Soviet Baltic Republics Gain Twin Victories

The Soviet Union’s restive Baltic republics won both practical and symbolic victories Thursday in their campaign for greater independence from the Kremlin.

The practical victory came as the country’s revitalized Parliament adopted two resolutions paving the way for Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to gain a degree of economic autonomy that the Soviet leadership had decried as unacceptable as recently as last spring.

The symbolic advance was the report by a member of a state commission assessing the 1939 Soviet-German nonaggression pact, who told Radio Moscow that the panel has determined secret protocols attached to the treaty to be illegal and that they “should be proclaimed non-operative.”

Backdrop for Seizure

The protocols, long recognized in the West but denied here, designated the then-independent Baltic nations as within the Kremlin’s sphere of influence, and they formed the backdrop against which the Soviet Union absorbed Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia as constituent republics in 1940. The commission’s conclusion thus supports the argument that the Baltic states were illegally stripped of their sovereignty.

Both developments occur at a time of increasing unrest in the three Baltic republics, where next month’s 50th anniversary of the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is expected to trigger mass demonstrations.

During a heated debate in the Supreme Soviet on Baltic economic autonomy, Estonian deputy Mikhail Bronstein had warned that should the lawmakers try to postpone consideration of the issue, “the mandate of faith, given to deputies by the peoples of Baltic republics, will pass on” to others.

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are generally considered to be the wealthiest and most Western of all 15 constituent Soviet republics, and their leaders have been in the forefront of those pressing for more radical reforms under President Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s program of perestroika , or restructuring.

By moving to give the Baltics greater autonomy, Parliament made a decision of “historical significance,” said deputy Fyodor Burlatsky, a political writer and leading advocate of reform considered close to Gorbachev.

“This is the beginning of a movement in the direction toward real radical structure reform,” Burlatsky added. “It is a turning point in the consciousness of the deputies, which, I am convinced will be a precedent for a deeper, more serious approach to future reform.”

One of the Supreme Soviet resolutions endorses the right of the three Baltic republics to install their own cost accounting systems as of January. The other endorses, in principle, plans adopted by the Lithuanian and Estonian parliaments for virtually full economic independence. Local and republican authorities, rather than officials in Moscow, would decide what to produce and how profits would be spent.

Lithuania, for example, which now controls only about 11% of its industrial production, expects to be operating about 70% by the end of next year.

The Latvian Parliament is considering a similar economic independence bill.

Lithuania and Estonia had originally wanted the Supreme Soviet to pass a law sanctioning their economic plans, but that action was deferred until after Oct. 1. The resolutions were a compromise, but one that Baltic officials said was satisfactory.

“They have given us the green light for development of economic independence,” Estonian Premier Indrek Toome told the news agency Reuters after Thursday’s vote. “The lack of a law will in no way hinder us. We will push on.”

A Western diplomatic source who has been following the situation said in an interview that the resolutions amount to approval for a “very substantial decentralization of economic authority to the republics--one which only three or four months ago the center was saying was quite unacceptable.”

Gorbachev and leading reform-minded economists here have lately been pushing for more radical measures to break down bureaucratic resistance to reform.

Soviet Deputy Premier Minister Leonid I. Abalkin told the Supreme Soviet during the debate dhat autonomy should be introduced in the Baltic republics as an initial step toward putting the entire country on a system of decentralized economic management.

Foundation Before Roof

“You have to build the pyramid from below; the foundation must come before the roof,” he said. “We must not fall behind the deadline of the beginning of next year for Lithuania and Estonia.”

Greater local control over economic decision making was also a key demand of striking coal miners who triggered what Gorbachev described as “perhaps the gravest test” of his four years in power two weeks ago.

Opponents of the Baltic experiment argued that it “damaged the rights of other republics.” First Deputy Premier Yuri D. Maslyukov said he opposed “hasty decisions dictated by considerations of political tactics rather than the real economic situation.”

Maslyukov’s reference to “political tactics” was seen as a veiled reference to Baltic sensitivities over the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, signed Aug. 23, 1939.

Gorbachev agreed under pressure from the Baltics to establish a high-level commission to assess the pact. Earlier this week, Valentin M. Falin, head of the International Department of the Soviet Communist Party’s Central Committee, said on a West German television interview that there is no longer any doubt that the pact contained the controversial, secret protocols. The originals of the protocols have never been found, but Soviet historians have inspected a microfilm copy in the West German archives.

However, Thursday’s report by Radio Moscow was believed to be the first in which an official was quoted as suggesting that the protocols might be renounced.

Saying that the group was concluding its work, the radio quoted commission member Maryu Lauristin as commenting that “comprehensive studies of an impressive volume of documents have shown the pact was a graphic incidence of violation of the Leninist principles of Soviet foreign policy. Besides, the commission has concluded that there are secret protocols to the pact which should be proclaimed non-operative because they run counter to the law.”