Polish Infrastructure deputy minister Tadeusz Jarmuziewicz met Lithuania‘s Communication deputy minister Rimvydas Vastakas in Vilnius to sign a mutual agreement on the matter this Thursday.

“We have reached the agreement with Lithuania that we have to start the discussions,” Jarmuziewicz told PAP.

According to Lithuania‘s Transport and Communications Ministry, the two countries will cooperate on accomplishing a study on the possibility to create an air space block . The European Commission is going to finance the study partially.

“This project is a big challenge to the engineers. We hope to finish it by 2012,” Jarmuzievicz said.

He stated that other Baltic countries, Latvia and Estonia, could also join the block later.

The EU members are trying to establish common air zones by mid-2012 in order to manage the air space more efficiently and safely. This initiative gained speed after the Iceland‘s volcano eruption this spring, when Europe‘s air traffic was badly disturbed.

PM Kubilius, who is on his bicycling holiday in Belarus said to Ziniu radijas on 29 June that since the gas consumption in the both countries is different the initial construction of the Lithuanian and Belarusian LNG’s should proceed separately.  Lithuania is planning to build an LNG terminal with capacity for 3 billion cubic meters a year.  The Byelorussians need an LNG terminal with capacity of 8 to 10 billion cubic meters a year.  The both countries consume according amounts of gas annually.

Prime Minister Kubilius has also stated that in the near future a first shipment of the Venezuelan oil for Belarus could be handled at Lithuania’s Klaipedos Nafta (Klaipeda Oil).  He said to Ziniu radijas, ‘Talks are underway to use the Klaipedos Nafta terminal’s capacities. There is a possibility that the first such oil shipment will reach Belarus via Klaipedos Nafta in the near future. The whole technological line will be tested whether it is worthwhile.’

In May media reported that an additional works would have to be done in order to be able to handle the Venezuelan crude oil shipments for Belarus.  It was reported that while the Lithuanians were calculating the cost of such adjustment Minsk began considering to choose Tallinn over Klaipeda.

This interview with Latvian Foreign Minister Aivis Ronis was published in “Diena” daily on July 23, 2010, provided by the Latvian Insitute.

A rare occasion in the contemporary history of Latvia: a minister has stood up for the people’s interests, saying that Swedish banks should share responsibility for what is going on in Latvia and that the issue should be addressed at the intergovernmental level. What is the idea of your proposal?

I was born and grew up in Kuldīga. As children, our history teacher told us a legend about Karl XII who had briefly taken refuge in the city to nurse his wounded leg. Although being wounded, he nevertheless kept his interest in material things and did some looting in Kuldīga. However in the end, he could not run away fast enough, and one chest with less valuable things was left behind.

Several centuries later we have good relations with Sweden. Karl Bildt’s political support in 1990s helped our peoples to overcome estrangement and all the unpleasant things that had happened during World War II, and the following years of isolation. We are in the EU together and therefore we were surprised when the Swedish Government, the Finance Minister and Prime Minister made not particularly considerate remarks about the crisis in Latvia when it broke out. The Latvian governments have invited Sweden not only to join the IMF loan scheme to Latvia, but also to jointly think and make practical efforts toward the renewal of the economies in the region. We all know now that the shower of credit deformed Latvia’s economic structure. We can’t quite say that Swedish banks had no part in this. Unfortunately, the banks did not bring along with them any other Swedish companies with long term investments. That is how it was. Now the Swedish and Latvian governments should work together in the atmosphere of solidarity on further facilitation of economic integrity, mutual division of labour, and integrity.

Second, our people, just like the Swedish people, deserve to know what mistakes were made by the regulators of financial services before 2008. As far as I have been unofficially informed, the Swedes have already carried out an internal investigation, and criticism of their regulator has been voiced also by the Swedish Parliament. Thus it is extremely important also for our people to get to know and understand what happened here and in Sweden. It would be an excellent example of cooperation, should the parliaments of two countries — the duty of which is also to supervise their regulators — establish a joint commission and have a critical look at all that. This would be in the interests of both our countries and the region as a whole.

An IMF study on credit boom in the EU makes it clear that the countries now unflatteringly called PIIGS and HELL underwent similar processes: the inflow of capital caused two booms – in the real estate market and in private consumption. This was German capital in Spain, Swedish capital in Latvia, etc. Have you any comments on that?

I have not read the document, but versions like this have appeared in our newspapers and expert opinions. In any case, it is important to take stock of errors made in public administration in order not to repeat them, even more so, to do that together with foreign partners.

It seems that in Latvia the foreign bank lobbies are so powerful that they spark off a sharp reaction to anything that contradicts them. This was also the case with the opinion of Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis, who said that it should be enough to cede the collateral to settle accounts with a bank. This does not seem to be good basis for further development.

It is normal that the opinions of experts and the government differ. Lobbies exist in all countries and for all industries. Still, I was mostly surprised by the assumption that through such a commission we will scare away investors. First, we are not turning against investors! Second, it seems to me that I am being intentionally misunderstood also in the sense that this would mean turning against banks. By no means! This is a call to realize and eliminate mistakes and then, for both countries, also to work closer together on the integration of their economies. We are a very important country for Sweden geopolitically, and they are no less important for us, and in the rest of the region, much depends on our cooperation.

There is an opinion among the public that our civil servants have not done much to defend our interests in the EU. Has the Foreign Ministry (MFA) clearly defined Latvia’s economic interests in Europe and in the world and is this policy being consistently implemented?

The MFA has always had instructions about attracting investment, for the most part in the areas which we as a country wanted to develop, but for which Latvia lacks both capital and knowledge. In regards to economic interests on the whole, the MFA definitely cannot define those separately from the rest of the government. Therefore we would very much like to see those common interests listed and more clearly defined. The foreign service needs some kind of national commissioning – a political decision of what investments or types of cooperation and in which sectors we seek in which countries. This would definitely be the government’s competence. Our current Prime Minister has this understanding, so does also the Minister of Economics and the Investment and Development Agency of Latvia (LIAA).

I don’t suppose our civil servants and diplomats deserve criticism for the way our interests are being represented in the EU. They have protected those interests according to how they have been defined. The problem was in the quality of the definition. And we at present are working closely together with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Economics and the LIAA, as well as with businessmen and [business] associations to define Latvia’s interests and goals as precisely as possible.

You had indirectly admitted that the influx of Swedish capital has harmed Latvia’s economy. A recent leak of information about Russia’s new foreign policy strategy contains a clear indication that a considerable amount of Russian capital is expected to flow toward the tangible economic sector of Latvia. Has Latvia defined its interests in this respect and how will they be protected?

I would like to highlight: the fact that the coming of the Swedish banks was good. Another thing is that they were obviously operating in an environment that was not very well organised. And it was bad that Swedish investment did not flow into other economic sectors in tangible ways.

Investors’ interest in Latvia is a positive phenomenon as it is. The fact that currently it is stronger from Russia’s side is nothing bad. It is bad that they do not have international competitors who would be interested in our economy, resources, areas for privatisation or cooperation opportunities. I have already said that Latvia, in order to regain its competitiveness and strength, should invite other Baltic Sea countries toward consolidation of strategic resources. Starting with the definition of which those resources are. And they should be kept under the control of our own capital. This would be the best tactic toward those countries and their businesses who at present would like to obtain these strategic resources for a cheap price. In principle, Russia has had its economic interests here for a thousand years. That is nothing new, neither is it bad. It is crucial that we are able to govern our country and to regulate the incoming investment.

What could be the explanation for positive dynamics in the Latvian-Russian relations at this very moment?

It would be an overstatement to call this extremely active dynamics, but it certainly is positive. Latvia’s foreign policy rests on three pillars: security guaranteed by NATO and the link with America; membership in the EU; and relations with neighbours which do not belong to those major alliances. The impact of the economic crisis also brings change to Russia. We have heard President Medvedev appeal to the Russians themselves for modernization of their country, which is a commendable move. The EU supports and engages in this modernization. It is in our interests that Russia, in compliance with standards, international norms and the EU interests, enters the World Trade Organisation. That would also mean the removal of protectionist barriers sometimes artificially imposed on trade with Russia, and make Russia a trustworthy business partner.

And not only that. We have also common interests with Russia not only in bilateral relations but also in the international arena. We share an identical understanding that Iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. At the same time we have a totally different understanding about Georgia’s territorial integrity. And these similarities and differences cover a wide spectrum. It is unthinkable that the EU could cooperate increasingly less with Russia, and we are part of the EU. Economics, security, stability and peace in various regions are our common interests.

The same concerns NATO. Our soldiers serving in Afghanistan now also benefit from the cooperation between Russia and the Alliance. Non-military transit that unites us with Russia in relations with NATO is a totally new phenomenon in history. And this is good, because we are allies in combating terrorism. Similarly, our joint interest and cooperation might be in the fight against smuggling if Russia fought against it on its own side of the border and we on ours. This would require cooperation and coordination.

Our archives are fully accessible for Russian researchers. We have no access to Russian archives. We know in general what happened to the deportees and other citizens who suffered from Stalinism, but the work in archives and cooperation between our countries is required for a full understanding. Reconciliation within people’s hearts is a lengthy process and needs openness.

Doesn’t the focus of the public on the heavy historical legacy also hinder the relations with Russia? Whenever Russia is mentioned, most people immediately think of 9 May, and Molotov and Ribbentrop; moreover, among the public there is a lack of a common understanding about those dates and processes.

I have defined three priorities for myself, for those few months of my time in office in the MFA: attracting resources from abroad to our economy, removing obstacles on the path to attracting those resources, and third, the dignity of our state and community. In Riga, for some reason or other, Ribbentrop and Molotov still confront each other through monuments and on websites. They are long since dead, one of them, thank God, was also executed. The regimes and countries they represented have perished, which has only been to our benefit. They divided our country and society, and even today unfortunately their goals and propaganda seem to resurface now and again. Let us finally bury them both! It is Meierovics’ beliefs that should be alive here! We have our national days of commemoration. On other days people have the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution to do whatever they like and commemorate whomever they like, within the limits of the law.

You are working with the creation of new NATO strategies. How will our national interests be incorporated? In relation to the renewed relations between America and Russia, publically the view has emerged that the U.S. support for the Baltics is no longer at its previous level.

I worked in Madeline Albright’s group, which wrote the proposals for the NATO Member States and the General Secretary. Currently, the General Secretary, hopefully, based on that, is writing his draft concept, which will be up for discussion in September, so that the new strategic concept can be accepted at the NATO summit in November. At least in Albright’s group, the views of the Baltic countries were very much so taken into account – not less so than the views of other Member States. Before this, I, and many others, felt that the diversity of interests between the Member States would be much larger than it turned out to be in reality. The NATO cornerstone remains the principle of Article 5: One for all, all for one, and that is important to all. Not only did no one object to that, but indeed everyone stressed its importance.

The second message: NATO must engage in more political consultations with the EU. Third, new threats must be taken into account – cyber security, energy security, the fight for resources, climate change, the not-so-new terrorist threat, etc. That is in everyone’s interest, and it is clear that forces must be combined for the challenge ahead. While priorities may be laid out slightly differently, the interests of the Member States are the same.

Also because of that, I don’t agree with those that say Americans have lost interest in us here. This year, we have already had two joint military exercises, the United States has continued its presence and involvement in the region, and is a very good, reliable partner in Latvia’s security concerns. They say the same thing about us, and that has been shown with our soldiers’ involvement in NATO missions. We also invite the U.S. to not lose interest in the regions that we believe are important to us: the South Caucasus, Moldova’s territorial integrity, cooperation with Ukraine, etc.

In that regard, also concerning U.S. and Russian relations, it is in Latvia’s interest that those would be good relations, because we gain security from that. If these are friendly relations, and the U.S. has a bigger influence in Moscow, Russia’s neighbours will only benefit from that. Similarly, we can benefit if there is more practical cooperation between the U.S. and Russia, particularly in combating terrorism and in exchanging intelligence. Afghanistan is just as painful a problem to Russia as it is to NATO.

We also must mention France’s return to NATO and the importance of Germany’s increased role in the Alliance, from which we have benefited. Particularly important to our interests is Germany’s greater economic engagement in our region. The presence of Germany’s capital here is negligible in comparison to what it could be.

Not always does the general public see military cooperation as something positive. For instance, building in the dunes during a recent military exercise.

The training assignment was to attempt a landing operation on an undeveloped shore, which is important in a crisis situation if ports are not accessible. Still, Latvia may need allied assistance, military or humanitarian, it does not matter. Building the road you mentioned was an element of the exercise. The exercise proved that the Allies are able to set up their operation headquarters in the middle of the forest in three hours’ time. That is truly impressive. And this awareness makes us feel more secure.

At present, there is an ongoing dynamic activity in ND8 project about the so called Northern Dimension in order to raise the cooperation between the countries in our region to a new level. Why now, and what is the idea of the project?

The initiative was launched during the previous minister’s time. I am glad that our former Foreign Minister Valdis Birkavs together with former Danish Minister of Defence Søren Gade agreed to work on a study about what changes should be made to the Baltic-Nordic cooperation. The background for the initiative is Latvia’s current presidency within the framework of the Baltic states’ cooperation and the Danish presidency among the Nordic countries [Nordic Council of Ministers]. Both Foreign Ministries understood they have to take advantage of the situation. Currently we have a great many cooperation formats within various organisations and the purpose of the study was to assess whether all that could be rationalised, simplified and perhaps replenished with advanced ideas of what we should do together.

In August the other seven foreign ministers will visit Latvia and we will review the draft produced by Valdis Birkavs and the former Danish Minister of Defence, and will decide on further action. It is good that the draft is being written by experts not actively involved in politics, and there are already various ideas about future cooperation among our eight countries. Together we are one of the strongest regions in the EU. We were once even leaders as to economic growth. Together we are a considerable power and entity, and as we talked about the case of Sweden, the most important thing is that we have a great potential. It is vital for this potential to be supported by political will.

In my opinion, however, the goal of Nordic and Baltic cooperation should not be to turn us into Scandinavians. We needn’t wake up every morning with an inferiority complex because of not being, for instance, Swedish. Riga and our history gives Latvians a unique identity and potential.

It is obvious that Lithuanian-Belarusian political and economic relations have become more active lately. Can we say that bilateral dialogue between our countries is becoming more active?

Belarus appreciates political, economic, scientific, technical, and humanitarian relations with Lithuania very much. This was confirmed by Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka’s visit to Lithuania. Lukashenka’s meeting with Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite and his participation in the open Lithuanian-Belarusian economic forum shows that bilateral political dialogue is being conducted at the highest political level. Neighbours should show their potential to solve the problems that arise because of the global economic crisis.

It is important to note that Lithuania is one of the most important foreign trade partners for Belarus right now.

However, the bilateral trade balance in 2009 decreased by almost one-third compared with 2008.

That is true. However, this is actually a good result considering theeconomic crisis. In 2009, turnover of goods between Lithuania and Belarus was $566 million: export – $371 million, import – $195 million. This year’s financial indicators are optimistic: Turnover of goods over the first four months of 2010 is 1.4 times higher. Over 300 companies with Lithuanian capital are operating in Belarus; Lithuania has about 200 companies established by Belarusian investors.

In May 2010, Lukashenka participated in the 6th International Economic Forum in Lida. What were the topics of discussion between the president and Lithuanian entrepreneurs?

They discussed the topical issues related to the Lithuanian capital in Belarus. I do not doubt that the Lithuanian side received all the answers it had on the prospects for the future. It is important to note that Lithuanian investors could hardly find a better guarantor of security than Lukashenka’s interest in the development of bilateral relations. I would like to stress once again that this shows that our bilateral cooperation is strong and that it produces real economic and political results.

Can we say that Belarus has become more open to investments: That Lithuanian investors are getting more and more interested in Belarus and that Belarusian investors are getting more and more interested in Lithuania?

In 2008-2009, investors from Lithuania submitted seven projects related to construction business. There are 15 such projects at the moment, and Lithuanian and European investments in Belarus reach EUR 0.5 billion.

Lithuanian entrepreneurs have gathered broad experience in the areas of construction, infrastructure, management of hotels, restaurants, catering, as well as in trade and logistics. All these businesses are very needed in Belarus. I do not doubt that our country has proper conditions for foreign investments, and this is why I think that Belarus is attractive to Lithuanian capital.

Belarusians also find Lithuania attractive. As I have mentioned, there are 200 Belarusian-capital companies active in Lithuania at the moment. One of such examples is Amkador, the manufacturer of road building equipment. The company has acquired an agricultural equipment plant located near Vilnius. It is going to actively expand its activities and to create about 100 jobs there.~

We have been discussing that the people living near the Lithuanian-Belarusian border should be subject to simplified visa regime. Has there been any progress?

This issue – important to both countries – is about to be solved. The planned agreement will provide the people living on both sides of the border with many privileges. This is a serious turn towards liberalization of visa policy. Not long ago, Belarus signed such an agreement with Poland. We believe that similar agreements will be signed with Lithuania and Latvia soon.

I would like to stress that the first technical and expert consultations with the European Commission regarding the possibility of applying simplified visa regime and of lowering prices of visas for Belarus and EU countries have already taken place.

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 golden age of Lithuanian foreign policy – when we were enjoying the attention of world leaders and when we knew exactly which goals to pursue – is over, IQ, the Economist writes.  However, even now Lithuania has to face many foreign policy challenges. Perhaps there are even more challenges now than there were in the past: Big players are seeking new agreements, and therefore the risk that the interests of small countries may be forgotten is growing.

IQ, the Economist thinks that some foreign policy steps President Dalia Grybauskaite has taken during her first year in office are seen as controversial. For example, she invited Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenka to Lithuania after a long break in visits, and did not go together with other Central and Eastern European leaders to meet with US President Barack Obama in Prague. Moreover, Grybauskaite seems to have forgotten to invite Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili to Lithuania. All this shows that Grybauskaite has decided to change the foreign policy that was implemented by former President Valdas Adamkus. However, political scientists have not had an occasion to summarize “Grybauskaite’s new doctrine” yet. The old foreign policy has ended, and it seems that the new one has not been formed. Is Lithuania aware of the international policy changes and does it duly notice the possible dangers that may arise because of the possible secret agreements among the big players, asks IQ, the Economist?

Darius Semaska, the president’s foreign policy adviser, believes that the current tasks of Lithuanian foreign policy do not necessarily need to be grand and ambitious. The declarations that we have to be the centre of the region have obviously brought no results. We need to strengthen our ability to take care of Lithuania’s interest in the EU and NATO, and we need to do that without any superficial ambitions,” the presidential adviser says.

Semaska: We Should Always Be on Alert

The president delivered her state of the nation address at the beginning of June. Many politicians and political scientists noted that the president dedicated only several sentences to foreign policy, and that all she said was an abstract summary of our traditional foreign policy goals. What is the meaning of the three priorities the president has mentioned: active integration into the EU, implementation of the Euro-Atlantic agenda by strengthening Lithuania’s security, and constructive relations with the neighbours?

Semaska – We have been saying for a long time now that there should not be a “second-class” membership in the EU and that Lithuania should be able to take advantage of all the rights EU members enjoy. If there are any restrictions in the EU, we should remove them. This is what the president had in mind when she spoke about our further full-fledged integration into the EU. One of the most topical issues, no matter how banal it may sound, is the liquidation of Lithuania’s energy isolation. It is important to us to liquidate this isolation by building electrical power links. We should have done many things already. We have not done some of them because of our fault, some because our neighbours were not very interested. So, as far as energy issues are concerned, Lithuania has not fully integrated into the EU yet. However, some decisions we have made inside the country, for example opening the electricity market, have finally set the electrical power link projects into motion. This makes it possible for us to think about creating a similar market for gas in our region.

Our membership in NATO is also a process that has not been completed yet. We need to continue looking for a proper balance between our armed forces whose task is domestic defence and the possibility of developing our participation in foreign missions. Of course, another thing that is very important is to ensure that we do not end up as a “second-class” member whose security is less important in the context of the changing global situation and the possible plans of the big players to draft new agreements.

It is a positive thing that we have avoided the unnecessary statements on the relations with our neighbours, which would have angered our neighbours and created unnecessary tension. The president did not get involved in any verbal fight; she has demonstrated that we respect our neighbours and that we speak about the problems with our neighbours, as opposed to doing that through the media.

One of the tasks that Grybauskaite has managed to implement was to restore contacts with the highest-raking Russian officials. However, we have not received any signals from Russia that it has changed its attitude towards Lithuania. Did Russia ignore our attempts to revive relations?

I do not think our efforts have been ignored. We continue maintaining our contacts, which means a lot if we take into consideration that there had been no contacts between our top officials whatsoever for some time. Now we need to get down to work and prepare concrete proposals and agreements with Russia. We are working on a substantial set of agreements on cooperation in criminal cases, various cross-border projects, construction of the Panemune Bridge, and so forth. We are hoping that at least several agreements will be signed this fall, when the president is going to pay a visit to Russia. The meeting could become a historical event in our relations.

Why is Belarus so important to us? There was a lot of conflicting opinions on Grybauskaite’s decision to invite Lukashenka to Vilnius. Is the EU’s attitude towards Belarus – to what extent we should isolate it and to what extend we should help it – is changing?

It is obvious that the EU sanctions against Belarus – its demands that Belarus does all things at once – have not brought any results. This is why there have been discussions in EU institutions for several years now that we should try to behave with Belarus in a different way – to create a dialogue step by step. Now everybody agrees that if we do it this way, we can expect at least minimal progress.

Before her meeting with Lukashenka, the president discussed and coordinated her position with several heads of EU countries and with Javier Solana, then the EU high representative for foreign and security policy. It was obvious that she could not avoid discussing issues important to the EU when discussing bilateral relations. Therefore, the Lithuanian president played a role of an EU representative in this meeting.

As for the outcome of this open policy, one of the most important ones is that Belarus has amended its Election Law. I think this is an important step. Of course, formal changes are not enough as far as democratization is concerned.

The US President Barack Obama administration has obviously turned away its attention from Europe and is flirting with Russia. But can Lithuania expect more attention from Western Europe? After all, Berlin and Paris are also more interested in relations with Russia than in Lithuania’s security and energy problems.

When European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso met with Grybauskaite during the Baltic Sea States’ Summit, he summed up the discussions on the electrical power links in the Baltic region by saying: “You can count on me.” Europe has started to better understand our interests, but we need to continue our work in that direction. If we understand and demonstrate that we understand why and how relations with Russia are important to the big EU countries, it will help us direct their attention towards our needs and problems. We were a thorn in the EU’s side because of our attitude towards Russia. The Lithuanian president is now trying to transform our role by creating an image of a constructive partner.

How can Lithuania avoid potential isolation when neither the United States nor the big EU countries care about that? Even Poland, our closest neighbour, is seeking more pragmatic relations with Russia.

Well, the wording that the United States has turned its back on Lithuania is too strong. We are currently engaged in a very intensive cooperation at the highest diplomatic level, especially with the US State and Defence Departments.

On the other hand, the volatile situation is a challenge to us. Perhaps the situation when important international problems are far away from us can even bring us new possibilities. After all, there was a discussion in the past that Lithuania perhaps should become a “golden province” that would not participate in the games of the big countries. I do not think that we should become a “golden province.” The president is really doing her best to ensure that Lithuania is getting proper attention.

Of course, our current situation is different from the one we had when we were seeking membership in NATO and when we joined the group of potential NATO members. At that time we felt very clearly the shift in the US attitude and the exceptional attention to our country. Now we have achieved our goal, Lithuania is a NATO member. Of course, it is important to be on alert even now so that we do not become a toy or an object whose interests could be forgotten or played with.

Cases of nationalism and conflicts with the Poles are on the rise in Lithuania. Criticism of Lithuania in Poland is also growing. Does it mean that our strategic partnership has exhausted itself and that we may have to face a “strategic conflict,” something we had during the interwar period?

It is very sad that both sides have not managed to avoid cheap escalation of emotions. Our society and our media sometimes are asking what we have received from Poland to make any concessions to the Poles. I think that the spelling of their surnames is certainly not a concession to the Poles. We should see it as a liquidation of discrimination against our citizens, so that they do not have to distort their surnames. Speaking of Poland’s support to Lithuania, we should not devalue it. I remember that when we were seeking to join NATO, Poland was very supporting. Poland had more ties with the Americans and it was genuinely interested in our membership in NATO. The Poles have never used the NATO membership card to blackmail us. The example of Croatia – which finds it difficult to negotiate with the EU because Slovenia has various objections – shows how important it is to have the support of one’s closest neighbours.

Lithuanian society is not very interested in foreign policy. We are provincials who are engaged in our own domestic issues and who are not willing to get out of our shells. Is this normal or should we develop the people’s understanding of what is going on in the world and how these processes affect Lithuania?

I think that a small nation can survive only if it is open and willing to accept global changes. We, as a nation, can become stronger if we become more open. But, I would like to note, that, comparing to other countries, a statistical Lithuanian knows about Europe quite a lot. And we should promote this interest, first and foremost through education programmes. The efforts of the state institutions to superficially generate the interest of the Lithuanians in foreign issues and to increase their active involvement sometimes turn into something grotesque. This is why it is not reasonable to seek to interest society in foreign policy issues at any price. This should be done systematically through the education system.

First, people like the fact that the president is an autonomous and independent politician. “One gets the feeling the president is pretty much not influenced by her team and her aides, and the president sort of avoids bigger friendships,” Gaidys said.

Voters also like Grybauskaite’s activeness and energy in solving any question. They also find acceptable the president’s policy of friendly neighbourhood (relations with Poland, Belarus). The sociologist said the president’s ability to talk in simple and understandable terms was another reason for her popularity. “She does not demonstrate she belongs to the elite; from her speech one can see that she understands people’s expectations,” Gaidys said.

According to Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius, chairman of the ruling TS-LKD, Grybauskaite has her own strategy, tactics, and working style. The cabinet head rejoiced in the things achieved by cooperating together with the president. According to him, over the year the president was able to reveal herself. “She brought drive and the spirit of dynamism into the Lithuanian political life. I can tell you that Lithuania was lucky,” the prime minister said.

Kubilius did not deny that his views sometime differ from that of Grybauskaite. According to him, this is normal. “We do not think the president’s role is to clap her hands and to say: Look how well the government is working. We knew what we were getting ourselves into at this difficult time and we knew that no one would offer a shoulder to cry on,” Kubilius said. Yet, he noted that on essential issues his opinion is in sync with Grybauskaite’s opinion.

Transportation Minister Eligijus Masiulis, chairman of the Liberal Movement, which is a member of the ruling coalition, views the year of the president’s term in office positively, above all, because the president is strongly supported by the nation. “Over the year the public could have become disenchanted. Yet, the opposite occurred. I think the president did not make huge mistakes that could have hurt her reputation,” he said.

Masiulis noted that Grybauskaite abandoned the tradition of previous presidents to be more concerned with the policy of representation and with the foreign policy. Asked whether the government was going through a hard time, the member of the Liberal Movement said that for now they were able to find consensus. “The tone of the relations is more constructive than destructive,” the minister said. Masiulis did not voice any criticism regarding the president. He would only want to see clearer priorities of the country’s foreign policy.

Algirdas Butkevicius, chairman of the Social Democrat party, which is the biggest opposition party, thinks that Grybauskaite is trying to implement the promises she made during the election. “It is impossible to implement everything in a year. In my opinion, however, in the future this will be successfully implemented,” he said expressing hope.

Butkevicius expressed joy that the president started to balance the country’s foreign policy and tried to develop closer ties with Eastern neighbours: She met with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in Finland and met with Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka in Vilnius.

The leader of the party noted that Grybauskaite’s position towards the government was changing, too. According to him, the president, who earlier was very supportive of the government, now voices stricter statements. According to Butkevicius, however, the president’s position towards the government could be even tougher.

Allegedly, Grybauskaite should demand a clear programme for solving economic and social problems. He would like for Grybauskaite to apply more effort in order to reform law enforcement institutions quicker.

Political commentator Lidija Sabajevaite thinks the year that the president has been in office can be viewed positively. “Above all because in her annual address and in her other speeches she emphasized that one should finally start focusing on the people, the country’s citizens, instead of merely taking care of the economy,” the political analyst said. According to her, the president was able to maintain high popularity ratings, because she has been speaking bluntly and honestly. “For now it is hard to predict what the newly-appointed officials will be able to achieve, but this gives people hope that, for example, the work of the Prosecutor General’s Office and other institutions will improve. People want order and peace,” Sabajevaite said. According to her, right now Grybauskaite is the most suitable person for the president’s job.

According to political analyst Lauras Bielinis, during the first days already the president voiced her intentions to change the situation in the domestic politics, in the legal system, and to have a different line in international affairs. “The plans were ambitious, but over the year we have not seen any essential changes,” the political analyst said. According to him, the most frequent action was replacing the heads of institutions that are subordinate to the president; sometimes this was even inexplicable. According to Bielinis, over the year the president “has not formed a line of her relations with the Parliament and political parties.”

“In the foreign policy area she made a few steps that not so much changed the foreign policy direction, but raised more questions,” Bielinis said. According to him, certain actions of Grybauskaite, for example, refusing to have a dinner with President Barack Obama in Prague, pushed Lithuania further away from the United States, one of the most important allies. In the relations with the East, the analyst did not see any major changes either.

According to Bielinis, one of the brightest actions by Grybauskaite was the president’s position regarding the Church’s decision not to allow the late President Algirdas Brazauskas’s coffin. “In this situation the president made a wise decision and demonstrated professional stance. She demonstrated respect for the deceased and at the same time revealed her position on inner misunderstandings between politics and religion,” the political analyst said.

The article was published in the daily of Lietuvos zinios on 10 July

In Tbilisi, Clinton announced the United States supported Georgia’s territorial integrity, urged the Kremlin to withdraw its troops from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and said the deployment of the Russian armed forces in these Georgian regions was “occupation.” In this case words can be equated with actions. Not many in the world are brave enough to call the situation in Georgia the way that Clinton did. At the same time, Clinton urged Tbilisi and Moscow to look for ways to solve the conflict peacefully.

Mite continues saying that finding them will not be easy, but Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili hopes that better relations between Russia and the United States can perhaps alleviate Georgia’s situation as well. We recall that for a few years now Russia has occupied South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Russian tanks are stationed a few dozen kilometres from Tbilisi. In addition to Russia, the statehood of these creations was recognized by Venezuela and Nicaragua. After Barack Obama came to power, the United States’ attention and support for Georgia was almost zero, but it looks like the recent trip by Clinton has changed the situation.

The US secretary of state also visited Azerbaijan, Poland and Ukraine, in an attempt to demonstrate that America’s attention to these countries has not been reduced and that their interests are not sacrificed for the sake of improved relations with the Kremlin.

During her visit in Kiev, Mite writes, Clinton emphasized that NATO remains open to Ukraine’s membership. Currently, such a statement has a mere political significance, because the people who came to power after the presidential election adhere to the position of not joining any military structures and adhere to the policy of neutrality.

For the sake of truth, one has to admit that the majority of Ukrainian people have never supported the country’s membership in the alliance. However, the public’s opinions change with time, and perhaps the membership issue will become important for Ukraine sometime in the future. Whatever the case may be, Clinton hinted to Russia that the United States did not recognize any zones of influence, on which the current Russian foreign policy is based.

During the visit in Azerbaijan, Clinton called for a solution to the Nagorny Karabakh problem and promised America’s support on this issue. She also calmed the leaders of Azerbaijan, which is rich in natural resources, by saying the United States was not indifferent to the fate of Azerbaijan.

During her visit in Cracow, Clinton signed two important agreements. One of them was the agreement on deploying components of the antimissile defence system in Poland. The other one was on US assistance in searching for and in utilizing shale natural gas. The United States is the world leader in the shale natural gas technology. Due to the shale natural gas extraction, the United States has recently become the world’s number one producer of natural gas. Surveys show that Poland possibly has enough shale natural gas to increase the overall natural gas extraction in the EU by almost 50 per cent. If the estimates are correct, the influence of Russia’s Gazprom in Europe will greatly diminish. At the same time, the chances of applying energy pressure on EU countries, including Lithuania, will diminish as well.

If nothing else, Mite concludes in his article, Clinton’s visit was important, because for the first time Barack Obama’s administration clearly demonstrated that countries of Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics remain important to the United States. She somewhat dispelled the fears that for the sake of improved relations with Russia the United States was prepared to sacrifice its allies and countries that are friendly towards the United States. However, it is hard to say how successful will be the attempt at the same time to improve relations with Russia and to make sure the Kremlin withdraws its troops from Georgia, for example.

“Lithuanian people wanted change and now they see it on the move. Not as fast as we had wanted but still in these 365 days Lithuania took the courage to go for change towards a more transparent, fairer, safer and more civic-spirited state. This is an ambitious agenda. But if we continue working hand in hand towards a common goal, we will succeed in creating a better Lithuania,” the President says covering her first year in office.

For many people, according to the President, a better Lithuania is about lower consumer prices; therefore, the primary goal at the time of recession is to protect people against manipulation in prices, curb arbitrariness on the part of various interest groups and prevent price rise. Amendments to the Law on Pharmacy adopted in response to the President’s call had a downward effect on medicine prices. The President’s veto on amendments to the Law on Heat Sector prevented a rise in heat prices. With the dissolution of Lithuanian Electricity Organization, LEO LT, the adoption of a new methodology for calculating electricity prices and the creation of a functioning electricity market, electricity price regulation was introduced. New leadership of the Competition Council, the National Control Commission for Energy and Prices, and the National Audit Office enabled to monitor cartel agreements more closely, to contain water-supply and heat prices and to introduce a more rigorous supervision of the use of public funds and public property.

Protection of the poorest people is the primary task set by the President for social policy-makers. According to the President, a safe childhood and a secure old age are the centerpiece of a responsible social policy. The authorities responded to the President’s call to provide a mechanism for compensating pension cuts, start long-term social security reform, create a legal framework against violence, adopt legal amendments imposing higher penalties for crimes against children, make the reduction of unemployment a priority for the Government, introduce a tax-exempt cap for social payments and put into action the programme to combat social exclusion in the region of the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) in Visaginas.

The President says it is corruption that causes the largest damage to the state and people-to-people relations. “Corruption is like cancer metastasized in all spheres of life. We need a much more powerful cure than ever before,” the President says. The President successfully insisted on the extension of the period of limitation for crimes of corruption and tabled proposals to the Seimas to set ten times higher sanctions for smuggling, corruption and economic crimes and to legalize the seizure of illegally acquired property. The President vetoed the Law on Land Reform and proposed amendments to prevent corrupt transactions in public land in urban areas, while the presidential veto on the Law on Construction eliminated the possibility of unauthorized construction and triggered legal amendments to guarantee a transparent issue of construction permits.

To make people trust the state, their trust in justice should first be promoted, the President says. On the President’s initiative, a reform was started in law enforcement bodies with the aim to improve the transparency of the judiciary: a stricter procedure for assessing and selecting judges was introduced, the President meets with every candidate in person, and judicial supervisory authorities now impose harder sanctions for negligence on the part of judges, including dismissal from office. Also, legal amendments to tighten the control of courts were prepared, rotation of court presidents was introduced, the General Prosecutor’s Office leadership was changed, and further improvements in the procedure and control of pre-trial investigation are underway.

National security is seen as a measure of credibility of the state. The President initiated the first-ever list of national security threats and the setting of clear tasks for intelligence services. Also, a national intelligence concept was developed and approved by the Seimas. Restructuring in the State Security Department aimed at depolitization was started following the appointment of a new director, the Law on Operational Activities was amended to set out a clear procedure and responsibility for providing intelligence information, a decision was made to finalize the lustration process. At the President’s initiative, Baltic defense plans were included in the new NATO concept, which reinforced international security of the country. A new commander-in-chief of the armed forces was designated, and new Lithuanian national military defense plans are on the way.

Foreign policy, according to the President, must serve the interests of the people. The economic downturn and the financial crisis called for immediate solutions to help attract new investment, enter new markets in the neighboring countries, and ensure economic and energy security. Reaching out for these goals, the President made 26 working visits abroad. In turn, Lithuania was visited, at the President’s invitation, by the leaders of NATO, the European Parliament and the European Commission, the new President of the European Council, the presidents of Finland, Slovenia, Poland, Estonia and Latvia, and 40 high-level foreign officials. By making a special focus on cooperation with the EU institutions and among the Baltic and Nordic countries, the President succeeded in having the elimination of Lithuania’s and other Baltic States’ energy isolation placed among the EU priorities: the EU allocated 175 million euros for the construction of a power bridge to Sweden. Lithuania also managed to secure support from the European Commission for its aspiration to receive financial assistance to build a gas line connecting Lithuania and Poland and to ensure that financial allocations for the supervision of the closure of the Ignalina NPP and for the construction of power and railway links with the rest of Europe were included in the EU’s new financial perspective. The President’s efforts also contributed to the setting-up of European and Euroatlantic agencies in Lithuania: the European Institute for Gender Equality recently opened in Vilnius and NATO Energy Security Centre to be opened in the future. Furthermore, the President received official assurances from Luxembourg’s leaders about future investments in renewable energy in Lithuania. The new stage of bilateral relations with the neighboring countries, Russia and Belarus, built on a constructive dialogue started bearing fruit: investigation of the January 13 case broke the deadlock, investment opportunities were opened up in Belarus, and business climate in Russia was improved.

The President sees the driving force of a faster recovery of the country in creative, educated and inventive people. Education and culture was recognized as the key areas in the development of the state: at the President’s initiative, policy guidelines for culture were developed for the first time in the twenty years of restored independence, to guarantee access to culture for all people – not only in major towns but also in regions. Other accomplishments include the correction of mistakes made in carrying out the education reform, success in guaranteeing lower interest rates on student loans, signs of recovery of applied science, accelerated establishment of science, studies and business valleys.

To promote public confidence in the government, the President worked towards enhanced democracy and transparency in the political system. At the President’s demand, the rules for financing political parties were changed and an opportunity for independent candidates to stand at municipal elections was created. The President also advocated the direct election of mayors. The President’s dynamic and open way of cooperating with the Seimas and the Government improved the quality of the legislative process: 502 laws were signed, 8 laws vetoed, 34 legal acts initiated, 28 of which were adopted.

Over the year, the President received 11,370 letters from private individuals. The issues raised in the letters were discussed both in house and during the President’s working visits to Lithuania’s regions. Over the time in question, the President visited 6 regions: Visaginas – to discuss problems encountered by the local community of the Ignalina NPP region, Alytus – to explore possibilities for reducing unemployment and promoting job creation, the south-western district of Suvalkija – to strengthen local communities, Kazokiškės – to look into waste management issues, Kaunas – to address problems in local self-government, and Biržai – to discuss the adaptation of heritage sites for tourism.

The only new thing here was perhaps bluntness and an attempt to provoke and challenge the old rival – the United States. It was the Americans who taught us how “to compete in politics. We can pressure and we will pressure” (Zlobin).

This was obviously demonstrated in Georgia, Ukraine, perhaps in Kyrgyzstan now. Zlobin thinks that Putin’s aggressive policy of “national egoism” is supported by senior US officials. Allegedly, the Americans hold the same view: “If you respect the interests of neighbouring countries, you betray the interests of your own country.” Therefore, they will be favourable towards Putin, the “defender” of Russia. Dmitriy Medvedev travelled to check this.

The statement about neighbours as an eternal problem may seem frightening. Usually, however, there is talk about coordination of interests. Now, this sounds like the law of the fist, like the return of the Tsar era. After all, some time ago they justified the purchase of Mistral with the need to frighten Japan! Over there Russia occupies additional four of the Kuril Islands, which the neighbouring country hopes to regain through negotiations. The only response to such aggressive intentions can be the fist that always and everywhere defends the Russian interests without any negotiations. And without peace accords, an eternal war.

The question remains before the United States. Is this really an “American” policy of Russia, which the United States finds appealing? If the challenge is ignored, it may seem so. Will, however, the big democratic country respond to the Moscow official, who tries to provoke it in a strange way? Those specialists know how to do it so that they score a propaganda victory either way. Look, we threw it at them, and they swallowed it.

the text was published www.bernardinai.lt on 24 June