The glass façade of the house allows sunrays to penetrate into the gallery where her paintings hang on the walls. The sunlight plays with the colors of the paintings, and light and shadow dance in that space in the center of which hangs a chandelier with nine lights like paratroopers distributing light in the night of the room.

A stairway leading upstairs; doors leading to rooms; and deep within, a back door that leads to a garden and a pond decorated with deep blue ceramics; surrounded by palm trees and other plants near a linen rope swing, a table and chairs perfect for meditation.

In an interview with “Emirates Today” Jurgita said: “I don’t want to reproduce reality in my art”. She believes that “the studio is the place for creative solitude”. She describes Dubai, which she has come to love, and so decided to make her home, as a “city of ideas”.

During our conversation, Jurgita spoke of her childhood and of all the studios where she worked. She spoke of culture in her family, the techniques she uses in her paintings, her solo exhibitions, her vision of creativity, her motivation for expressing herself through art, and her search for meanings within layers. Jurgita grew up in a creative home. Her grandmother was an artist, her father specializes in portraiture, her mother is an art critic for the National Museum in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, and her brother studied art and is a jewelry designer.

Jurgita studied Fine Arts in Lithuania, Iceland and Denmark, specialized in graphic art. “My upbringing in a household involved in art has allowed me to express my feelings”, she said. She described the creative environment she grew up by saying: “there were paintings and sculptures everywhere; it was a house of colors”. She reminisced about her childhood days in Vilnius: “Poets, musicians, novelists, artists and philosophers used to visit my father, Pranciskus, at our home and we kids were always introduced to them; and they would sign their books and creative works and give them to us as gifts”.

The Grandma

The artist, together with her jewelry designer brother, Darijus Gerlikas, put together and published a book dedicated to their grandmother, Petronele Gerlikiene (1905-1979), who was an intuitive artist. Jurgita remembers watching her grandmother embroider her work thread by thread, and painting spontaneously from memory. She adds: “She would finish her embroidery work surprisingly quickly, working directly from her imagination, without a pattern. And for her paintings on canvas she would use colors directly from the tube. She considered painting to be the same as education; she never received a formal school education”.

Speaking of her grandmother’s life, which was troubled by numerous tragedies during both World Wars, Jurgita added: “My grandmother started embroidering in 1972; and she started painting at the age of 71. Over the period of almost five years she produced more than 10 large tapestries and over 60 paintings”.

Jurgita lived in the family home in the capital of Lithuania until she was 20. She went on to tell us: “My mother, Danute Marijona, was an art critic and worked for the Museum of Vilnius. There were many discussions at home revolving around plastic arts exhibitions; culture was a major component of our family life”. Jurgita grew up in this artistic and creative atmosphere in Vilnius, a city that is over 1000 years old.

During her childhood, the family home was her first studio, and its walls the first creative space for artistic expression. But the walls were too large a space for a child eager to express herself through color; besides, those walls were not designed to be painted on. She added: “In my childhood, I started painting on the walls of my home, but my parents were quick to recognize my talent and they provided me with the paper, canvas, paint and tools that I needed”.

Artist Jurgita specialized in graphic art; she loves reading and writing poetry. She started writing in her childhood – and so poetry lives with her. Her engravings, her silkscreens, her digital art, all her artwork is poetic. There is poetry in her work, whether reflected in numerous colors or in monotone, black, white and their different tones. She said: “I try to express my feelings, my thoughts and reflections in words and color”.

The family home in Vilnius was like a “creative workshop”; paintings on the walls, statues, books, drawing tools, and discussions on culture. Jurgita studied art history in the Academy of Fine Arts in Vilnius and later moved to Iceland to study graphic art – from lithography, engraving, to silkscreen. She ended up spending a great many hours in the studio from where she breathed art, meditated on nature, and practiced drawing in the open air in the fields. It was also where she saw the exotic phenomenon called northern lights.

Speaking of the motivation behind her creative work which revolves around man’s inner world and the seeking of meanings inside layers, the artist said that: “It is about love, self-expression and the sharing of ideas, dreams and reflections”. She stressed that: “Creative people are hungry for knowledge, and for sharing this knowledge, love and expression. Art techniques are not an end in themselves, but love is the torch of creativity which makes life possible and more beautiful”.

Dubai

Jurgita visited Dubai on the 6th of November last year– that is three months ago. She toured the city’s landmarks and fell in love, because it is “the city of ideas, creativity and beauty which is reflected in day to day life” as she described it. She added: “I was astonished when I read the poems of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum on his website which speak of love. I was impressed with the fact that the Ruler of Dubai is a poet who encourages creativity and education. This is what has made Dubai great where many cultures converge”. So I decided to stay in Dubai and to start interacting with all its cultural components.

The Lithuanian artist who had 12 solo exhibitions and several group exhibitions looks forward to organizing an exhibition in Dubai. She expressed her desire for sharing with others and for teaching art. She would also like to learn more about Arab culture, pointing out that this probably goes back to her childhood: “When my mother read stories to me, many were about Arab customs and traditions in the desert, and their generous nature. I used to listen to the stories and imagine Arab life and traveling through the desert”.

Technique

Jurgita lived in the Danish capital Copenhagen for seven years. During that period, 2003 to 2006, she held two graphic art exhibitions, and she learned to use non-toxic materials in her artwork. The method primarily uses water, ink and other materials in various tones. She executed print work in black and white in this field which employs the principles of photography. She also learned “digital graphics” and how to create impressionist work using this technique. She pointed out that “multi-media creativity enriches the artist’s experience which allows for new expressive spaces and new possibilities”.

She had a studio at Factory of Art and Design, previously an old laundry building that encompassed studios for painting, sculpture, multimedia, fashion and graphic art. “The Copenhagen experience was important to me because we could share opinions and studio doors were always open” commented Jurgita in a reference to the doors for dialogue and sharing experiences between artists being also open.

Inner World

Jurgita’s creative vision focuses on abstraction, because, she stressed: “I do not want to reproduce nature or the reality before our eyes”. Some of her work, especially her digital graphic art, is a dialogue of colors and with shapes overlapping to produce layers of varying color depths. In some of her work we see a flower or a leaf covering the entire canvas, revealing its inner details and overlapping other layers.

These paintings need further reflection to be able to unveil the layers of inner meaning; the inner references hidden underneath the creative ambiguity. In this aspect, the artist touches on Sufism, mysticism or the Zen philosophy which aims to “reveal the absolute within the limited”. Jurgita employs her poetic intuition in the creation of her artwork as if she were a color-full ascent, especially as she is also keen on philosophy and poetry.

In her engravings/ etching dialogues between abstraction and embodiment as “an expression of the overlap between fact and fiction” abound. She pointed out that “art raises more questions, which makes people search more and reflect more on the aesthetics of art”. The artist, who re-constructs the inner world and the surrounding environment from a poetic perspective, elaborated that: “abstraction, or re-construction, gives new meanings to ordinary things”.

The Solitude of the Zero Line

Embarking on a piece of art can be described as “the zero line”, that is the first condition in which the painting, sculpture, poem or piece of music is created. Speaking of that ritual, the artist Jurgita Gerlikaite says “Before starting any creative work, I enter moments of profound reflection, in creative isolation, where passions bubble and ideas form in the imagination in a joyful environment”. She describes this condition as “an extreme condition of passion and meditation, which takes me to the heights of aesthetic joy. At that metaphysical moment, all the experiences, feelings, and diversified cultures I have known intensify and I become highly in touch with them”.

The U.S. Department of Defence did not identify the detainees under the arrangements made with the Latvian government.

State Secretary of the Interior Ministry Ilze Pētersone said: “The former Guantanamo inmate had already arrived in Latvia. Latvian authorities will do everything in their power to integrate this person in society and make sure he does not pose a threat.”

The number of prisoners remaining at Guantanamo is 176. Two others were transferred last week to Algeria and Cape Verde

“The United States is grateful to the government of Latvia for its willingness to support U.S. efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility,” the Pentagon said.

After U.S. President Barack Obama decided to shut down the Guantanamo prison, other EU countries, including Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Portugal and Hungary, have already admitted former prisoners of this military facility.

Dapkus Mr Prime Minister, the political season has ended together with the end of the Seimas spring session. What has the ruling coalition and the government managed and not managed to achieve during this political season? Which of the tasks that you assigned to the government and the ruling coalition at the beginning of the session would you like to mention?

Kubilius Indeed, even though the Seimas and the government are not the same institution, when a parliamentary sessions ends, we assess the work we have done. The government has very clearly defined the most important priorities for this year and it has been making every effort to implement them.

One of the most important priorities has been the same everywhere in the world and in Europe – to deal with the aftermath of the crisis and to ensure economic revival. I am happy that even though it was difficult to make the decisions, and even though these decisions were painful to the people, we managed to make them, and we continued cutting some expenses, including social expenses. Because we have done that we can now be more optimistic about our future and say that because we were responsible enough, our generation will not burden Lithuania with debt, which means that we feel responsibility for the future of our children.

Another thing that I would like to emphasize, and this was an important issue during this session, we have adopted the legal acts that would help us cope with unemployment. I have in mind the amendments to the Labour Code that will encourage businesses to create new jobs, which sometimes can be temporary jobs, and to employ new workers.

And the third thing I would like to mention is that we will continue looking for ways to help businesses. We see certain signs that some businesses are recovering from the economic crisis.

It is very important that there are first signs that our policy of inviting IT companies, big global companies, to open their businesses in Lithuania, has started showing results. Barclays has established its global computer-engineering centre in Lithuania. We are in the process of signing an agreement with Western Union, which will also set up a similar centre. We are about to sign an agreement with IBM. All this is very important if we consider our long-term perspective.

What other strategic economic issues could I mention? Perhaps changes in the energy market. I would like to remind you that we have been living without the nuclear power plant since 1 January. We had to quickly adjust to the new situation. An open electric power trading market was launched. We have been successfully creating a common Baltic electric power market. We are going to have changes in the gas sector. I would also like to mention the administrative reform. By reforming the system of regional governments we were seeking to bring local government decisions closer to the people. We have not yet managed to ensure that all local governments take over or seek to take over as many duties of regional governments as possible, but we will keep moving in that direction.

As you have mentioned, Lithuania has been living without the Ignalina nuclear power plant since 1 January. What are the government’s plans regarding a new nuclear power plant or regarding other ways that could be employed to ensure electric power supply?

First, I would like to note the fact that the price of electricity went up a little after we closed the Ignalina nuclear power plant, but it did not go up as much as it was forecasted in 2008. They were saying that the price of electricity could reach 0.80 Litas or even 1.00 Litas per kilowatt-hour. But this did not happen. The price of electricity went up by 15-20 per cent (to 0.42 Litas). We certainly have managed to protect Lithuania from bigger problems. And we have started getting ready for further developments.

During this political season we announced an international tender for a strategic investor. I believe we will have such an investor by the end of this year. And then together with our neighbours Latvians, Estonians, and Poles we will move on to concrete preparation for the construction. We are in contact with our neighbour Belarus. I think that through such cooperation we will perhaps manage to persuade the Belarusians that it is not very wise of them to build a nuclear power plant near the Lithuanian border. But these issues will be discussed in the future.

You have mentioned that nuclear power plants in Belarus and Kaliningrad may be built. What will happen with our own construction project if so many nuclear power plants are planned to be built in our neighbourhood?

I think that if we coordinate our plans with our neighbours, if we implement them, if we do not get distracted, and if we adhere to our plan, perhaps some of our neighbours will change their minds. But to achieve that we should ensure that our plans are not misunderstood. And I think that there is more and more understanding as far as our plans are concerned.

I am pleased that, not so long ago, perhaps at the beginning of May, there was a meeting of the four energy ministers or economy ministers responsible for energy issues in Brussels. The meeting was organized at our initiative and the initiative of EU Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger. This was a meeting of the Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, and Polish ministers, and Oettinger also participated in the meeting. They signed a very important document, a declaration on the regional importance of the Visaginas nuclear power plant. The document includes the EU’s involvement in the implementation of this project.

The government has decided to merge the electric power networks and to establish a new electric power group. Does it have anything to do with the strategic investor? Besides the construction plans, what are you going to do to restructure the electric power sector?

The restructuring plans are also based on the European Commission’s directives on the separation of the electric power transmission, distribution, and production networks. However, at the same time, the state will remain the owner of all these companies. We will seek to manage all the assets that belong to the state in a proper and effective way. I would like to draw your attention to the wider context here.

We are about to prepare the first public report, which we will publish next week. The report is being prepared in accordance with international standards. It will show how the state is coping with the management of its assets, and the value of these assets is really high – about 18 billion litas. This constitutes about 25 per cent of all the assets existing in our country. For the first time we will announce the results of the management of these assets. The results will be calculated in accordance with international standards.

I have to admit that the results do not look very good. If, for example, such assets were managed by Sweden, the state budget would have received additional 1.5 billion Litas. This is how much profit we could generate from the management of the state-owned assets. This includes the energy and transport sectors, railways, the national mail service, the state-owned woods, and the state-owned buildings where various bureaucratic organizations have their offices.

This leads us to an obvious conclusion that we should reform the management of our assets so that it is done in accordance with internationally accepted principles. There are three key principles. First one is transparency: Reports on the state’s management of the assets should be made public quarterly and the main report should be made public yearly. This will allow the public, our electorate, and international markets to evaluate our success.

This will allow us to show clearly and in accordance with international standards how we are managing our assets. We have not been doing that for 20 years. Nobody has tried to do that; there was just talk about our assets in general terms. Some were saying that we were managing them well, others that we were doing not so well. Now, however, we have clearly shown what the real situation is. The second principle is that we should formulate our goals in a very clear way; we should define what is it that the state is seeking by managing its assets. As we can see from the experience of other countries, one clear goal should be the increase of value of such assets. And the third one, a very clear principle, is to depoliticize the management of state-owned companies.

We are going to base our work on the aforementioned principles. There will be very important reorganizations and changes that should bring benefits to all people of Lithuania.

We should do the same in the energy sector. The assets controlled by the energy companies should be used to implement important energy goals, including the construction of the new nuclear power plant. The same goes for the construction of the electric power bridges, and we have made progress in both projects, with Sweden and Poland. As you can see, we have a lot of important work to do here. As for the gas sector, we are methodically seeking to correct the really big strategic mistakes that had been made in the past when the entire Lithuanian gas sector was privatized and when the distribution and transfer pipelines were not separated. And now we are prepared to implement the EU directives without any exceptions and reservations and to separate these two functions.

Without a doubt, the owners of the Lithuanian gas sector, be it Gazprom or somebody else, are not happy and will never be happy with the changes. But we are seeking to carry out this reorganization because this is the only way to ensure that Lithuanian gas users – individual users and businesses – could finally get the possibility of an alternative gas supply. This is why our next step, which we are going to make, is the construction of a liquefied gas terminal.

As for the gas sector, the separation of the functions and the implementation of the EU directive may lead us to the deterioration of relations with Gazprom. What would be the consequences? How would the owners of Gazprom and Lithuanian Gas react to these initiatives? For a long, time they have been successfully opposing the plans, such as the construction of the liquefied gas terminal.

I do not know what attitude Gazprom has towards the package of measures approved by the EU. If it does not like these measures, it could discuss this with the European Commission. We see the implementation of this directive as a huge strategic benefit to Lithuania, because it is absolutely obvious that our gas sector will not be interested in any alternative pipelines, links with Poland, or the construction of the liquefied gas terminal as long as it is controlled by Gazprom. This is a natural reaction if you are a monopolist, and this is what is today…

It is not important whether this monopolist is Gazprom or some Western company. It would be insane to ask them to allow others to enter the market. We should make it very clear that perhaps we overlooked something, or, if we want to be more precise, perhaps we made a mistake when we allowed one monopolist to privatize the entire Lithuanian gas sector. Seven or eight years have passed since the privatization, and despite all the declarations that alternatives would be created, nothing is happening. This is because, and I will repeat my words again, a monopolist would never agree to such things. And we should understand that very clearly.

Coming back to the liquefied gas terminal, what are the plans, with whom the government is going to build it, and which investors is the go averment going to invite?

We want to move fast forward, the time for discussions is over. If we look at the situation in the world market, international markets, it is absolutely obvious that we are painfully losing because we do not have any alternative to the monopolistic gas supply. In a situation like ours, the monopolist can set his own price that is about $100 higher than Gazprom’s price in the European market. Or the price for 1,000 cubic meters is $150 higher than the price of liquefied gas sold on the world market.

Big changes have taken place in the world when the Americans discovered the technology of extracting shale gas. The United States has got the possibility of having its own gas resources thanks to that. This is why there is a huge oversupply of gas right now in the market. The price of gas extracted in various Middle Eastern countries, such as Qatar and other countries, has fallen drastically, which means that we do not have much time to consider and discuss things.

But are these countries interested in investing in Lithuania, in coming to Lithuania with their capital?

Without a doubt, they are willing to do that. We see a possibility of negotiating with the countries that produce liquefied gas, be it Qatar or some other country; that is an object of discussion. But it is clear that if the state is building such a terminal, it should maintain its leading role in the project.

When will negotiations with an investor and the actual construction be launched?

I certainly would like the process to be as speedy as possible. I think that we should agree on certain organizational issues this summer and after that we will move forward.

But there were plans for you and your delegation to visit one of such countries, and the visit did not take place.

It has been postponed a little, but that is not a problem. We want to have a very clear vision of our actions and our plans. And I hope we will have a plan in the near future. According to our calculations, Lithuania may need about 1.5-2 billion cubic meters of liquefied gas per year. This will give us a very important alternative, because Lithuania uses about 3 billion cubic meters of gas per year. I would like to mention here another new initiative. As you know, during my recent visit to Belarus I had meetings with the Belarusian prime minister and president, the Belarusian representatives expressed their very clearly-formulated strategic interest and asked Lithuania for a certain help or cooperation so that Belarus could also have alternative gas supplies…

… Because they are tired of the constant pressure…

… Yes, they are tired of that; they also went through the so-called gas war. I had an impression that their interest was not melodramatic; it was a very real interest. Without a doubt, their needs are much bigger; they would like to have a liquefied gas terminal for the capacity of up to 8-10 billion cubic meters of liquefied gas, which would clearly change the nature of such a terminal. This is another reason why we need to make swift decisions.

Does this mean that there is a possibility of Belarus participating in the project in one way or another; is it really interested in that?

Belarus is interested, we just need to quickly consider all the possibilities, whether we start with a small terminal, the one we have already planned and which would suit our needs, and then think about how to expand it, or whether we should consider some other options. But I think that the fact the Belarus is looking for alternative sources of gas supply is a very important new tendency.

There have already been attempts to build a terminal in Vilnius, but interest groups had ruined the plans with the help of the legal system. Do you think this time the project will succeed?

All I can say is that our strategic priority is to transform our energy sector into an independent, autonomous, and integrated into the EU energy system. This does not mean that we will stop buying gas from the countries like Russia if the price seems competitive to us. But our strategic priority is an autonomous and independent energy system, and it should be integrated into the EU network.

Over the year and a half that we have been in power, we have demonstrated very clearly that in the areas where we see our most important strategic goals, we manage to achieve the results we need. We manage to implement our decisions even when our coalition is not stable, when it engages in discussions, or when it is chaotic, despite all the discussions and other political peculiarities we manage to achieve our goals. Therefore I do not see any reason why we should doubt whether we will be able to make decisions on such an important strategic issue.

How will this influence the price? Now we are paying a very high price for gas…

As I have already mentioned, the current price of 1,000 cubic meters of liquefied gas on the international market is about $150 less than the price we are paying Gazprom, the monopolist that provides gas to Lithuania. I have discussed this with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. I told him that Gazprom’s representatives should themselves realize that they have to analyse their price policy and they have to make it more flexible. Otherwise the price will only motivate us to seek alternative supplies. Actually, we find alternative supplies important and necessary to us in any case.

What has the Russian prime minister said about the prices of gas and Gazprom’s activities in Lithuania in general? As far as I remember, there had been cases of politicking and meddling in our domestic policy.

We dedicated a lot of time, perhaps half an hour, to the discussion of the tendencies in the global gas market. Perhaps the Russian prime minister thought that we did not know and did not see what was going on, so he was trying to explain to me that the Americans had discovered shale gas. I told him that we knew that and that the Poles could do the same. In other words, we exchanged the information we had. I think that the times when Gazprom could be a monopolist and could dictate its conditions in Europe will soon be over. When during the meeting with the Russian prime minister I said that we were planning to build a liquefied gas terminal, he repeated three or four times that Russia was not against such plans.

Mr Kubilius, what can you say about the rumour that after the electricity distribution networks are merged, they will be privatized?

This interpretation is again not exactly correct… We are speaking about the management of all state assets; which is about 17 billion Litas, including the electricity networks. After we deal with the initial arrangements, that is after there is the initial transparency and order, and after we announce all the data, and after we organize the management process, then we will allow private capital to contribute partially to the state companies, but this part will be very small, we will certainly not give away the entire state portfolio. And we are going to do that not the way we used to do such things in the past when privatizing objects, but we will distribute part of the shares in the market, at the same time we will strengthen capital markets and create new financial instruments. In any case, when the partially private capital enters the management of such assets, it brings positive changes. Private capital always seeks to reduce all expenses and stop all types of squandering. If this is done, state-owned assets could generate profit.

You have mentioned that there has been progress made in the construction of the electricity bridge to Sweden. What have we achieved?

Last year, we achieved crucial political agreements. We had to persuade our neighbours Latvians. Without any doubt, we had to work very consistently to do that. We also had to do a lot of work to persuade the Swedes that we were really ready to build not just some line between a Lithuanian and a Swedish business, but a real infrastructure line that the entire Baltic electric power market will be able to use. The Baltic electric power market will be connected to the Scandinavian electric power market.

In the past, the owners of our energy companies, including the owners of LEO LT, did not manage to persuade the Swedes. Perhaps they had some other plans. We have managed to reach an agreement and to ensure that this project is partially financed by the EU. Now we are doing the concrete practical work. According to the Swedish standards, and according to all international standards, such work cannot be done in one day. We have been urging our neighbours Swedes to accelerate the work, because according to the initial plan of the Swedish energy sector, such a line could start working in 2016.

You have mentioned that the price of electricity after the Ignalina nuclear power plant was closed did not go up as much as it was expected. You have said that this was because of the open electric power market? However, others are saying that we could have made agreements with Russian monopolies and receive electricity for an even lower price.

We think that the situation with the prices was exactly what it was because we created a possibility for the market to function, and the market is operating in accordance with the established Scandinavian model, we applied the same rules. And this is why we managed to avoid the rapid growth of prices that was predicted in all the reports that were used to try to convince [the EU] that the closure of the Ignalina nuclear power plant would be catastrophic for Lithuania. The previous government made an official statement that the price would double after the Ignalina nuclear power plant is decommissioned.

Does this mean that an agreement with RAO (Russian electricity company) was not needed?

It was not needed, that is for sure. And, in my opinion, the fact that the Scandinavian model is working is one of the key reasons why we have a competitive electricity price.

The priority – to be loyal NATO allies. The most important duty – missions far away from Lithuania. Strengthening Lithuania isn’t important, nor the preparedness of youth, nor a mobilized reserve with defensive capabilities, nor a national defense action plan and exercises. Your Uncle will figure it out – the mere presence of your Uncle, with something always in flux, is in itself defensive. Don’t worry about it, save your money. Territorial structures and national defense is a real thing. You can even still call it the Ministry of National Defense.

How often were these visions promoted by visiting lower level NATO functionaries – experts (although higher level functionaries reminded you – assure your own safety first), how many visions were brought back from visits by unenthusiastic Social Democrat Ministers, yet they obediently dismantled Valdas Tutkus’ military command. Much damage was done. Defensive strength did not weaken by itself – it was dismantled. The efforts of Juozas Olekas in particular, at an institutional level, whose conscious efforts ranged from a psychology of neglect and fraudulent motivations. Why prepare a defense if our Uncle is here and all around us flourishes peace and a sense of partnership, a defense won’t be needed ?  Aggressions, such as those suffered by Estonia, and after that Georgia, are helping NATO leaders to return to reality. Just as long as they to do not fall for Barack Obama’s psychology.

Previously we started to explore in reality (the Estonians already received the answer – you’re not defendable) how much help the NATO air detachment at Zokniai could provide us, or some US missile defense unit, if it is ever actually deployed in Poland (It appears it’s starting). After more serious discussion, it was verified that a Baltic regional defense plan was still in planning stages only. Indeed, the Alliance must guarantee that it can at least defend its own integral territory.

From this, what is known at present about the new NATO doctrine is a visible shift from illusion to reality. Leaders wisely sobered up to the new Russian doctrine in which NATO is identified as an enemy. Let’s realize, that according to it, not only Estonia, but Lithuania and Poland also – are the enemies of an expansionist Russia. It was not for no reason that last falls massive, aggressive military maneuvers, that were held just outside of our borders, were oriented at “The West”. We are in fact just west of the Russian-Belarusian military alliance. It was demonstrated to us in practical terms, with friendly blackmail as psychological warfare – you’re on the wrong side! Think about it!

These details even caused NATO to rethink. A panel of experts was created called the Group of Experts, led by former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, which presented some conclusions. These will be analyzed by Defense Ministers during a meeting in June and will be formalized by NATO leadership at a summit in Lisbon in November. At the time, the Centre for European Reform released its own report. Its advisory conclusions (New York Times May 16, 2010) indicated that Central and Eastern European nations are investigating their own national defense agreements with the US as they themselves see that NATO isn’t very concerned with their national defense. These NATO members, not feeling secure at home, are trying to find funds for national defense while putting off the purchase of arms in support of its mission in Afghanistan.

NATO was plainly unprepared for Russia’s invasion of Georgia, it also ignored other forms of intimidation such as the cyber attack against Estonia, and so “certain allies are concerned that NATO will not be prepared to come to their aid in case of crisis” wrote one of M. Albright’s advisors. Is this truly an inevitable dilemma – to assure the security of the Alliances borders or rebuild its relations with Russia? The London institutes report believes that you can take both paths at the same time.

So here arrive the Group of Experts recommendations. They were noisily greeted by Russian antidiplomat, representative of the NATO-Russian general framework, Dmitry Rogozin. It’s bad to think about: NATO’s exit from territorial boundaries, alternative natural gas supply routes, cyberspace. Beyond that, as with the irritating missile shield case, returns the concept that the border security of its neighbors is unacceptable. This is not simply Kremlin self importance. NATO is a “self-important” organization that addresses international relations issues without acknowledging Russia’s role as the center of the Second World. (To acknowledge that would require obtaining permission each time – and paralysis) NATO cannot expand organically as its boundaries are already over extended. (Recall that Moscow already set them more than once, including for us, Georgia even tried to stop it by war.) Worse though, during peace efforts to halt aggression, NATO tries to replace the United Nations – where Russia has a veto. We saw that NATO alone did this, albeit, according to Rogozin, this should rely on “mutual respect” of a vetoing partner with full respect for concrete interests. These fields of interest approach those of 1939.

The Group of Experts recommendations are brief and transparent, with additional comments.

First, they state what we noted previously, that the threat circle has expanded both geographically and qualitatively. NATO created a Europe that is “more democratic, more united and more peaceful than ever” (from the Group of Experts “Analysis and Recommendations”). However, the new century brought forth new unconventional security challenges. These are regional problems near NATO boundaries, terrorism, cyber attacks (such as against Estonia), energy supply route sabotage (to Lithuania via Ukraine), cuts to over sea routes, nuclear weapons technology proliferation – all these come from outside of NATO’s boundaries and originate there. Some details are being addressed by NATO, yet the new strategic concept must acknowledge that further changes are urgently required. Concepts already known from 1999 foresaw the use of NATO’s relationships with other countries and organizations as the means to prevent crises and to make it easier to achieve resolution, further respect the lawful (!) security concerns of others and seek to achieve peaceful resolution in accordance with UN charter. Now the experts hold that “the most pressing security concern is that events on one side of the world may echo throughout the world more quickly than before. Anarchy in one country may allow terrorists to establish safe haven from which it can establish operations across borders. Countries that resist and reject global norms create a precedent that others can follow. A cyber attack creating chaos in one city may inspire criminals in another city. Even terrorist groups and pirates can use modern information technology systems as they now have their own experts…”

Threats can be targeted against allied territories and citizens, vital lines and infrastructure, military and even their assets. (I’d also highlight bribery and supply) Risk may appear as attacks, but also as provocational statements – methods of political blackmail. These forms are both conventional and hybrid, for example when a terrorist group interacts with a state (in the Middle East – as many examples as you want) and is provided weapons of mass destruction.

Especially difficult is predicting the evolution of scientific research which can change the entire technical battlefield. Allies and partners must be vigilant regarding potentially destructive information and network technologies, cognitive and biological sciences, robotics and nanotechnology. The most destructive times in history were seen when the leaders of war led with aggressive measures.

Amongst the regional issues – the most stable, of course, is the Euro-Atlantic space. Proponents of global disruption would like to split it. (An old dream – a Europe cut off from the US or visa versa) Yet on the edge of Europe is an age old conflict zone – the Balkans and the Caucuses, emphasized in the “Analysis and Recommendations” document, requires permanent international attention.

Russia’s size and position define for her a significant role in the formulation of the Euro-Atlantic security environment. On a positive note, there are several areas where Russia is willing to cooperate. However, experience shows that Russian and NATO leadership do not always see things the same way.  For example, Moscow is concerned regarding NATO expansion, but allies speak of Russia’s attempts to intimidate them (initially neighbors) politically and economically. “A strategic approach can assist in unifying the allied view of Russia and transparently present NATO’s position, thus creating a foundation for meaningful cooperation. Because Russia’s political environment in regards to NATO is unpredictable, allies must seek to cooperate and together consider the possibility that Russia may decide to move in an opposite direction.” Here is the clarity that we’ve been waiting for. While Moscow yells “Nothing without Russia!”, constructive steps forward are few (let’s not speak of the political situation in the Caucuses), Western experts foresee that it may be necessary to move forward without Russia.

The conclusions regarding security are plain. In part: it does not appear that a conventional (standard arms) aggression against the Alliance or its members will occur “but this possibility cannot be ignored.”

Until recently and for some time we heard differently – it can’t happen, we can ignore it.

And yet, those risks that raise unconventional threats clearly present what NATO must be prepared for. Today’s news defines security, the provision of Article 5 regarding attack, a strategy of rejection, the need for military transformation, the ability to make rapid decisions (currently, we’d have to wait at least a month), the commitment to assist nations and organizations outside of the Alliance.

This impacts us, Lithuania, that not only believes and relies on its security, but understands as well what it itself must do. Georgia’s and Ukraine’s fate – is very instructive.

(translated by VG)

The article was published in Lietuvos zinios daily on 8 June

Like their fellow Europeans, many Lithuanians have expressed dismay that the administration of Barack Obama has turned its back on the Continent.           It appears that he has bigger fish to fry in Asia, that’s why he refused an invitation to meet with EU leaders in a May Summit. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the Georgian-Russian War, his decision to scrap George W. Bush’s anti-missile system in the Czech Republic and Poland has caused many residents of the East Baltic Sea region to express concern about Washington’s pledge to defend their countries. But such concerns are unwarranted and fail to take into account the horrible panoply of domestic and international problems that he inherited from his predecessor.

In any serious attempt to understand the Obama administration’s approach to foreign affairs, it is imperative to appreciate the magnitude of the poisoned legacy that he discovered as he entered office. It accounts for Obama’s laser-like attention to a multitude of daunting problems that he faces at home and is less a matter of his preoccupation with developments in places other than Europe. Also, in contrast to two protracted wars in the Greater Middle East and the prospect that Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons, could crumble into chaos, Europe is a peaceful place.

The place to begin is Bush’s disastrous decision to invade and occupy Iraq where he embarked upon the “wrong war” in Iraq before he finished the “right war” in Afghanistan. In spite of current efforts on the part of Bush’s Vice-President Dick Chaney and his leading political operative Karl Rove to justify this incredible blunder, the stunning truth is that Saddam Hussein did not possess the military prowess to harm the U.S. nor was he an ally of al-Qaeda.

Specifically, he did not have any nuclear weapons, and his chemical and biological capability was minimal and hardly a threat to the world’s most powerful military force. Moreover, Saddam was not allied with Osama bin Laden and the Iraqi dictator had nothing to do with the al-Qaeda 9/11 strike on the United States. Indeed, bin Laden deemed him an enemy. Some Democrats were mislead into believing false claims perpetrated by the Bush administration to the opposite while others cowardly supported the invasion less they look meek and lose the support of hawkish voters. Obama was not among them.

The fact is, key members of the elder George H. W. Bush’s administration like his national security advisor Brent Scowcroft and his Secretary of State James Baker both opposed the Iraq invasion for the simple reason that Saddam had been contained and represented no threat to the United States. They correctly predicted that if the younger Bush ignored their advice, the outcome would be disastrous for America’s national security.

Consequently, when Obama entered the White House, he had inherited two wars that have resulted in severe strains on the American military; international condemnation of ill-considered unilateralist policies that de-stabilized the greater Middle East and that among other things enhanced the capacity of Iran to make mischief there while giving Tehran the justification for acquiring nuclear weapons; declining faith in the moral rectitude of the U.S. in face of charges of  war crime violations; and finally a global shift in public opinion where-by America was deemed a greater threat to world peace than communist China. Significantly, this was not only the opinion of Muslims but of old American allies like the British.

To add to his misery, the young President was forced to address an economic meltdown that began in the United States and precipitated the worse global financial calamity since the Great Depression of the 1930’s. To make matters worse, Obama’s Republican opponents declared immediately after he entered office that they would obstruct him in his efforts to address America’s daunting problems with the declared intention of “bringing him down.” Indeed, his Republican opponents have been un-relenting in their campaign to sabotage the very policies that are required to address some of America’s most compelling problems.

The most glaring example here is the Republicans’ attempt to deny the American people a national health insurance program. It is unbelievable but until two weeks ago, the U.S. was the only advanced society that had not acknowledged that health care is a basic human right. Opponents of what amounts to a most health care program delayed its adoption by resorting to a disinformation campaign that was based upon distortion, out-right lies and fear-mongering.  It is no exaggeration to conclude that if Obama had lost the health care battle, his administration would have been dealt a lethal political blow. Among other things, it would have undermined his ability to address pressing international problems. It is against this backdrop that he has had little time to address foreign policies matters and then only those that are most urgent.

Also, as I noted in a Veidas article in the summer of 2008, presidential candidate Obama did not believe it was prudent to deploy an anti-missile system in Eastern Europe that did not work against a threat that had not yet materialized. Instead he has selected a system that is designed to meet Iran’s capacity to launch intermediate ranged missiles—that Iran possesses today–against its enemies in the Middle East and Europe. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has indicated, this is a better choice than the one that Bush has championed and Gates had earlier endorsed.

Finally a word about the 2008 Georgian-Russian War is in order. Presumably Moscow tricked the young rambunctious Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvilli into launching an attack against South Ossetia, but he took ill-considered actions that made this possible. The EU has concluded that he started the war in the first place. Consequently, former friendly American and European leaders have turned their backs on him less his capricious antics prompt another military exchange with Russia. The recent Georgian TV program that simulated a second Georgian-Russian war has been cited by his critics of further evidence of his irrational behavior. (He has denied having anything to do with it but his disclaimers have not convinced his critics on the one hand while on the other one the provocative program was a gift to Kremlin hard-liners who are bent on bringing him down.) At the same time, his commitment to democratic rule has been called into question. Is it any wonder then that leaders who are responsible for the welfare of their citizens in the dangerous former Soviet-neighborhood such as Lithuania are reluctant to share a diplomatic event with Saakashvilli.

Oh, one more thing. If George W. Bush had not invaded Iraq it is unlikely that there ever would have been a Georgian-Russian war in 2008. Burdened by a war in Iraq that had cost many lives and billions of dollars and a return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the American military was badly over-stretched. Simultaneously, the international stature of the U.S. had plunged under Bush’s stewardship. To make matters worse, the calamitous economic meltdown was waiting in the wings. Under these circumstances, the military-minded in Moscow believed they could act without interference from a discredited leadership in Washington.

When considering Obama’s policies toward Europe then, the poisoned legacy that he inherited from George W. Bush–compounded by his political opponent’s obstructionist policies and an economy under stress–are the place to start.

Dick Krickus is professor emeritus at the University of Mary Washington University and has held the H. L. Oppenheimer Chair for Warfighting Strategy at the U.S. Marine Corps University.

Excellencies, distinguished priests of One God, colleagues parliamentarians, ladies and gentlemen!

Let me share with you some words on tragedies in plural, not only that unique we are commemorating.

Haiti disaster caused by the earthquake is an enormous and terrible human tragedy, which does continue until now.

The tsunami, which passed over Aceha and other Indonesian areas, caused tremendously huge and painful human tragedy, as well.

But what about mass murders in Rwanda, Darfur, East Timor, Kambodja, Chechnya etc.? – there we need another, different definition.

Tragedy for the victims, not for the killers.

What then about the Holodomor or death camps of Nazis and Soviet Bolsheviks, indoctrinated and premeditated for extermination day-by-day of millions of innocents? We need again a different, special definition there for the dark creatures – from the system-builders to physical perpetrators, so similar to humans – but we would abuse the beasts when calling those shaped on two legs by this very word. Wild beasts never behave in such a way. Who could kill the elder, women and children – thousands and millions – only because they were Jewish?

Allow me to say, Ladies and Gentlemen, not so many words of sorrow and sympathy to the victims we are commemorating in solidarity and mourning, as they deserve, today and here, near to Auschwitz. Requiem aeternam. This European camp of death is a particular one, as it was used for real industry of killing and only by one totalitarian power only, not by two replacing each other like it was made in Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen or even Macikai in my native Lithuania. But if we stay on it, one may ask: why do you not look into the future?

Allow me to say more words about the mysteries of the degrading human soul. It may become deadfully significant for our common future. Holocaust of the 20^th century was a signal about essential failures of culture, even that called the Western one, but same time also about future disasters which are currently and worldwide coming on.

Did we receive that signal?

If “Work gives freedom” – along with the mockery of Auschwitz, – what gives freedom from morals, from compassion and love, from being human?

That false freedom is brought upon us by totalitarian, sorry, total relativism on what is good and what is evil. Unfortunately, this also eliminates an abyss of a distinction between love and hatred. The latter takes over and goes on applauding, and then we face the abyss.

Teachings of immorality and hatred do flourish world-wide, while love and compassion are becoming “politically incorrect”. If the time allows, I could tell you the story about the Constitution for Europe. Any reference to any religion was totally opposed there as having nothing with Europe, and it was expressed with harsh intolerance stemming from those who usually call for tolerance.

The entire world is on wrong track now. But going again a little back to the matters related with the historical and symbolical site Auschwitz, who could say, what is the destiny of the State of Israel? For the Friends of Israel, it should be the matter of greatest concern. The only victory for all sides in conflict is Peace, but Iran and its proxies do not want it. After producing a bomb, they will blackmail the region much more aggressively. As US direct support for Israel in an openly military way would be detrimental for the Americans, their adversaries fighting for domination will eagerly provoke such pro-Israeli American war in the Middle East. First success in such a pretty provision is isolation of the US, as well as unity of extreme Arabs and Moslem consolidated by strong anti-Americanism. Moscow’s dream, be sure. The second in line success, a sweet dream of the hegemonist Iran and its instructors, would be retreat and geo-ideological isolation of the US. The third, rather local, success of several totalitarian regimes in the area, would be the second historical exodus of the Israeli people… Save God, but I am not sure, as anyone may be, if there is no such planning and if Europe, increasingly tied with Russia, would rush into a crusade for Israel. The mantras about the two state solution or unceaseable right of Israel to exist may look not binding anymore, on line with many others. What would be the last alternative or preemption of second Holocaust – the Israeli bomb dropped on Iran? And what after that?

Excuse my painting such diabolic pictures in black colours only; but that very place of ashes and tears, short to what we now gather, is calling tremendously loud: do something, you people of reason and humanity, do something to change that fatal course drafted by the Satan! Even if it would be only one among several options, we have to do everything for that option ceases to exist.

At the same time, dangers for Jewish nation and State of Israel do signal much more, similarly they could do during the Holocaust. Approaches of all the nations to each other and Nature, if they wish to survive on our globe, should be essentially changed. The same about the relations between the groups and single people everywhere. As Mother Therese have said – and I heard it – adoption, not abortion! – accordingly we must insist everywhere on cooperation replacing any domination. A simple word – love – tells us what is to be found anew and fundamentally. If we still wish to survive, of course.

Speech at Conference of the European Friends of Israel, to the 65^th Anniversary of the Liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Camps.
26 January 2010, Krakow