SPONSORS AND CO-SPONSORS OF THE BALTIC STATES RESOLUTIONS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

*Co-sponsors of Representative Edward Derwinski's resolutions 165, 179, 189, 199, 216, 255,

1 Co-sponsors of Representative Samuel Stratton's resolutions 159, 183.

2 Co-sponsors of Representative Frank Annunzio's resolution 250.

LETTER AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES FROM JOSEPH GAILA, PRESIDENT, LITHUANIAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY OF THE U.S.A., INC., TO HON. THOMAS E. MORGAN

LITHUANIAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY OF THE U.S.A., INC.,
NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,
Philadelphia, Pa., April 28, 1975.

Hon. THOMAS E. MORGAN,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. MORGAN: Americans of Lithuanian descent are greatly disturbed and deeply concerned that, according to persistent press reports, the Secretary of State is inclined to recognize Soviet annexation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. That would be a drastic reversal of a well established United States policy of non-recognition of forcible incorporation of Baltic countries into the Soviet Union.

The Lithuanian American Community respectfully requests that you support one of several concurrent resolutions presently before the House of Representatives that urges continuation of the present policy of non-recognition of Soviet annexation of the Baltic countries or introduce a similar resolution of your own. We also would greatly appreciate your direct contact with the Secretary of State to express your concern about his policy proposals toward the Baltic question.

The Soviet Union occupied and forcibly annexed Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in 1940 during a Soviet territorial expansion based on the August 23 and September 28, 1939, infamous secret Molotov-Ribbentrop agreements with Nazi Germany. The United States government strongly condemned Soviet aggression against the Baltic states and refused to recognize this fraudulent and illegal annexation. Since then, succeeding administrations consistently upheld that position toward the Soviet occupation of the Baltic countries. The United States government also continues to recognize diplomatic representatives of the last independent governments of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia accredited to the United States.

The policy of non-recognition of incorporation is of great importance to the Baltic peoples since it provided valuable moral support in their determination to await their national independence. It also sustains and reinforces the Lithuanian people's friendly attitude toward the United States as a great nation that stands for freedon, justice and self-determination. Moreover, it has several important immediate effects. The uncertain international status of these nations discourages a great many Soviet citizens from settling in the Baltic countries. Thus it reduces the flow of colonists and considerably hinders Soviet genocidal policies of colonization, ethnic dilution, Russification and effective absorption of Baltic nations into the Soviet Union.

There are indications that this non-recognition of annexation has also had a restraining effect on Soviet repressive policies since their authorities have to consider the possibility that extreme measures of repression in the Baltic countries might not be regarded as an internal matter of the Soviet Union and could provoke protests in the United Nations and elsewhere.

Although Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are subjected to a protracted oppressive Soviet rule, during all those years since 1940 the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian peoples have never acquiesced to their fate, have never accepted Soviet rule as permanent or legitimate. The Lithuanian people expressed their determiniation to regain national freedom and independence in an insurrection against the Soviets on June 23, 1941, protracted guerrilla war of 1944-1952 and recently by self-immolations and demonstrations of 1972. In the spring and early summer of 1972 three Lithuanians immolated themselves in protest against Soviet occupation-one of them, a 19-year old student, Romas Kalanta, in front of a building in Kaunas where Lithuania's incorporation into the Soviet Union was proclaimed in 1940. After his funeral large scale demonstrations, strikes and riots erupted in Kaunas. They continued for two days, May 18 and 19, 1972, and the intensity of the riots approached an insurrection until special security troops brought from the Soviet Union suppressed them.

At the present time the national resistance movement in Lithuania continues to grow. Arrests and trials of resistance groups have become frequent events. The main burden of the national struggle is carried forward by the young generation of Lithuanians who were born under Soviet occupation. It is obvious that the Lithuanian people are not reconciled to the loss of their freedom. Those who maintain that reality must be recognized should not forget that although the Soviet rule in the Baltic countries is a fact, persistent resistance against that rule is also an important and pertinent facet of reality. While that resistance continues recognition of annexation would betray those who struggle and suffer for freedom. In the long run the struggle of the Baltic peoples for their freedom and national independence is not so hopeless as it might appear at first glance. The era of colonialism draws to a close. All great colonial empires have disintegrated. National liberation movements have swept over Asia and Africa. It is unlikely that the worldwide wave of national liberation would stop at the boundaries of the Soviet Union, the last remaining large multinational empire where many diverse nations are being dominated and ruled by the Russians, or rather by a relatively small and aged Russian group that constitutes the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Baltic question is not a dead issue since national liberation movement still is the wave of the future where national oppression persists. There is no vital Soviet security or economic interest to keep Baltic countries incorporated into the Soviet Union. After German Federal Republic has agreed to respect present de facto boundaries with Poland and German Democratic Republic, there is no danger whatsoever to the Soviet Union from that direction. Economically it is in the interest of Baltic countries that the Soviets would continue to use their ports as they have been doing during the Baltic independence period of 1920-1940. It is just the burning desire for territorial aggrandizement that compels the Soviets to hold on to the spoils of their conspiracy with Nazi Germany. In any case, lasting peace and security cannot be based on invasion, occupation and annexation of small countries by any great power. The Soviets themselves solemnly proclaim the principle of inadmissibility of territorial acquisitions by force. They reject any proposed adjustment of Israel's 1967 boundaries as incompatible with that principle. Before these Soviet objections could be seriously considered we should demand that they practice what they preach and first withdraw from Baltic countries.

The Lithuanian Americans are generally in favor of a genuine relaxation of tensions and strengthening of international peace and security. Doubts about détente arise from persistent indications that, in spite of all denials, more than avoidance of dangerous tensions is involved, that the price we are required to pay for détente demands that we avert our eyes from persecutions, violations of elementary human rights and denial of self-determination in the Soviet sphere of domination, that we, in effect, cease upholding our American values beyond the boundaries of our own country. Otherwise why should we legitimize Soviet rule in the Baltic countries? Nobody can seriously contend that the non-recognition of annexation has ever been a threat to peace or a source of dangerous international tensions.

The American position toward the Baltic question is of great and immediate interest to all Eastern European nations, Soviet nationalities and Soviet dissident movement. But also in the world beyond the Soviet domination America's image and influence suffers when her actions cannot be reconciled with her values. When a struggle for freedom, self-determination and national independence is in progress, the United States should not appear to side with the oppressor. Détente should not tilt toward the Soviet wishes so much that it would start sliding into a dismal morass of disastrous appeasement. Instead it seems more appropriate to initiate sustained diplomatic efforts to convince the Government of the Soviet Union that the restitution of national independence to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia would enhance the true interests and security of the Soviet Union itself. It would relieve a dangerous build up of internal tensions inside the Soviet Union, greatly strengthen the trust in policies and intentions of the Soviet government and assist in creating a durable structure of international peace and security in Europe.

Respectfully yours,

LITHUANIAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY

OF THE U.S.A., INC.,

NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,
JOSEPH GAILA, President.

[From the Chicago Tribune, Mar. 15, 1975]

FORD IS URGED TO CUT OUR BALTIC TIES

(By Bill Anderson)

WASHINGTON-President Ford is getting advice to drop United States diplomatic recognition of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia.

New developments in this old problem of the Baltic nations swollowed by Soviet armed might in 1939 are these:

Henry Kissinger's State Department and National Security Council are "tilting" toward "legalization" of the annexation by the Soviets in favor of "detente" with the superpower.

Congress leans the other way because of a sensitivity to the feelings of two million Americans who have migrated here from the once-free countries. Already the conflict of views has resulted in the Voice of America suppressing a broadcast about President Ford being sympathetic to the Baltic cause. The showdown could come this summer at the European Security Council meeting.

Opinion is so strong in the case that some officials in the White House initially tried to conceal from the press a meeting by Ford with supporters of freedom for the Baltic States. After receiving a tip last week, we talked to sources in New York City, Chicago, and Washington, and learned this:

Just before the regular Feb. 27 "congressional hour" at the White House, Rep. Edward J. Drewinski [R., Ill.] submitted a list of nine people he wanted the President to see. Derwinski is chairman of the G.O.P.'s Heritage Division, which deals with ethnic groups.

The National Security Council objected to the visit because all nine proposed guests were proponents of the Baltic freedom cause. It was felt that the highly motivated Baltic supporters would generate publicity and damage "delicate" dealings with Russia.

The last time Baltic activists had a Presidential audience was on Feb. 16, 1962, when they met with President Kennedy. President Nixon would only send an aide to pick up petitions with 75,000 signatures seeking the freedom of Simas Kudirka, the Lithuanian sailor who was taken by the Russians from a U.S. Coast Guard ship.

This time Kissinger's staff lost to Ford's staff, although there was a compromise: The NSC wanted the Baltic group to talk only about "domestic" American matters and to see Ford without advertising the meeting.

A reporter for The Tribune spotted Derwinski's car parked next to the NSC office, with the result that the conference entered the public area. The congressman later issued a press release (which received little attention]. In this statement, the Baltic leaders thanked Ford for adhering to the principle of "nonrecognition" of Soviet absorption of their ancestral homes.

Dr. Kazys Bobelis, national president of the Lithuanian Council and spokesman for the group, also told a broadcast correspondent for the Voice of America that he was "pleased" with Ford's concern over the situation. An NSC call to the Voice killed that program before it could be beamed to Russia.

Ironically, Radio Liberty [partly operated with U.S. tax money] sent the interview to its European transmitters for a Lithuanian-language broadcast.

Further compounding the NSC-State Department problem is the fact that Ford for some time has shown a higher-than-average Presidential interest in the Baltic situation. One person at the meeting was an old friend, Dr. Julius Riekstins, of Grand Rapids, Mich.

"I know firsthand from Julius," Ford told the group, "and I sympathize with the plight of the Baltic people." Dr. Bobelis, of East Dundee, Ill., also reported that Ford asked for the group's help in the fight for his defense budget requestbecause military power helps the United States to be "strong" in delicate negotiations.

[Our report on this subject will continue Tuesday.]

A MAIL DELUGE OVER THE BALTIC ISSUE

(By Bill Anderson)

WASHINGTON--Americans of Baltic states heritage have united to launch a major campaign designed to stop Henry Kissinger from acknowledging any Soviet claim to Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia.

Thousands of letters, telegrams, and phone calls have poured into the White House, State Department, Congress, and to this correspondent to protest potential policy shifts reported in this column March 15 and 18.

The campaign already has produced results. Growing numbers of legislators have joined Rep. Edward J. Derwinski [R., Ill.] in a "sense of Congress" resolution to prohibit the United States from recognizing the Soviet claim to the Baltic states.

And Derwinski, backed by the heavy public support, has called for the State Department to issue a clear-cut statement explaining where it stands. New waves are being stirred to free the Voice of America from restrictions banning broadcasts to the Baltics.

Derwinski, the long-time legislative leader of the freedom lovers, said the public reaction has exceeded that generated by most foreign affairs matters he has dealt with in more than a decade in the House. The well-organized campaign is being led by Dr. Kazys Bobelis of East Dundee, Ill., a physician who conferred with President Ford on Feb. 27.

Attempts were made by Kissinger's staff to suppress news of the Ford-Bobelis meeting. Suppression attempts continue even after the expose in this column. The highly respected Bobelis estimates that the White House has received more than 6,000 letters and telegrams—although the staff there will acknowledge the arrival of only about 1,000.

But samples of our own messages-20 to 30 daily-and those received by congressional leaders indicate that Bobelis is close to the mark. Derwinski is receiving hundreds of communications daily supporting his position.

Additionally, the State Department sent Ambassador Robert McCloskey, its top liaison agent, to confer with Derwinski, the second-ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs committee.

We learn from this meeting that Derwinski told Kissinger's troubleshooter the State Department should cut out its "double talk" on the matter of recognition of Soviet claims. The congressman requested a "clear cut" statement of support of the Baltic states, which are recognized as independent by the U.S. The Soviet military juggernaut seized them at the start of World War II.

If the statement isn't forthcoming following the congressional recess, Derwinski intends to call for hearings to force the policy makers into the open. At the last count, nearly 50 legislators had joined the list of cosponsors of Derwinski's "sense of Congress" resolution.

It was feared that Kissinger planned a quiet action to drop the United States policy of nonrecognition of the Soviet claims to the Baltic states. The intended vehicle for the change is the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe planned later this year in Helsinki.

Russia has been pushing for the conferecne, altho events in the Middle East and the shaky pursuit of "détente" between the superpowers have put a cloud

over it.

The "big view" at the State Department and in the National Security Council is that the Baltic states question is of minor importance-far outweighed by other international strategy. But it is an emotional and personal matter to the two million Americans of Balitic heritage.

A sympathetic Senate source commented: "It is a question of freedom with them, living here and not being able to even help their own families there. The Russians even put heavy taxes on food packages and make communication almost impossible."

FOOTNOTE. It is our practice to answer all correspondence, but in the Baltic case the volume has exceeded our capacity for individual response.