Lithuanian web site Delfi on 12 January published an interview with Albinas Januška, a former state secretary of the Foreign Ministry, former adviser to President Valdas Adamkus and Prime Minister Gediminas Kirkilas, and signatory to the Lithuanian Independence Act. 

Some commentators call him Lithuania’s grey cardinal and a mastermind behind so called group called the ‘Statesmen’ (Valstybininkai).  This very rear interview with a man who is known for being the main Lithuania’s foreign policy strategist, but his influence in Lithuanian politics was also huge.

The interview is omitted.  Commentator Vladimiras Laučius conducted it.  

Foreign Policy Is Too Personal
(Delfi.lt) About a year ago, current Foreign Minister Vygaudas Ušackas announced his plans to “open new page in relations with Russia.” Have you noticed any changes?

(Januška) Usačkas is talented and brave. Visions and innovations are necessary. There indeed are some new initiatives. But it is important not to make a mistake and not to imagine oneself as the forerunner of a new historical period.

It seemed that the country was mature enough, that it had opened a sufficient number of “new pages,” and that we had the right to expect to have a predictable, stable, but also sharp and expansive foreign policy.

The biggest mistake is that we again chose to have relations with the Kremlin based on the tête-à-tête principle. This is why we are a member of a modern empire – the EU, to speak with Russia as an equal. A powerful rival against an equally powerful rival. The Kremlin’s foreign policy is based on the principle that one has to divide and rule, because when Russia deals with everyone separately, it is stronger. Our current policy helps Russia strengthen its interests.

I would like to remind you that when Adamkus and [former Minister of Foreign Affairs] Petras Vaitiekūnas were in power, they had added to the EU-Russia negotiation mandate some issues that were important to us and other EU countries: Russia’s commitment to observe the requirements defined in the Energy Charter, the possibility to renew the delivery of oil via the Friendship [Druzhba] pipeline.

Moreover, they proposed an additional declaration on Georgia and Moldova, on judicial cooperation to restore justice and ensure Russia’s cooperation with EU countries on criminal cases related to the 13 January 1991 events in Vilnius and 31 July 1991 events in Medininkai, as well as the cases related to the disappearance of EU citizens in Russia and compensation for damages to the people who had been deported from the occupied Baltic countries.

Perhaps somebody could tell us how successful have we been in defending our interests together with Europe?
(…)

(Delfi.lt) In your opinion, what has changed in Lithuanian foreign policy?

(Januška) There were attempts to find new possibilities in relations with Russia. But no changes have taken place.

Perhaps foreign policy has become more personal. The Foreign Ministry’s press releases stress the foreign minister’s personal opinion, his stance, and his achievements. There is no clear coordination of foreign policy with the Presidential Office. Of course the president could not ignore this situation. I think that the recent “exchange of opinions” [between the president and the foreign minister] is an outcome of this personalization of foreign policy.

America is not interested in us not because of Barack Obama, but because of our domestic problems.

(Delfi.lt) Does the shift in the US foreign policy priorities after Obama became president, if there is such a shift, means that the United States has become less interested in Lithuania and that because of that we have to harmonize our policy with the European policy more, no matter how pro-Russian it might be sometimes?

(Januška) It is our mistake that we pay too much attention to changes in US policy. Russia is not so important there. The superpower is looking for new ways to approach the Iran problems, by shrewdly offering diplomacy and veiling its power. This policy requires Russia’s participation. However, the United States, unlike Lithuania, knows very well what its goals are and it strives to accomplish them. And it will accomplish them, through diplomacy or power.

If we continue our active cooperation, if we help the United States solve global security problems, we will not lose its interest. We are becoming less interesting or not interesting at all to the United States not because of President Obama, but because of our domestic problems. If we want to punish someone in Lithuania, we could have done that without the involvement of the United States.

(Delfi.lt) What is your opinion on the story that CIA prisons existed or did not exist in Lithuania? What has Lithuania achieved by conducting a parliamentary investigation? Have we come closer to the truth? Have we protected human rights, democracy, or the Constitution?

(Januška) The investigation was unavoidable. The situation has not become clearer and the confrontation has not disappeared. Some people are saying that these are only assumptions, others that these are facts. Both feel they have come closer – some have come closer to the truth, others have come closer to Mečys Laurinkus, [former director of the State Security Department].

Whether these prisons existed or not, perhaps we all will finally agree that Lithuania had not violated (or simply did not have enough time to violate) international human rights. And if somebody someday proved that there were prisoners, the situation would be rather sad.

(Delfi.lt) What is your opinion on the statements that million of US dollars allocated to the Belarusian opposition had been lost in Lithuania?

(Januška) Indeed, Lithuania and other EU countries had hosted or perhaps still host US foundations that support democracy in Eastern Europe. This is not a secret. Everybody knows that the Belarusian and Russian Presidents have banned such foundations in their countries. The EU has also allocated big amounts of funds to development of democracy, and so has Lithuania. This is an obligatory condition for EU members. There had been doubts as to the transparency of the Foreign Ministry’s allocation of the funds, to the extent that appointment of one responsible person to an ambassadorial post had been suspended. However, as far as I understand, the investigation did not reveal any discrepancies, and this person was appointed an ambassador.

We did not and could not have any idea about the US funds allocated to Belarus, because Lithuania did not have these funds, it did not control them, and this is why it could not have embezzled them in any possible way. This was between the United States and the Belarusian nongovernmental organizations.

However, the Belarusian President has mentioned several times that the Belarusian opposition had allegedly embezzled the funds. Not so long ago, he again said that the opposition was disgusting because it had stolen the money.

Without a doubt, the Belarusian secret services are trying to block the flow of the funds to the nongovernmental organizations, and they will do anything to accomplish that, they will not hesitate to use a defamation tactic. It is obvious that they have their “representatives” in Lithuania, and that these people spread disinformation to discredit the Belarusian opposition and the financial donors.

Do not forget, only the Belarusian President and the sources of disinformation know the alleged amounts of money.

Because this defamatory information had been publicized on a number of occasions, representatives of the US State Department expressed their opinion on this issue to the Lithuanian Government. We should note that this disinformation from Belarus is used to suggest that it is not Belarus to be blamed for [State Security Department official] Vytautas Pociūnas’s death, but Lithuania and its mystical officials.

Perhaps they are trying to suggest that Lithuanian officials, who had embezzled the US money, went to Belarus and pushed Pociūnas out the window, and that Belarus had nothing to do with that, and that we need to clarify the issues in Lithuania. I think everybody understands who will benefit from this situation. It is very good that the Foreign Ministry has finally started clarifying who is who here

We should not forget that the Belarusian law enforcement institutions are fighting against us in this way and have initiated criminal cases against several state officials on absurd grounds – attempts to kill the opposition leader and to organize a coup. I am one of such officials.

Despite all that, I think that we have to look for ways to cooperate with the official Belarusian Government and with President Aleksandar Lukashenka. There is simply no other choice.