburg-Regensburg-Munich region which soon became the US zone of occupation. In 1945 politicians involved in that ‘government’ formed the Supreme Committee for the Liberation of Lithuania which in its communication with the US occupation administration in Germany called itself ‘the Lithuanian Government’ and asked to be treated as a legitimate political institution reprsenting Lithuania and the Lithuanian people in Germany.  In 1954 the Committee addressed DS with a request to recognise itself as the Lithuanian Government-in-Exile. However, Washington’s response was rejective following the similar response made already to Kaiv in 1953.  The argumentation created by Zarinð was very much present also in the Lithuanian case.

Norwegian and Swedish positions
Norway saw the creation of Estonian Govermnet-in-exile in Oslo as a purely private business. After the Rei government was established the news about it was published in Swedish Estonian-language newspapers  and in major Swedish newspapers . Norwegian Foreign Ministry explained to the Norwegian press that the event was them a total surprise. The ministry people said they read the news from the newspapers first time.  Still, this argument may sound doubtful as for leading Swedish politicians knew about the plans of Rei group before it travelled to Oslo (see footnote 24).
Anyhow the Norwegian MFA’s comment was strongly stressing that the established ‘government’ did not have any political or public significance. “We can not ban private meetings. We can not stop people if they want to establish themselves a government”, Norwegian MFA deskofficer R¿der explained to the Verdens Gang newspaper.  
Swedish response was considerably different. On January 31, 1953 the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs made an official declaration where it stated that it will not recognise the established Estonian Government-in-Exile and stressed that the Estonian community in Sweden (all members of Rei government lived in Sweden) did not have the right to carry out political activities.  Such a response clearly classified the establishment of Estonian Government-in-Exile in Oslo as a political and public activity. It was most probably made upon the request of the Estonian politicians involved with the Rei government.
And still, why was the government-in-exile established in Oslo, not in Stockholm. Participants of the event have later given various explanations. Rei explained that he selected Olso because in Norway, unlike in Sweden, the exiles/refugees could carry out political activities.  Still, it was clear that Sweden did not have any intention to repress the members of the Rei government or any other subsequent government-in-exile. It seems that the main rational behind Rei’s option for Oslo was to give Swedish MFA a better chance to see the established ‘overnment’as a political institution. No matter if without recognition and legitimacy.

Re-established Republic of Estonia and the Government-in-Exile
The independence of the Republic of Estonia was re-established in August 1991. From the relations that emerged between ‘official’ Tallinn and the Government-in-Exile one can hardly see any coherent legal approach.
Tallinn clearly prioritised the Consulate-General in New York. The Consulate-General immideately became an integral part of the re-established Estonian foreign service. Ernst Jaakson was nominated both the ambassador to the USA and to the United Nations.
However, Tallinn understood the importance of the Government-in-Exile in light of the need to accommodate the identities of the Estonian community in Sweden.
A somehow obscure political manouver was made. The post-1991 Tallinn made something that the Consulate-General in New York and other Estonian diplomatic missions in exile had refused to do during the Cold War. It indirectly recognised the Government-in-Exile.
The last Acting President-in-Exile Heinrich Mark was officially invited to Tallinn to address Estonian Parliament (Riigikogu). On October 8, 1992 Mark ‘handed ower the creditentials’ of the Government-in–Exile to the newly elected Estonian President Lennart Meri. From his side Meri issued a statement expressing the gratitude to Mark and the Government-in-Exile for ‘keeping the legal continuity’ of the Estonian state.  According to Mälksoo Meri saw the symbolic extra value the Government-in-Exile could offer to the Estonian presidential institution. The Acting Presidents from Uluots to Mark were seen as a legal bridge from Päts to Meri.  The legal existence of Estonian presidential institution was not discontinued by the Soviet occupation. At least this is the message of the official web site of the President of Estonia.
According to Stefan Talmon the recogniton of a government-in-exile involves ‘subjective and objective components’. When the ‘subjective compoenent’ is the recognition itself, a juridical act, then by ‘objective component’ Talmon means that a government-in-exile has to be treated equally to the government-in-situ.
Estonian Government-in-Exile did manage to achieve neither of those ‘components’. Therefore it is not surprising that its role in restoration of the Estonian independence was very marginal. What really counted was the will of the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian people to express their desire for independence, support it received from western democracies and a unique opportunity that emerged together with the collapse of the Soviet system. Exile can preserve symbols but exile alone is unable to restore symbols to power.