eign policy of foreign ministers of the Baltic States and Finland were held in Tallinn and Tartu in autumn 1919. The following conference in Helsinki in January 1920 was attended also by Poland. There were discussed the options of political, economical and military cooperation and it was decided to hold the following conference near Riga in Bulduri. The conference convened in the vicinity of Riga, Jurmala, Bulduri in 1920 became possible thanks to Meierovics. The conference attempted, under his leadership to bring closer the independent, however as yet very weak Baltic States in areas of politics, state defence, economy, culture etc., altogether in 21 different areas. Conference lasted as long as one month – from 6 August to 6 September – and its organisational process could be compared to Paris peace conference, as estimated by head of the Estonian delegation Karl Robert Pusta. Understandably it earned respect to the Latvian Foreign Minister Z. Meierovics. However the fact that Poland occu- pied Vilnius in autumn 1920 had naturally affected the results of Buldur conference in a very bad way. Further Lithuanian-Polish relations have been characterised as „martial law without military hostilities “and therefore their common participation in the Baltic union was impossible. Latvia had to decide whether to prefer as partner Lithuania or Poland. It was decided that there must be promptly concluded a de- fensive military union with Estonia and to extend it later according to possibilities (holding in view primarily the involvement of Lithuania). As a matter of fact, at the beginning of 1920s Latvia managed, under Z. Meierovics’ leadership to carry on the foreign policy propaganda more skilfully than Estonia (2; 3).
When Meierovics headed our southern neighbour’s Foreign Ministry, the Estonian and Latvian foreign policy beliefs had much in common. The main goal of both was bolstering the state’s security, while both considered the main threat to be the Russian Federation. The basic concepts of securing the state’s security were similar: to carry out peace loving foreign policy, to orient to the West, to base on League of Nations and the principle of collective security and to develop cooperation with border coun- tries of Russian Federation. It is the last aspiration– to create the political and defen- sive Baltic Entente: between Finland, Baltic States and Poland– that was the foreign policy priority of those states in the first half of the 1920s, whereas the international public considered specifically Meierovics the main organiser of Baltic Entente. In Tallinn too it was found that from the point of view of Estonian security the most important among border countries of the Russian Federation was Latvia.
At the beginning of 1922 almost whole of Europe got ready for Geneva conference, where it was planned to discuss improvement of economical situation of European countries and regulation of relations with the Russian Federation. Before Geneva foreign ministers of Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Poland decided to gather in Warsaw. Foreign ministers arrived in Poland’s capital with somewhat different goals. Estonian foreign minister Ants Piip’s aspirations were clear: to achieve in the political and mil- itary cooperation, as perspective and far-fetching agreements as should be possible. Zigfrids Meierovics too supported in principle the cooperation on defence of the four countries. In the contrary Finland’s Foreign Minister Rudolf Holsti was in a compli- cated situation. He personally was ready to conclude the union, but he had to take into account that Finland’s social democrats were against and the rightists vacillated. Poland’s head of state Josef Pilsudski and General Staff supported cooperation with the Baltic States however the right-wing politicians were against. What however is the most important – the moment was unfavourable for creating the Baltic union. The Polish Foreign Minister Konstanty Skirmunt said that in the situation where Eu- rope was getting ready to establish relations with the Soviet Russia, the discussion of issues of military type in Warsaw was just not befitting. Beside that France as ally of Poland warned, that the Polish government should not assume responsibilities with regard to the Baltic States. However the Warsaw agreement nevertheless was born, signed by Estonian, Latvian, Finnish and Polish foreign ministers. Parliaments of said states ratified the Warsaw agreement, but Finland’s Eduskunta did not.
In the evolved situation Z. Meierovics and the Estonia Foreign Minister Aleksander Hellat agreed that the issues of contention must be solved and a solid base must be created for concluding a union agreement of the two states. From 25 October to 1 November 1923 there was held in Tallinn the Estonia-Latvian conference, with delegations headed by Prime and Foreign Minister Meierovics and Friedrich Akel, since the beginning of August Foreign Minister. Stormy disputes developed main- ly in issues related to border and reciprocal claims. Latvians demanded the Ruhnu
Island and the Laura area, the Estonians insisted on adjustment of border in several points. In the end a compromise was reached and the Estonian-Latvian border treaty was concluded. Perhaps the most important result of the Tallinn conference was the Estonian-Latvian agreement on military-political union, which was signed together with other agreements on 01 November 1923. The agreement also fixed the military obligations of the partners in case one of them would have fallen victim to an at- tack without provocation from his own side. Making of the Estonian-Latvian union agreement was a major success to both Meierovics’ and the Estonian government however in actual fact the union occurred to be of little meaning.
The merited Latvian politician and diplomat Zigfrids Meierovics was buried in For- est Cemetery, Riga (Rīgas Meža kapi). His departure attracted wide international at- tention (20, pp. 412-423; 1; 18).
As it is known, in the recent past i.e. in 1996 there was concluded the Estonian-Lat- vian agreement on the sea border around Ruhnu Island regarding the very rich fish stock, in the process of which Estonia ceded to Latvia a sea area sized half of Hiiu- maa. Up until now many Estonians have failed to fully grasp the meaning of that transaction…(12).