COMMENTARY: LITHUANIA SHOULD RE-EVALUATE REGIONAL, FOREIGN POLICY

Delfi website, Vilnius
2 May 06

[Commentary by Balys Primorskas: “Lithuanian Foreign Policy:
Quo Vadis”]

Almost two years ago, a new vision of Lithuania – a member of the EU
and NATO – was presented to the public. According to this vision,
Lithuania is the centre of the region, and Vilnius is the regional
capital. We have to admit that the vision was indeed nice. It inspired
Lithuania to participate actively in shaping the pro-European foreign
policy in the post-Soviet territory.

Lithuania has contributed a great deal to the implementation of
various initiatives related to the democratization of Belarus, Ukraine,
Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Perhaps this, indirectly,
encouraged Lithuania to participate actively in the reconstruction
works in Afghanistan’s Ghowr Province.

Thanks to the active foreign policy in the post-Soviet territory,
Lithuania has become a prominent player on the international
scene. Lithuania has managed to avoid the fate of a province forgotten
by God and by the most important players in international politics.

The Lithuanian institutions that are shaping and implementing
Lithuanian foreign policy have accomplished a lot by renewing or
initiating close new ties with the former USSR republics. Moreover,
Lithuania has managed to establish and master the main principles of
spreading democracy.

We welcome public discussions about Lithuania, as the centre of the
region, an empire, or the 21st century’s Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Such
discussions are good exercise for political science students because
they motivate them to think over and to revive our history; it gives
us more self-esteem and inspires us to take action.

The vision of Lithuania as the region’s centre was useful because
it helped us overcome the stagnation in the foreign policy that was
present after we joined the EU and NATO. Who knows, perhaps if not
for this vision, there might not been any pro-Western activities in
the post-Soviet territory.

In any case, we need to revise the vision of Lithuania as the regional
centre that carries the flag of the Western civilization. Now is the
time to ask: “Does Lithuania indeed have enough resources to aspire
to the status of the region’s centre?”

The article by Antanas Kulakauskas, “Postmodern Imperia or Golden
Province,” published in the weekly Veidas on 16 March gives us
a good opportunity to start a wider discussion about what kind of
foreign policy would benefit Lithuania more. If we review and analyse
critically what Kulakauskas has written in the article, we can propose
a somewhat different scenario of development of Lithuanian foreign
policy, the scenario that would take into consideration Lithuania’s
limited potential.

To start, we have been ignoring the fact that the weak spot in the
vision of Lithuania as the region’s centre is that we are ignoring the
obvious, that Lithuania is a small country with limited resources. It
was not by chance that Kulakauskas wrote favourably about Estonia,
a country that is seeking to become an EU “golden province” and to
achieve that by following the philosophy of an artful and rational
country. Lithuania is following the vision of being the region’s
centre and ignores facts that contradict this vision. By doing so,
Lithuania could simply “burn out” or become too “strained.”

If the Lithuanian initiative to become a regional centre has brought
a short-term benefit, it has helped us avoid being an unremarkable
province. In the mid- or long term this initiative, which has not
been evaluated in the context of reality, can make us weaker. By
taking up various projects (which are often not evaluated rationally)
aimed at the democratization of the post-Soviet territories, we are
wasting valuable human and financial resources.

It is possible that after we waste our limited resources, we will
fail to show our Western partners any positive results and, at the
same time, will lose the trust of the post-Soviet countries. Then we
will have to give up our ambitions, and we will become a political
periphery ruled from abroad and representing foreign interests.

If Lithuania wants to have a more efficient and more functional
foreign policy, it has to do the following.

First, it has to team up the post-Soviet territories’ specialists
and prepare new ones.

The idea that Lithuania has to strengthen its national political
scientists’ potential is not new. However, we must admit that the
current situation is not satisfactory. We know the Russian language
and have exceptional experience of living in the USSR. However, we do
not have or do not have enough good specialists on Belarus, Ukraine,
Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. We emphasize that we can
understand residents of the post-Soviet territories much better than
any other EU country; however, by saying so, we are lying to ourselves
and to others.

Time passes and the situation in the countries of the post-Soviet
territory is different from what it was when the USSR collapsed. It
is not enough just to know the Russian language to call yourself an
expert on Ukraine, Azerbaijan, or Moldova. It is necessary to know
the specifics of these countries and to be aware of the situation in
each one (sometimes it is important to be more aware of the situation
than the locals are).

Our most attractive plans are doomed to collapse if we base our action
on sketchy and unreliable information. Not a single strategy will work
if before drawing it we do not carry out a thorough and exhaustive
analysis, if we do not evaluate all steps and contra-steps. To be
able to do that, we need specialists who know not only the Russian
language, but also the Georgian, Ukrainian, and Romanian languages.

Lithuania needs a strong and authoritative centre for strategic
analysis, whose specialists would help our country make use of the
economic and political power of the Western countries in our pursuit
to find our place in the economic and administrative niches of the
post-Soviet territories. It is important to invest in the people who
are interested in the post-Soviet countries and who have analytic
abilities. Lithuania has people who, with the right motivation,
could work in a strategic analysis centre.

In the long run, this would bring Lithuania a huge profit; this is why
we should allocate money for such projects. Good specialists would help
us save our limited resources by selecting the aid projects that would
be worthwhile and by deselecting the ones in which Lithuania should
not participate. Moreover, they could help to identify the countries
on which Lithuania should concentrate its attention and efforts.

Second, we should identify the post-Soviet territory countries
that indeed need Lithuania’s support and where this support would
be effective.

We have the specific knowledge about how to develop the essential
administrative competence needed to join the EU and NATO. Lithuania
knows how to shake off the Soviet heritage, how to transform a
centralized economy into a free-market economy, and how to harmonize
legal and political systems with EU and NATO requirements.

We can give useful advice to the post-Soviet countries; we can help
them not to repeat our mistakes. Here we have an important advantage
over the old EU countries and even over the [former] Warsaw Pact
members that have a similar experience of living under the USSR
umbrella.

We have to use this advantage. At the same time, we should realize that
we cannot democratize the post-Soviet countries all at once. Today, by
pretending we are the region’s leaders, we are trying to democratize
the wrong countries. We are not democratizing the countries that are
important geopolitical players and that are important participants
in the fight of the world’s mighty powers.

It is obvious that Ukraine is not within our range of possibility. This
country has powerful forces and big money. All Lithuania can get
in the Ukraine’s democratization game is the role of a utility
player. Therefore, the Lithuanian initiatives in democratizing Ukraine
should be well-weighted. For example, we could take measured steps
towards the democratization of Ukraine (or some other country)
if we want to give a “headache” to those who want to revive the
Russian empire.

We have to admit that the Belarus democratization projects will not
bring any benefit until the Belarusians indeed want this. It is funny
that we are trying, in an artificial way, to present Belarusians to the
West as a nation that longs for democracy. It is clear to everybody
that Alyaksandr Lukashenka would have won the presidential elections
in Belarus even if it had been free and fair.

Lithuania should support the Belarusian opposition, but we should
not overdo it. In the future, Lithuania may have to face painful
consequences because it is forcing freedom and democracy on the
Belarusians.

Generally speaking, the enthusiastic idea of some architects of
our foreign policy for Lithuania to become the tool to spread the
Western civilization ideas does a lot of harm to Lithuania. Often,
we look at the post-Soviet countries that do not belong to the EU and
NATO the same way an older brother looks down on his younger brother,
who is not capable of making independent decisions. In the long run,
citizens of these countries may start feeling resentful.

If we force on them our ideas of freedom and democracy, we may not
only spoil bilateral relations but also push the possible allies
towards Moscow. We have to admit that we are not an ideal stronghold
of freedom and democracy. This is why our relations with other
post-Soviet countries have to be the relations of equal partners,
not relations in which one party tells the other what to do and the
other blindly follows the orders.

In principle, Lithuania could work with and expect to be successful in
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. But to do that, we need to evaluate
what ties and interests connect us to these countries. Of course,
it would be good if these countries manage to become true democracies
and part of the Euro-Atlantic system. But the question is what will
Lithuania gain? (Would there be any economic gain?)

If there is no gain or if the gain is too small, is it worth wasting
our resources? Perhaps we should consider another country as our
priority, for example Moldova, and concentrate our efforts there? When
drafting a priority list of two or three countries, we should
concentrate on the countries of the Balkan region and Central Asia.

Third, we have to admit that we are not the only ones who seek to
“conquer” free administration and economy niches in the post-Soviet
territories.

Our ideas of bringing democracy to the East are not unique. Latvians
and Estonians also understand what the possible gains are if they
participate in the democratization projects in the post-Soviet
territories. Moreover, there are other countries that have been active
in the post-Soviet territories – Poland and Germany. The fact is that
we cannot match the resources and potential of these countries.

Poland and Germany have achieved a lot in the post-Soviet countries
that are striving to join the Euro-Atlantic structures. If Lithuania is
the leader in certain areas and certain countries, by all means, such
leadership is only temporary. This is why Lithuania should cooperate
with one of these countries or play with both in an effort to restore
balance. Through cooperation with Poland and/or Germany, Lithuania
could increase its manoeuvre possibilities significantly. Together
with these countries, Lithuania could implement the projects it is
not able to carry out on its own.

Of course, we have to admit that by cooperating with Poland or/and
Germany Lithuania would be pushed away from the leader position. The
political weight of the countries differs considerably. We of course
can relinquish the big ambitions and the biggest part of the praise,
if this gives us considerable economical and political dividends. If we
try to gain too much, we can lose everything. Indeed, Lithuania does
not need to compete with other EU countries. We have to complement
the efforts of the EU institutions or of other EU member states for
the sake of everybody’s wellbeing.

We have to stress that the European Union and the United States agree
that it is essential to promote democracy all over the world. The
projects initiated by Lithuania have to do with the democratization
of the post-Soviet territories; this is why we can be successful in
“selling” these projects. Of course, the best wrapping paper for
such a project would be the one with the EU symbols. In such a case,
we could please the old EU member states and make a more serious
impression on the countries we support.

Indeed, a well-planned Lithuania’s step towards the East “blessed”
by the EU would help ensuring Lithuania’s security and solving
internal social problems. In such a case, Lithuania could use the
resources it has in a more effective way; moreover, it could use the
EU funds (allocated for the neighbourhood policy); the Lithuanian
businessmen would get access to new markets and new fields of economic
cooperation. In consequence, the EU would win, ordinary Lithuanian
citizens would win, and the countries that are expecting our support
would also win.

Lastly, I have to note that public diplomacy, which has not been
actively employed so far, can play an important role in Lithuania’s
aspirations to participate in the democratization processed in the
neighbouring Eastern countries. Visits by officials, declarations,
institutional cooperation cannot substitute for cooperation between
ordinary people. Students exchange, cooperation between cities and
towns, cultural events – all these and many other things that may look
unimportant at first glance (for example, broadcasting programmes
of the countries we are interested in) could give a much more solid
basis for bilateral cooperation at the official level.

Indeed, Lithuania, which is striving to become a “post-modern empire”
or a “golden province,” needs a clear roadmap on how to attain this
goal. In both cases, the most important things are strengthening our
analytical capacity, making a prioritized list of the countries we
should support, and cooperating with Poland or Germany.

If we do not start solving the above mentioned problems, we will very
soon become not an “empire” or a “golden province,” but an EU outpost.