Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:05:04.503Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Union Republics and Soviet Diplomacy: Concepts, Institutions, and Practices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Vernon V. Aspaturian
Vernon V. Aspaturian
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ever since the constitutional improvisations of February 1, 1944, one of the enigmatic and obscure aspects of Soviet diplomacy has been the precise role of the Union Republics in its execution, administration and procedures. Aside from the participation of the Ukraine and Byelorussia in the work of the United Nations and its affiliated bodies and conferences, little attention has been paid to the role or potential of the Union Republics in Soviet foreign policy. Their apparent diplomatic inertia, however, is misleading, for in marked contrast to their meager formal participation in external affairs is their increasing implication in the quasi-diplomatic maneuvers of the Soviet Government. Furthermore, the juridical capacity of the Republics to embark on diplomatic adventures meets the formal canons of internal and international law, and remains intact in spite of the past dormancy of their diplomatic organs. At opportune moments it may be transmuted into concrete diplomatic benefits.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , June 1959 , pp. 383 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This article is part of a forthcoming book on Soviet Diplomacy, the research for which was made possible by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. The author wishes to express here his appreciation to the Foundation.

2 For accounts of the diplomacy of the Republics before the formation of the Union, cf. Chistyakov, O. I., Vzaimootnosheniya Sovetskikh Respublik do Obrazovaniya SSSR (Moscow, 1955)Google Scholar, and Desyat Let Sovetskoi Diplomatii (Moscow, 1927)Google Scholar.

3 This phase of Soviet diplomacy, together with an extensive analysis of the complex motives behind the adoption of the amendments and the concrete postwar diplomatic missions of the Republics in Soviet diplomacy, are treated in detail elsewhere by the author in “The Union Republics as Instruments of Soviet Diplomacy.”

4 Molotov's Report to the Supreme Soviet on February 1, 1944. The text to which references are made in this article is that reprinted in International Conciliation, No. 398 (March 1944), p. 239Google Scholar. Hereinafter cited as Molotov Report.

5 Stalin, J. V., Leninism (International Publishers, 1942), pp. 278–279Google Scholar.

6 Although not strictly a diplomatic emendation, the Amendment simultaneously adopted which authorized the Republics to establish separate defense departments and national troop formations is intimately connected with foreign affairs. Unlike the Amendment on foreign affairs, however, this Amendment has never been given implementation even in form. Although all the Republic Constitutions were altered to include a Defense Ministry in the list of Union-Republican Ministries, not a single Republic has ever established a Defense Ministry or even so much as appointed a Defense Minister. Molotov in his speech to the Supreme Soviet claimed that Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Georgian, Armenian, Azerbaidzhanian, and Kazakh (but not Ukrainian or Byelorussian) national armies were already in existence. Assorted deputies boasted in the Supreme Soviets about the number of divisions, generals, and officers of their respective nationalities in the Red Army; but after the War the national formations were dissolved and have never been revived. The entire Amendment remains a dead letter. Cf. Zlatopolsky, D. L., Obrazovaniye i Razvitiye SSSR kak Soyuznovo Gosudarstvo (Moscow, 1954),pp. 203–205Google Scholar.

7 Stalin, J. V., Works, 13 vols. (Moscow, 1952–1955), V, pp. 341–344Google Scholar; cf. also pp. 302–303. According to Vyshinsky, the “Ukrainian Confederationists” wished to retain separate Foreign Affairs Commissariats so that they could "preserve the legal possibility of contact with their masters—the big imperialist powers and Poland—so as to betray their people and the Union in its entirety.” Vyshinsky, A. Y., The Law of the Soviet State (Macmillan, 1948), p. 264Google Scholar.

8 Stalin, J. V., Marxism and the National Question (International Publishers, 1942), pp. 140–141Google Scholar (my italics). Cf. also Works, V, pp. 247–248Google Scholar.

9 Yevgenyev, V. V., “Subjects of International Law, Sovereignty and Non-interference in International Law,” Sovetskoye Gosudarstvo i Pravo, March 1955 (No. 2), pp. 76–77Google Scholar. Cf. also Kozhevnikov, F. N., Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo (Moscow, 1957), p. 89Google Scholar.

10 Vadimov, V., Verkhovny Sovet SSSR i Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya (Moscow, 1958), p. 17Google Scholar. Cf. also p. 16.

11 Soviet jurists, by drawing distinctions between “state” sovereignty and “national” sovereignty, even claim that the lesser national units in the Soviet Union are “sovereign.” “The struggle of nationalities for the realization of their national sovereignty need not take the form of a struggle for an independent state, i.e., state sovereignty … as a nationality may just as well express the wish to be included in a multi-national state as a member of a federation or as an autonomous unit.” Modzhoryan, L. A., “The Notion of Sovereignty Under International Law,” Sovetskoye Gosudarstvo i Pravo, February 1955 (No. 1), p. 70Google Scholar. But Yevgenyev maintains that “a nation, which has not yet created its own independent state or seceded into such a state, may not be recognized as a subject of international law, because the lack of any public authority deprives this nationality of the capacity for contracting international obligations and guaranteeing their fulfillment.” Yevgenyev, op. cit., p. 77. The most eloquent practical demonstration of the interchangeability of the Soviet conceptions of sovereignty was the liquidation of the Karelo-Finnish Union Republic and its transformation into a lesser unit as the Karelian Autonomous Republic by a mere stroke of the pen. Neither the population nor the Supreme Soviet of the Republic were consulted in a move which deprived the Republic of its cherished right to secede, its separate foreign affaire and defense establishments, fourteen deputies in the Council of Nationalities and its Vice-Chairman on the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. Pravda, July 17, 1956. Cf. also A. Y. Vyshinsky, op. cit., pp. 275–280; Kozhevnikov, , Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo, pp. 86–107Google Scholar; and Durdenevsky, V. N. and Krylov, S. B., Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo (Moscow, 1947), pp. 109–168Google Scholar.

12 The most relevant precedent in recent times was Imperial Germany. The twenty-three monarchies and three city Republics of the Empire enjoyed the power of separate diplomatic relations and their representatives were often to be found alongside the Imperial Ambassadors and Ministers. Only Prussia was denied this privilege. Cf. Esch, Otto, Das Gesandtschaftrecht der Deutschen Einzelstaaten (Bonn, 1911)Google Scholar; Riess, , Auswärtige Hoheitsrechte der Deutschen Einzelstaaten (1905)Google Scholar; and Windisch, , Die Völkerrechtliche Stellung der Deutschen Einzelstaaten (1913)Google Scholar. Under the Weimar Constitution, while foreign relations were centralized in Berlin, the Lander were permitted limited authority to conclude treaties with foreign states, although Berlin reserved the power of final approval and ratification. Bavaria was permitted to maintain relations with the Holy See and a French Minister-Plenipotentiary continued to be accredited to Munich. Cf. Oppenheim, L., International Law, ed. Lauterpacht, H., 2 vols., 6th ed. (Longmans, 1947), I, pp. 115–116Google Scholar; 161–192. In an era of petty personal monarchs in Europe, diplomatic recognition perhaps performed a social prestige function comparable to the issuance of free railroad passes to the executives of minor roads here until Congress put a stop to the practice.

13 Cf. infra, pp. 402–6.

14 The same could be said of the various Imperial Acts, culminating in the Statute of Westminister in 1931, which governed the relations between Great Britain and her Dominions.

15 Constitution of the U.S.S.R., as amended to January 1, 1957, in Istoriya Sovetskoi Konslitutsii (v Dokumentakh), 1917–1956 (Moscow, 1957), pp. 944–964Google Scholar.

16 Constitution of the Uzbek S.S.R. (Moscow, 1949)Google Scholar. The numbering of the corresponding articles may vary among the republican constitutions, but the language is identical in all cases.

17 Potemkin, V. P., editor, Istoriya Diplomatii, 3 vols. (Moscow, 1945), III, p. 765Google Scholar. The Presidium was not expressly authorized to denounce treaties until the Supreme Soviet revised Article 49 of the Constitution on February 25, 1947. Istoriya Sovetskoi Konstitutsii, p. 831.

18 Articles 48 and 49.

19 Cf. Kravtsov, B. P., Verkhovny Soveta SSSR (Moscow, 1954), pp. 69–70Google Scholar. The law on the composition of the Presidium, adopted on March 19, 1946, does not specifically state that each Republic is entitled to a Vice-Chairman—or even a representative—but the number of Vice-Chairmen has always corresponded to the number of Union Republics. Sbornik Zakonov SSSR i Ukazov Prezidiuma Verkhovnovo Soveta SSSR 1938–1956 (Moscow 1956), pp. 77Google Scholar. Cf. Pravda, March 28, 1958, for the composition of the current Presidium. Among the ordinary members are high Party functionaries from the Uzbek, Ukrainian, Byelorussian, and Kazakh Republics.

20 Stalin, , Leninism, p. 401Google Scholar. Cf. also Kravtsov, op. cit., p. 35 and Vadimov, op. cit., p. 15.

21 Novikov, S. G., Postoyannye Komissii Verkhovnovo Soveta SSSR (Moscow, 1958), p. 33Google Scholar.

22 The Law of the Soviet State, op. cit., p. 349.

23 Vadimov, op. cit., p. 8.

24 Novikov, op. cit., pp. 33–39. For details on the organization and procedures of the two Commissions, cf. Vadimov, op. cit., p. 9; Kerimov, D. A., Zakonodatelnaya Deyatelnost Sovetskovo Gosudarstva (Moscow, 1955), pp. 54–57Google Scholar. Full texts of the Statutes on the organization and procedure of the Commissions are reprinted in Istoriya Sovetkoi Konstitutsii, pp. 837–840.

25 Cf. Pervaya Sessia Verkhovnovo Soveta SSSR, 12–19 Yanvaria, 1938 (Moscow, 1938), pp. 135, 151Google Scholar. Cf. also Kravtsov, op. cit., p. 66.

26 For a concrete illustration of the way in which the Commissions present their reports, cf. Materialy Pyatoi Sessi Verkhovnovo Soveta SSSR po Voprosam Razoruzheniya i Zapreshcheniya Atomnovo i Vodorodnovo Oruzhiya (Moscow, 1956)Google Scholar. Cf. also Novikov, op. cit., pp. 34–39 and Vadimov, op. cit., p. 8, for a list of treaties which have been submitted in the last few years to the Commissions for examination and approval prior to their ratification by the Presidium. The procedure is evidently perfunctory, cursory and ceremonial, since in almost all cases examination, approval and ratification have been completed within one or two days.

27 Mukhitdinov's predecessor was Dmitri Shepilov, who resigned after his appointment as Foreign Minister in July 1956. Only the two Commissions on Foreign Affairs have had such a succession of powerful personalities as Chairmen, although members of the Politburo and Presidium appear in other Commissions as ordinary members.

28 Pravda, March 28, 1958. When first organized, the Commission elected by the Council of Nationalities had only ten members.

29 Izvestia, April 21, 1954, and July 14, 1956.

30 Izvestia, April 21, 1954.

31 Of the 46 members in both Foreign Affairs Commissions, 17 are from the R.S.F.S.R. (including deputies from 5 Autonomous Republics), 6 are from the Ukraine, 3 each are from the Uzbek, Georgian and Azerbaidzhan Republics (including 1 representative each from an Autonomous Republic within the Union Republic), 2 each are from the Byelorussian, Lithuanian, Latvian, and Tadzhik Republics, while the Armenian and Estonian Republics have one each. The remaining member is Marshal Grechko, representing the armed forces. The ethnic distribution does not necessarily follow the distribution by Republics, since representatives from some of the Republics are often ethnic Russians.

32 Pravda, March 28, 1958. The governmental, party and professional positions held by the members of the Commissions were identified by scrutinizing lists of government, party and other organizations appearing in local newspapers and various issues of central newspapers.

33 Cf. infra, p. 406.

34 Izvestia, February 10, 1955. Cf. also Vadimov, op. cit., pp. 77–78. This declaration was supplemented by a resolution of December 28, 1955 by the Supreme Soviet on the exchange of parliamentary delegations with other countries.

35 Vadimov, op. cit., p. 78.

36 Lebedeva, Z. A., Parliamentshaya Gruppa Sovetskovo Soyuza (Moscow, 1958), pp. 51–53Google Scholar.

37 Ibid., pp. 9–10.

38 More than 96 per cent of the deputies of the Supreme Soviet belong to the Soviet Parliamentary Group. See Lebedeva, op. cit., p. 10; cf. ibid., pp. 14–44, for a description of the activities of the Soviet delegations and individual deputies.

39 Pravda, July 2, 1955. Each has also nominated two representatives to the Council of the IPU.

40 Lebedeva, op. cit., pp. 11–12.

41 Cf. Vadimov, op. cit., p. 17. This practice was first adopted by decree of the Sovnarkom on August 7, 1923. Sistematicheskoye Sobranie Deistvuyushchikh Zakonov S.S.S.R. (Moscow, 1926), I, pp. 33–34Google Scholar.

42 Articles 49f and 69.

43 Full text of the Narkomindel Statute, as amended to 1928, is reprinted in Yezhegodnik Narodnovo Komissariata po Innostrannym Delam na 1929 god (Moscow, 1929), pp. 65–74Google Scholar. Chapter V of the Statute describes the functions and authority of the Narkomindel Representative.

44 Kravtsov, op. cit., pp. 73–78.

45 Vadimov, op. cit., pp. 74–75.

46 New York Times, December 29, 1957.

47 Cf. Vadimov, op. cit., pp. 10–12; Kozhevnikov, , Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo, pp. 111—117Google Scholar; Durdenevsky, and Krylov, , Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo, pp. 130–139Google Scholar; and Polents, O. E., Ratifikatsiya Mezhdunarodnykh Dogovorov (Moscow, 1950), pp. 32–36Google Scholar.

48 Kravtsov, op. cit., p. 75.

49 As in the case of the Union Constitution, the Foreign Affairs Commissions are organized in accordance with the constitutional authority of the Supreme Soviets to establish “commissions of investigation and audit on any matter.”

50 Pravda, March 23, 1955.

51 Chervonenko, S. V., Pravda Ukrainy, July 3, 1956Google Scholar; Mchedhishvili, D. V., Zarya Vostoka, September 2, 1956Google Scholar.

52 Byelorussia, Novikova, F. A., Sovetskaya Byelorussiya, December 15, 1955Google Scholar; Turkmen Republic, Annanurov, A. M., Turkmenskaya Iskra, March 18, 1955Google Scholar; Tadzhik Republic, Rakhimov, Ya. A., Kommunist Tadzhikstana, March 29, 1955Google Scholar; Uzbek Republic, Gulanov, R. G., Pravda Vostoka, December 7, 1956Google Scholar.

53 Kochinyan, A. Ye., Pravda, December 9, 1956Google Scholar and September 13, 1956; Myurisep, A. A., Izvestia, December 11, 1956Google Scholar; Dodkhudoyev, N., Pravda, February 10, 1957Google Scholar and Izvestia, May 27, 1956; Kuchava, M. I., Zarya Vostoka, August 9,1956Google Scholar.

54 K. V. Kiselev has headed the Foreign Ministry of the Byelorussian Republic since its formation. Tazhibayev, T. T., Pravda, November 3, 1956Google Scholar; Konduchalova, K. K., Izvestia, February 16, 1957Google Scholar; Charyyev, B. Ch., Pravda, January 20, 1957Google Scholar and Izvestia, October 3, 1956; Sultanov, G. S., Izvestia, January 26, 1957Google Scholar and November 3, 1956; Ostrov, Ya. P., Sovetskaya Latviya, March 25,1955Google Scholar and Izvestia, December 2, 1956.

55 L. F. Palamarchuk (the fourth Foreign Minister of the Ukraine since 1944), Izvestia, December 3, 1956; Aliev, M. I., Bakinsky Rabochye, October 23, 1956Google Scholar; Gashka, I. I., Sovetskaya Litva, October 10, 1956Google Scholar. Aliev, Azerbaidzhan's Foreign Minister since 1944, died on September 28, 1958.

56 Delegations to the United Nations, issued for every regular and special session of the General Assembly and Permanent Missions to the United Nations, issued monthly or bimonthly, both published by the Protocol Section of the U.N.

57 Article 3 of the Statute of the Court stipulates that no two members of the Court may be nationals of the same state and that for this purpose, any person who could be regarded as a national of more than one state “shall be deemed a national of the one in which he ordinarily exercises civil and political rights.”

58 Delegations to the United Nations, Eighth Session of the General Assembly, September 1953, p. 91Google Scholar; ibid., Ninth Session, September 1954, p. 91; ibid., Eleventh Session, November 1956, p. 126; ibid., Twelfth Session, September 1957, p. 133; ibid., Thirteenth Session, September 1958, pp. 131–2.

59 United Nations Handbook, General Assembly Supplement (United Nations, 1946), p. 16Google Scholar; Delegations to the United Nations, Second Regular Session of the General Assembly, September 1947, p. 28Google Scholar; ibid., Twelfth Session, September 1957, pp. 24–25.

60 Izvestia, October 13, 1956. Its Chairman is G. Ya. Kiselev, who was also designated as one of the Byelorussian representatives to the Council of the IPU.

61 Second Session of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., August 10–21, 1938, verbatim report in English (International Publishers, 1938), p. 678Google Scholar for full text.

62 Ibid., p. 595, comment by Deputy O. J. Schmidt on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the Council of Nationalities. For details concerning ratification procedure in the U.S.S.R., cf. Polents, , Ratifikatsiya, pp. 32–36Google Scholar.

63 Vneshnyaya Politika Sovetskovo Soyuza v Period Otechestvennoi Voiny, 2 vols. (Mos 1946), II, pp. 202–204Google Scholar; 230–232. No texts of the agreements were published, only descriptive information bulletins.

64 Vneshnyaya Politika Sovetskovo Soyuza na 1947 god, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1952), II, pp. 383–384Google Scholar; cf. also Korovin, , ed. Mezhdunardonoye Pravo (Moscow, 1951), p. 365Google Scholar.

65 Cf. Polents, , Ratifikatsiya, p. 36Google Scholar.

66 U. N. Treaty Series, Vol. 33, No. 518, pp. 181–224Google Scholar; Vneshnyaya Polilika … na 1948 god, II, p. 29Google Scholar.

67 The two republics are members of the International Labor Organization, UNESCO, the World Health Organization, Universal Postal Union (although neither Republic has a separate postal system nor distinctive postal issues), the International Telecommunications Union, and the World Meteorological Organization; cf. Kozhevnikov, , Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo, pp. 338–348Google Scholar.

68 New York Times, December 18, 1945.

69 Novikov, op. cit., p. 34. The Azerbaidzhanian deputy was also the Foreign Minister.

70 Molotov Report, p. 241.

71 Zlatopolsky, D. L., Obrazovaniye i Razvitiye SSSR kak Soyuznovo Gosudarstva (Moscow, 1954), pp. 202–203Google Scholar.

72 Soviet News, May 25, 1945; cf. also New York Times, May 23, 1945.

73 Fierlinger, Z., “Soviet-Czechoslovak Economic Relations—Past and Future,” American Review on the Soviet Union, VI, August 1945, p. 30Google Scholar.

74 Sbornik Deistvuyushchikh Dogovorov, Soglashenii i Konventsii Zaklyuchennykh SSSR s Inostrannymi Gosudarstvami, XI (Moscow, 1955), pp. 31–32Google Scholar.

75 Cf. New York Times, October 12, 1946.

76 Sobranie Zakonov i Rasporiazhenii Rabochye-Krestianskovo Praviltelstva SSSR, 1926, Part II, No. 60, Article 448.

77 Full text in Sbornik Zakonov SSSR … 1938–1956, pp. 169–171.

78 Full text in Sbornik Zakonov R.S.F.S.R. i Ukazov Prezidiuma Verkhovnovo Soveta R.S.F.S.R. 1946–1954 (Moscow, 1955), pp. 107–108Google Scholar.

79 Delegations to the United Nations, Fifth Session of the General Assembly, September 1951.

80 Ibid., Sixth Session, September 1951.

81 Ibid., Seventh Session, October 1952.

82 Ibid., Eighth Session, p. 94, and Ninth Session, September 1954, p. 93. In the following year, the U.S.S.R. delegation included a member of the Presidium of the Lithuanian Republic, the Chairman of the Georgian Supreme Soviet and Rector of the State University, and a Deputy Chairman of the Kazakh Council of Ministers. In 1956, only the Kazakh functionary was retained on the Soviet delegation; but in 1957, it was the turn of a Latvian official and the Uzbek Foreign Minister once again. At the 1958 Session of the General Assembly, the Foreign Ministers of the Lithuanian and Armenian Republics appeared on the Soviet delegation. Cf. corresponding numbers of Delegations to the United Nations, cited above, note 58.

83 New Times (No. 49), December 4, 1954, special supplement, p. 64Google Scholar.

84 New Times (No. 21), May 21, 1955, special supplement, p. 69Google Scholar.

85 Materialy Pyatoi Sessii Verkhovnovo Soveta SSSR, pp. 40–41.

86 New Times, (No. 33), August 11, 1955, special supplement, p. 22Google Scholar.

87 Pravda, December 25, 1957.

88 The increasing importance of the Uzbek Republic has been given legal confirmation in the Soviet Constitution. In the original version of the Constitution, the Uzbek Republic was listed eighth in the hierarchy of Republics enumerated under Article 13. On February 25, 1957, the Supreme Soviet revised Article 13 to list the Republics, not in the order of their admission to the Union, but in accordance with the size of their population. The Uzbek Republic was moved from eighth place to fourth, immediately after the R.S.F.S.R., the Ukraine and Byelorussia, although its population is less than that of the Kazakh Republic. Text of revision is in Istoriya Sovetskoi Konstitutsiya, p. 829, and the original at page 730.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.