Suwałki Agreement

The Suwałki Agreement, Treaty of Suvalkai [cite web|title=The Polish-Lithuanian Crisis of 1938|author=Robert A. Vitas|publisher=Lituanus|url=http://www.lituanus.org/1984_2/84_2_03.htm|date=1984-02-03|accessdate=2008-04-23] , or Suwalki Treatycite book|author=George Slocombe|title=A Mirror to Geneva: Its Growth, Grandeur, and Decay|year=1970|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=k_oC5vZEBXcC&pg=PA263&dq=suwalki+treaty+tore&lr=&sig=CLnv602_8zEJI6MJ4vocNotDmpc ] ( _lt. Suvalkų sutartis, _pl. Umowa suwalska) was an agreement signed in Suwałki on October 7 1920, between Poland and Lithuania, achieved under pressure and mediation from the League of Nations, and resulting in a ceasefire of the Polish-Lithuanian War. It established demarcation lines running through the disputed Suwałki Region (Polish: "Suwalszczyzna", Lithuanian: "Suvalkų kraštas") (but not through the also disputed Vilnius Region).

The agreement was scheduled to come into effect on October 10, but a few days earlier, Polish general Lucjan Żeligowski, acting under secret orders from the Polish Chief of State, Józef Piłsudski, staged a mutiny and took control of the Vilnius region. As a result, that region, along with a corridor connecting it to Poland, was controlled by Poland until 1939.

Polish historian Piotr Łossowski, who devoted a chapter to the Suwałki Treaty in his book on Polish-Lithuanian relations (1918-1920), characterized it as a ceasefire of limited scope which did not address the issue of the Vilnius region (the agreement does not mention the city of Vilnius or the Vilnius Region at all and it explicitly states in Article I that it does not address the territorial claims of either side). Such characterization is common in Polish historiography. [Marek Sobczyński "Procesy integracyjne i dezintegracyjne na ziemiach litewskich w toku dziejów" published in translation in English as "Integration and Disintegration Processes on Lithuania's Lands During History" in Role of the Borderlands in United Europe, vol. 2, Historical, Ethnic and Geopolitical Problems of Borderlands, „Region and Regionalism”, nr 7, Łódź-Opole, 2005
"Polska zaproponowała Litwie negocjacje w Suwałkach, które zakończono 7 października 1920 ustaleniem linii demarkacyjnej...nie dochodzącej do Wilna, aby nie utrudniać porozumienia, choć Polska się tego miasta nie wyrzekła"] Łossowski noted that interwar Lithuanian diplomacy portrayed the agreement - contrary to its content - as a treaty that explicitly left the Vilnius Region under Lithuanian control. Nonetheless characterization has survived in some modern Western publications with only a cursory mention the treaty. [For example: cite book|author=Rawi Abdelal|title=National Purpose in the World Economy: Post-Soviet States in Comparative Perspective|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ubX9NdqScJsC&pg=PA89&dq=suwalki+1920&lr=&as_brr=3&sig=h9A7CPAsau87ZMPlQswxUYo1_SU
publisher=Cornell University Press|year=2001|quote=At the same time, Poland acceded to Lithuanian authority over Vilnius in the 1920 Suwalki Agreement.
cite book|author=Glanville Price|title=Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe|url=|publisher=Blackwell Publishing|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ubX9NdqScJsC&pg=PA89&dq=suwalki+1920&lr=&as_brr=3&sig=h9A7CPAsau87ZMPlQswxUYo1_SU|year=1998
quote=In 1920, Poland annexed a third of Lithuania's territory (including the capital, Vilnius) in breach of the Treaty of Suvalkai of 7 October 1920, and it was only in 1939 that Lithuania regained Vilnius and about a quarter of the territory occupied by Poland.]

Negotiations

At the end of September, 1920 in parallel to ongoing hostilities between Lithuanians and Poles in the Suvalkai region, diplomatic struggle intensified as well. On the September 22th Polish Foreign Minister, Eustachy Sapieha, deliver diplomatic note to Lithuanians and threatened that Poland decided to take severe actions against Lithuania with full freedom of actions. Lithuanian representative to London, count Alfredas Tiškevičius informed the secretariat of League of Nations, that Sapieha's telegram should be regarded as declaration of war, he also asked that League of Nations to take immediate intervention in order to stop new Polish aggressive acts.cite book | last = Lesčius | first = Vytautas | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Lietuvos kariuomenė nepriklausomybės kovose 1918-1920 | publisher = Vilnius University, Generolo Jono Žemaičio Lietuvos karo akademija |date=2004 | location = Vilnius | pages = p.344-347] On September 26th League of Nations adopted resolution that all sides should stop hostilities. Recent Polish military actions influenced League of Nations to a more negative opinion towards Poland. Polish Foreign Minister, Eustachy Sapieha, seeking to improve the situation proposed negotiations in Suwałki (Suvalkai) on September 26 1920. Lithuanian side accepted proposal the following day. Count Tiškevičius meantime asserted that prime aim of Poland is to capture Vilnius even before the start of negotiations.

The Suwałki Conference became a significant event involving Poland and Lithuania, after the respective establishment their independence following the World War I. After proposal of negotiations, Poles even intensified their offensive and refused of ceasefire, despite League of Nations resolution.Fact|date=June 2008 The conference began on the evening of September 29. The Polish delegation was led by colonel Mieczysław Mackiewicz (who originated from Lithuania), and the Lithuanian by general Maksimas Katche.pl icon Piotr Łossowski, "Konflikt polsko-litewski 1918-1920" (The Polish-Lithuanian Conflict, 1918–1920), Warsaw, Książka i Wiedza, 1995, ISBN 8305127699, pp. 166–75] The negotiations were carried out in Russian language.Fact|date=June 2008

Polish historian Piotr Łossowski asserts that the Lithuanian side, having suffered a series of setbacks in the Polish-Lithuanian War, was ready for a compromise over Suwałki Region (and cession of most of the disputed territory to Poland), but in exchange for Poland's recognizing Lithuanian claims to Vilnius (Polish: Wilno), the historical capital of Grand Duchy of Lithuania which at that time however had a Polish majority. In demographic terms Vilnius was the least Lithuanian of Lithuanian cities,Michael MacQueen, "The Context of Mass Destruction: Agents and Prerequisites of the Holocaust in Lithuania", Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Volume 12, Number 1, pp. 27-48, 1998, [http://hgs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/1/27] ] divided near evenly between Poles and Jews, with ethnic Lithuanians constituting a mere fraction of the total population (about 2-3% of the population, according to Russian 1897pl icon Piotr Łossowski, "Konflikt polsko-litewski 1918-1920" (The Polish-Lithuanian Conflict, 1918–1920), Warsaw, Książka i Wiedza, 1995, ISBN 8305127699, pp. 11.] ru icon [http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_lan_97.php?reg=32 Demoscope] .] and German 1916 censusespl icon cite book|author= Michał Eustachy Brensztejn|year=1919 |title=Spisy ludności m. Wilna za okupacji niemieckiej od. 1 listopada 1915 r. |publisher=Biblioteka Delegacji Rad Polskich Litwy i Białej Rusi, Warsaw |id= ] - see ethnic history of the Vilnius region for further details). The Lithuanians nonetheless believed that their historical claim to the city (former capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) had precedence and refused to recognize any Polish claims to the city and the surrounding area.

Lithuanian side proposed immediate armistice again, but Poles refused. Only after Lithuanian delegation threaten to leave the negotiation table Poles agreed to stop fighting, but only in Sudovia. The Polish side was stalling for time. Having the upper hand in the ongoing war, its main problem was the increased pressure from the League of Nations, which wanted both sides to sign a peace treaty. Vilnius was under Lithuanian control (it has been recently transferred by the retreating Soviets, after they were defeated by the Poles in August at the battle of Warsaw, to the Lithuanians as a result of the Soviet-Lithuanian Treaty of 1920). The Polish leader, Józef Piłsudski, feared that the Entente and the League might accept the "fait accompli" that had been created by the Soviets' transfer of Vilnius to Lithuania. Pilsudski was preparing a "fait accompli" of his own — Żeligowski's Mutiny — and preferred that the negotiations be prolonged.

Hence while the Lithuanians wanted to sign a treaty as soon as possible and safeguard their current gains, the Polish side raised issues such as violations of Lithuania's neutrality in the Polish-Soviet War, and protested the Soviet-Lithuanian Treaty.

The Lithuanian delegation, after consultations in Kaunas on October 2, proposed their demarcation line on October 3, the Polish delegation, after consultations with Piłsudski, proposed a counterline of their own on October 4 — the day League mediation began.

In the meantime, both sides became involved in the battle of Varėna (Orany) — an important train station which Poles captured, and whose control prevented Lithuanians from being able to move their troops from Sudova region — which they were prepared to surrender — to Vilnius region, which they were not (but which was defended by relatively weak units). Nonetheless in rest of Sudova a semi-official ceasefire — welcomed by the tired troops of both sides — were already in place from October 1.

The agreement

The agreement was finally signed on October 7 1920; it was to have taken full effect at noon on October 10.

The agreement featured the following articles:
* Article I: on the demarcation line; it also stated that the line "in no way prejudices the territorial claims of the two Contracting Parties". Demarcation line would start in the west following the Foch line until it reached the Neman River. It would follow the Neman River till Uciecha and Mereczanka (Merkys) River, than follow Merkys river till Varėna (Orany) — which was to be transferred to the Lithuanian side but its train station was on the Polish side. From Varėna the line would go near Bortele-Poturce-Montwiliszki-Ejszyszki (Eišiškės)-Podzitwa-Bastuny (Bastūnai, Бастынь), with the train station in Bastuny also remaining in Polish hands. The demarcation line east of Bastuny was to be determined by a separate agreement.
* Article II: on the ceasefire; notably the ceasefire was to take place only along the demarcation line, not on the entire Polish-Lithuanian frontline (i.e. not east of Bastuny).
* Article III: on the train station in Varėna (Orany); it was to remain under Polish control but the Polish side promised no restrictions on Lithuanian civilian trains and allowed Lithuanians the transit of 2 military trains per day
* Article IV: on prisoner exchange
* Article V: on the date and time ceasefire starts (October 10 at noon) and map used

Notably, the treaty made not a single reference to Vilnius (Wilno).

Aftermath

Suwałki Region was split between Poland and Lithuania along a border that for the most part remains the border between Poland and Lithuania in modern times; notably the towns of Sejny (site of the Sejny Uprising), Suwałki and Augustów remained on the Polish side.

However, the agreement did not explicitly address the most controversial issue — the future status of the city of Vilnius (Wilno), the historic capital of Lithuania, [cite book|author=Ilya Prizel|year=1998|title=National Identity and Foreign Policy: Nationalism and Leadership in Poland
pages=149|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=fE2quB852jcC&pg=PA149&dq=vilnius+historic+capital+of+lithuania&lr=&as_brr=3&sig=fizayjPU2daPyT4wF9WhNUysaZg|publisher=Cambridge University Press] located northeast of the Sudova region and the demarcation line. The city had recently been transferred to Lithuania by the retreating Soviets. Historian Alfred Senn has written that the agreement tacitly left Vilnius in Lithuanian hands. Piłsudski's political opponents criticized this omission. [cite book|author=Alfred Senn|year=1966|title=The Great Powers and the Vilna Question|pages=45|quote=The agreement made no mention of Vilna; that city was tacitly left in Lithuanian hands.] When the Suwałki Agreement was signed by the Polish side, Vilnius was garrisoned by Lithuanian troops and behind Lithuanian lines. James P. Nichol. Diplomacy in the Former Soviet Republics. 1995, p. 123] Philipp Ther, Ana Siljak. Redrawing Nations: Ethnic Cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944–1948. 2001, p. 137] Yet this was changed almost immediately by the Żeligowski's Mutiny, which began on October 8 (before noon on October 10 when the agreement became law. [pl icon Algis Kasperavičius, " [http://www.bialystok.ap.gov.pl/dziedzictwo/pliki/historycy.pdf Współcześni historycy litewscy o sprawie Wilna i stosunkach polsko-litewskich w latach 1918-1940 oraz zmiany w potocznej świadomości Litwinów] ", in "Historycy polscy, litewscy i białoruscy wobec problemów XX wieku Historiografia polska, litewska i białoruska po 1989 roku", Krzysztof Buchowski i Wojciech Śleszyński (ed.), Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, 2003 quoting A. Liekis, Lietuvos sienų raida, t.1, Vilnius 1997, p. 43, 46.] ) and resulted (in 1922) in the annexation of the city and its surrounding regions by Poland. The Poles denied the knowledge of the mutiny (although in fact Piłsudski and his allies were the ones who orchestrated it), and noted that the demarcation line and the ceasefire did not extend east of Bastuny (the Polish delegation during the negotiations specifically refused to agree on the demarcation line east of Bastuny - which would cut off Polish access to Vilna - in order to allow Żeligowski's forces space for action). They saw the Suwałki Agreement as a ceasefire of minor importance. The Lithuanians however — particularly after losing Vilnius to Żeligowski's forces and being unable to regain control over it with their own military — expressed outrage at the Żeligowski's actions and went on to use the Suwałki Agreement as the basis for protests in international venues. The Lithuanian side argued (contrary to the provisions of the agreement) that Poland had agreed to a truce along the entire front and to the concession of Vilnius to Lithuania, and that Żeligowski's actions violated the agreement (which they called a peace treaty); this would be denied by the Poles, who would point out that the Suwałki Agreement was explicitly limited in scope so as not to interfere in any way with the future of the Vilnius region. However Léon Bourgeois, President of the Council of the League of Nations, rebuked Poland soon after Żeligowski's staged mutiny:cquote
The Polish Government, after having appealed to the League of Nations with references to its dispute with Lithuania, accepted the decisions of the Council: immediate cessation of hostilities; neutrality of the territory occupied by Lithuania to the east of the line of the 8th September provided this neutrality be respected by Soviet Authorities, formation of the Commission of Control which is at present on the spot and which is charged with taking the necessary measures to stop or avoid any conflict, without its action in any way prejudicing the definitive regulation of the territory. The occupation of Vilna [Vilnius] is thus a violation of the engagements entered into with Council of the League of Nations. The council is, therefore, obliged to ask the Polish Government what immediate measures it poses to take, in order to ensure the observations of these undertakings. Unless Vilnius is promptly evacuated, the Council would be obliged to meet forthwith, in order to examine the situation, which it considers grave

Richard C. Lukas summarized that occupation of Lithuania's historical capital was indeed a violation of the Suwałki Agreement.Richard C. Lukas. Historian//Seizure of Vilna. 1961 p.244-245] dubious

In Piłsudski's view, signing even such a limited agreement was not in Poland's best interests, and he disapproved of it. In a 1923 speech acknowledging that he had directed Żeligowski's coup, Piłsudski stated: "I tore up the Suwałki Treaty, and afterwards I issued a false "communique" by the General Staff."

The City of Vilnius was returned to Lithuania by the Soviet Union in 1939, shortly before the Soviet union occupied Lithuania for over half of a decade. It was designated the capital of Lithuania in 1940, and has remained its capital since then (although for about 50 years Lithuania was in fact the Lithuanian SSR in the Soviet Union).

References

ee also

Further reading

* Richard C. Lukas, [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-6563.1961.tb01685.x "The Seizure of Vilna, October 1920"] , "The Historian", vol. 23, issue 2 (February 1961), pp. 234–46.

External links

*Text of Treaty. United Nations Treaty Collection: [http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/20/14/00038658.pdf Lithuania and Poland. Agreement with regard to the establishment of a provisional "Modus Vivendi", signed at Suwalki, October 7, 1920]