Lithuanian newspaper Lietuvos rytas views Lithuania’s possibilities to peruse its political agenda while chairing the OSCE in 2011.  The editorial was published on 5 January.

The Lithuanian diplomatic service celebrated the beginning of 2011 by undertaking perhaps the greatest challenge since the restoration of the country’s independence. On 1 January, Vilnius took over the OSCE chairmanship; the organization unites 56 countries, but it has generally been seen as inefficient for many years now.

It was rather symbolic that already on the first day of the chairmanship, Lithuania faced a problem that no one could possibly solve – on 31 December, Belarus announced that it would not extend the mandate of the OSCE mission in Minsk.

The Lithuanian politicians’ reaction was a barely audible expression of regret and calls for Lukashenka to change his behavior. EU and US officials made much more resolute statements.

But does anybody believe that these statements will help restore the OSCE’s mission in Belarus? Does the OSCE actually have any leverage it could use to change the attitude of the dictator of the country that is a member of this organization?

What is more, it is the OSCE chairmanship that restricts Lithuanian diplomats’ freedom to react to conflicts. One of the OSCE’s unwritten rules is that the country presiding over the organization cannot take a stand on any issue, all it can do is mediate and try to find a common solution.

We should keep all that in mind when we evaluate Lithuania’s current position on Belarus expressed after the repressions that followed the presidential election show in the country. Perhaps some people may think that Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite’s or Lithuanian Foreign Minister Audronius Azubalis’s statements on Belarus were too soft? Perhaps they were. And perhaps they would be the same even if Lithuania were not presiding over the OSCE. But, at least, the advocates of a stricter policy toward Minsk would have the right to criticize the Lithuanian leaders for their actions and statements.

Now, however, this is something we cannot do because we do not know what the Lithuanian politicians’ real stand on this issue is. The status of the country presiding over the OSCE has deprived Lithuania of its right to independent opinion and initiative.

Ultimately, it will be the Lithuanian leaders who will be held responsible for all diplomatic problems, both in the international arena and in Lithuania. And we already have an example, while Lithuania is discussing its policy toward Belarus, it seems that many people see Minsk’s decision to close the OSCE mission in the country as yet another slap in Vilnius’s face. Of course, this is not true; even if another country were presiding over the OSCE, Lukashenka would close the OSCE mission after his new dictatorship show anyway.

Inevitably, Lithuania will be responsible for any diplomatic failures.

Lithuanian diplomats have been deprived of the right to independent policy and freedom of manoeuvring. All the Lithuanian diplomacy can do now is act as an intermediary.

Therefore, a question arises: Why did Lithuania seek to preside over the OSCE if even the organization’s biggest supporters silently doubt the OSCE’s effectiveness? The only benefit of the presidency we have been told about so far is the expectation that the OSCE chairmanship will strengthen Lithuania’s international authority. Perhaps, but only if the chairmanship is successful. And what if it is not?

Another argument in favor of the country’s OSCE chairmanship was that it would be a good opportunity to have a rehearsal before Lithuania’s presidency of the EU. The EU presidency is indeed important for Lithuania, and this is why it is important to test the country’s capabilities and skills. Perhaps there is some reason behind that, but do Lithuanian diplomats really think that there are no other ways to improve their skills? Have other new EU member states been so insistently seeking to preside over the OSCE just to be able to rehearse for EU presidency?

The OSCE chairmanship will cost Lithuania some 9 million litas (EUR 2.6 mln). The only consolation for us is that Kazakhstan had spent several times more than Lithuania is planning to spend. On the other hand, we could have spent the 9 million litas in Lithuania, to improve the people’s wellbeing. Perhaps the OSCE chairmanship will help Lithuania achieve some foreign policy goals? For example, the goals that Lithuania had been pondering before Grybauskaite became president. It was actually then that Lithuania was seeking to preside over the OSCE.

At the time, Lithuanian diplomats had a very clear goal – to do all it takes to block the spread of Russia’s influence in the post-Soviet area and to bring the post-Soviet countries closer to the EU.

The problem is that the role of the OSCE chair does not provide the presiding country with tools for such active policy; on the contrary, and the current situation with Lukashenka proves just that.

Well, now it is too late anyway. Now the main Lithuania’s interest is to make the OSCE chairmanship as successful as possible. In the future, however, Lithuanian diplomats should learn to apply cost-benefit analysis before undertaking any projects.