Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Commentary: Lithuania Should Re-Evaluate Regional, Foreign Policy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Commentary: Lithuania Should Re-Evaluate Regional, Foreign Policy

    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.
Working...
X