THE KHANATE OF BUKHARA, KHIVA AND URYANKHAY KRAY IN KOLCHAK’S GOVERNMENT POLICY

Abstract

Preserving the territorial and state unity was one of the priorities in Kolchak’s government policy. That became evident in the actions toward the protectorates ofRussia: Khiva,Bukharaand Tuva (Uryankhay Kray). Such a task was difficult to implement because of complicated external circumstances. Those territories were strategic localities where interests ofGreat Britain,ChinaandMongoliacompeted, and where the spheres of struggle between theSovietStateand the Russian antibolshevist units were present. Kolchak’s government strove to keep the protectorship and the preexisting treaty obligations concluded before 1917. The relations withBukharaand Khiva as antibolshevik struggle allies assumed particular significance in the autumn of 1919, when their additional military assistance was demanded. The military mission was sent to Khiva along with the appeal to the chagan of Khiva and the emir ofBukhara. In the missive letters Kolchak determined the objectives of his government: struggle against Bolshevism; restoration of peace and order; the right of theRussianState’s peoples to the freedom of self-determination of «their life through establishing Constituent assembly». Concerning Uryankhay Kray, Kolchak's regime tried to find new mechanisms to strengthen its ties with the state domain ofRussia. The elements of the Uryankhs’ self-government of were preserved for the purpose of gaining their trust. But the elections of the people’s representatives had to be held under the control ofOmskauthorities. The chief lama of Uryankhay Kray, the supporter of the alliance withRussia(but not withChinaandMongolia), had to strengthen his influence on the Uryankhs. The regime made him a substantive figure, independent from Lamaist clergy of other countries. However, all these measures in the situation of the Civil War were not sufficient for providing Russian integrity. The White Guard’s strategy to preserve the united and integralRussiawithout guarantees of altering the status of national territories served as an obstacle for the policy implementation. This aggravated public sentiments and lack of support for the maintenance of protectorates as part ofRussia.