Russia is arguably the only country in the post-Soviet space where the veneration for Karlsonas has taken on greater proportions than in Lithuania. There has even been estimated that Astrid Lindgren’s Karlsson-on-the-roof is likely to be the second most common book to be found in the average Russian home next to the Bible. (When Astrid Lindgren herself was told about this by the Russian Ambassador to Sweden, Boris Pankin, she is quoted to have said: “Strange, I had no idea that the Bible was that popular”. And when Ingvar Carlsson, then Swedish Minister of State, visited Russia in the early 1990s, his Russian hosts deplored the fact that he had very little in common with “the real Karlsson”.

However, in Sweden, the homeland of Astrid Lindgren and her vast collection of beloved fairytale characters, children barely rank Karlsonas among the top-ten of Astrid Lindgren’s most appreciated figures. Similar attitudes can be observed among Western European children in general, who are more inclined to embrace the stories about Pippi Longstocking and Emil of Lönneberga.

So, does this imply that the frame of cultural preference varies significantly between Eastern European children as compared to Western European children as far as Astrid Lindgren’s stories are concerned?

No, this is not likely to be the case since the image of Karlsson-on-the-roof which has been conveyed in Lithuania and the post-Soviet space is slightly different in several perspectives compared to how he was depicted in the original Swedish versions of the popular books.

What first should be noted is the fairly haphazard translation of the book from Swedish into Russian (and latter from Russian into Lithuanian) which made the objects and the surroundings in the story appear distinctively Soviet, and thus less reminiscent of bourgeois mid-century Stockholm. Of greater importance is that that the Soviet censorship was contemplating the attitude that Karlsonas communicated – individualism, egocentrism, narcissism and anti-authoritarianism – as potentially dangerous and contradictive to the ideological tenants of official discourse. Consequently, in accordance with the stringent demands from the censors, the ensuing story about Karlsonas that was engineered deliberately saw to reduce the most conspicuous acts and elements of crudeness and delinquent behaviour.

The result, however, seems to have been an equally mischievous and innovative Karlsonas, only less wicked and more warm-hearted, who have managed to surpass the original figure’s capacity to strike a cord with generations of children. This is also the Karlsonas one encounter in the cartoons from 1968 and 1971, artfully illustrated by the famous Boris Stepantsev, which is another reason for his immense popularity in the former Soviet Union.

There are, at any case, more connections between the Baltic States and the world of Astrid Lindgren. Generations of Scandinavian children has, for example, enjoyed the pastoral and idyllic illustrations in Astrid Lindgren’s books with a sense of recognition as the surroundings are reminiscent of the typical rural landscape found in the Scandinavian countryside. However, Ilon Wikland, who contributed with the popular illustrations of many of Astrid Lindgren’s most beloved characters, had her childhood Estonia rather than the Scandinavian countryside in mind when she created images to Lindgren’s texts. Consequently, though Wikland was forced to flee Estonia for Sweden during the World War, her Estonian legacy still lives on in many of Lindgren’s books. In addition, in 2009 Wikland was dedicated her own museum in Hapsal, a small Estonian city to the south of Tallinn.

Karlsonas, then, is actually neither Swedish nor Baltic, but Ilon Wikland found the inspiration to draw him as he is normally illustrated, in books and cartoons alike, when she stumbled upon a chubby, red-haired little man at a market in Paris.

Fredrik Rydström is a distinguished academic from Sweden who graduated Vilnius University in Spring 2010. He has lived for almost two years in Lithuania where he ound true love: the kibinas. Fredrik has held several lectures about and specialized in Baltic-Nordic relations.Other articles by Fredrik Rydström

The Belarus connectionEurovision Song Contest and European integration

Eco-efficiency and ketchup on pizza

Lithuania’s white gold

Teachers and pupils; LGBT, Lithuania and Nordics

BaltoScandia:to have (or not) a laugh at the expense of your neighbours

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.

“Tell them that there are no cars and that women can be beaten and exchanged for new ones whenever you want,” he said, echoing similar rumours about Lithuania he had heard in foreign lands.

We were discussing the fact that many people in countries as close as Sweden or Germany had no idea about Lithuania, what its capital is and what language is spoken here and so on.

In fact the knowledge of the country in the world is appalling. On a visit to Belgium a few years ago, I had dinner with two doctors and their little daughter. The girl was just learning to speak, but they had high hopes that she would also become a doctor in future: a highly educated family.

They asked me about what I was doing in Europe and where I live and what my job is. I was halfway through a story about Lithuania when they stopped me and asked “sorry what country do you live in again?”

“Lithuania? Litauen? Lituanie? Lietuva? Litva?” I tried the names of this country in every language I knew. Didn’t ring a bell.

This couple had travelled to every continent on the planet except Antarctica, but they had no idea where Lithuania was, a European Union country already for five years at that time. They had no idea.

Another acquaintance of mine, who came to Lithuania from England also had massive troubles with the country. At first he was afraid to come here because it is in the wild wild east and he might get robbed or stabbed. Or both!

He imagined a land without electricity and without laws (okay, well that part is more or less true). Hard drugs were sold on the street and women carried AK-47s down the street. After all, this country was in the Soviet Union.

Other people I have spoken to think the country is on the Mediterranean sea somewhere near Malta.

So here is an opportunity I suppose. The Lithuanians who emigrate and those who travel could play a big role in the future of this country. The world doesn’t yet know the name of Lithuania. One day they will find out, but until then you have a blank page. Write in it whatever you want!

So, its up to you who go abroad. Perhaps you also want to go abroad and play silly games with uneducated people. Or maybe you’d like to go tell the world about the mountains of amber that everyone has in their garage. Tell them about the Seimas and how it was defended by the citizens and tell them about Lithuania’s great beaches on the Black sea.

Hold on is that a game or is that the truth?

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.

The political era of Algirdas Brazauskas has ended. By all rights it began in 1988, on June 24^th of that year in Vilnius,  Sąjūdis organized a farewell gathering for the delegates to the 19^th All-Union Conference of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union being held in Moscow. At that point, A.Brazauskas was only one of the Lithuanian Communist Party’s secretaries, yet he was the only government representative brave enough to take the podium and address the gathering of people. Four months later, after pressure from Sąjūdis, the leadership of the Lithuanian Communist Party changed – A.Brazauskas was elected First Secretary and he became the first Lithuanian leader born from “his” Lithuania.

In March 1990 A.Brazauskas was elected to the Supreme Council – Restoration Seimas, and became a signatory of the March 11^th Act of Restoration of the Republic. From that time, he served in the highest ranking national offices for at least some period – 1990-1991, First Vice Premier of the Government, 1992 – Seimas Chairman and Acting President, 1993-1998 – President, 2001-2006 – Prime Minister. In eleven of the first sixteen years of restored independence of the Republic, A.Brazauskas was one of its most influential political leaders. Few would point in error calling the period of restored independence, using old soviet naming conventions, as A.Brazauskas’ political epoch. Upon his leaving political life, the Lithuanian Republic steps into a new phase of its development.

Politicians, particularly a well known and influential politician, can leave their posts via a choice of two paths. First – leave without losing to ones opponents, being at the height of power, making up your own mind when to take that step. Second – to leave ones post under intense pressure understanding that if you don’t make the choice to step down, you will be forcibly removed. A.Brazauskas experienced going down both of these paths.

The first time A.Brazauskas gave notice of his departure from national politics, then President A.Brazauskas announced in the fall of 1997 that he would not seek election to a second term (where victory in that election was all but guaranteed for him, at least that is the current belief). He announced that it was time for a new generation to take command of the nation, unburdened by the soviet past. A.Brazauskas named his successor – former Prosecutor General Artūras Paulauskas.  The latter, even with the support of A.Brazauskas, lost the Presidential elections to Valdas Adamkus.  This, of course, somewhat tarnished the elegant exit of A.Brazauskas, which people manage to forget.

In the summer of 2001, after the collapse of the “new political” coalition, A.Brazauskas returned triumphant. In the previous year, the Social Democrat and LDDP coalition, which he led, received the most votes in the Seimas elections and he himself proclaimed he is returning to “save Lithuania”. It is true that the economy was reformed and was climbing out of the 1998-1999 crisis, although the majority of the population had yet to experience any positive results. The return of A.Brazauskas was generally regarded in a positive way in that most believed he was no fan of political infighting and that his presence would stabilize the scandal ravaged Lithuanian political environment.

In 2001 a new A.Brazauskas returned to government – one who was convinced of the righteousness of his own decision making, ignored public opinion, unafraid of scandals which would just slide off of him as easily as water from a goose’s back. A time when he felt great nostalgia for his, and his soviet, past. His term as Prime Minister began with a scandal marred trip to Moscow with business leader Bronislavas Lubys to meet with Russian energy representatives and a hunting trip with his close family friend – Manager of LUKOIL Baltia Ivan Paleicik. Next, he surprised foreign investors when he organized a speech pointing out how the soviet period was positive for Lithuania.

That by all definitions hot summer of 2001 did not cloud suspicions as to why A.Brazauskas took efforts to return to government leadership. Looking back today, the almost prescient words of philosopher Vytautas Radžvilas in Veidas: “The primary motivation that leads him back into government is that during the entire independence restoration time period, he faithfully represented that which I refer to as the soviet Lithuanian elite. These elites are fighting for their rights – to control the nations’ wealth and to maintain decision making influence. And those groups that are trying to take the last remaining tidbits of privatized national capital away are again trying to force him out.  I can’t discount the possibility that this happened against his will. He returned to finish his last task – to determine who would benefit from the privatization of Lithuania’s energy sector. And those people who assigned him this task, in considering A.Brazauskas’ possible future positions – didn’t care. He would be “eaten up” as a politician.”

In fact – the growing national economy and the post EU accession’s arrival of EU Structural funds presented a unique opportunity to the A.Brazauskas Government to finally reform social, health and higher education systems, yet nothing was done. They couldn’t even manage to introduce the promised Euro currency. That’s why the government sold off “Vilniaus Prekyba” to western concerns and Lietuvos Dujas (Lithuanian Gas) to GAZPROM and a German consortium (although they saved the go between Dujotekana which is of dubious value). Then A.Brazauskas stumbled upon Mažeikių Nafta.

The root causes of Brazauskas’ second forced withdrawal from politics can be found in the summer of 2005, with the commencement of the competitive sale of shares in Mažeikių Nafta.  At the time, when the leaders of the worlds’ largest natural gas concerns traveled to Vilnius, A.Brazauskas didn’t hide his sympathies toward Russian representatives – primarily LUKOil and GAZPROM. September brought the first significant political scandal since A.Brazauskas’ first arrival in government. He was reminded of the historical details involving the privatization of the Draugyste hotel restaurant Šešupė along with his and his wifes, Kristina Butrimiene, ties with LUKOil-Baltia manager I.Paleicik. He was also reminded of the bankruptcy of EBSW and its managements’ ties to those around A.Brazauskas. Significantly, this is the first time in 20 years that scandals started to “stick” to A.Brazauskas. His popularity dramatically declined as it appeared that the public was demanding that, on the whole, he was responsible for his Government. At the end of November 2005, A.Brazauskas found himself at the threshold of resignation. 

However, the ruling coalition managed to hold on at the time. It appeared that A.Brazauskas, and increasingly influential leader of the Darbo (Labor) Party Viktoras Uspackichas agreed on the terms of purchase for the shares in Mažeikių Nafta. The game, though, was ruined by the Russian concern Jukos, which announced that the shares of Mažeikių Nafta that it holds will only be sold to the highest bidder. The Polish concern PKN Orlen became the frontrunner, after a change in leadership it also acquired the support of the Polish national leadership. A.Brazauskas’ plan – for the government to purchase the shares held by Yukos and to sell Mažeikių Nafta to his designate, collapsed.

A.Brazauskas’ Government’s decline into agony began in April 2006 with V.Uspackich’s successful interpellation against Seimas Chairman A.Paulauskas. Understanding that he could be next, A.Brazauskas unsuccessfully tried to convince his party’s representatives to support A.Paulauskas – regardless it was too late. He did manage to resist V.Uspackich’s post interpellation grab at control of the Government, but the coalition’s disintegration could not be stopped. In May, the State Security Department and the Prosecutors Office raided the offices of the Darbo (Labor) Party and accused it of improper campaign financing activities – V.Uspackich fled to Russia.

On May 30^th, President V.Adamkus offered that A.Brazauskas should refute the public’s uncertainty in his Government and to follow the Constitutionally defined methods to form a new Government and receive a vote of confidence from the Seimas. The next morning, the Darbo (Labor) Party’s Ministers resigned from the Government and A.Brazauskas left to meet with the President where he offered the President his resignation.

Formally, no one overtly asked that A.Brazauskas resign. Had he received a vote of confidence from the Seimas, his Government would have been able to continue to work. However, A.Brazauskas didn’t have enough votes for the vote of confidence and he would have had to look for support from the Conservatives – with which A.Brazauskas could not find any points of common ground. Had A.Brazauskas tried to put aside his ambitions and in looking for support, taken the required steps to negotiate with Conservative leader Andrius Kubilius, who well remembered the previous years privatization efforts at “Draugyste”, A.Brazauskas would not have been able to maintain his nomination. For this reason he chose to resign – by his own choice, but in reality he was forced out by the events. His chosen successor as Prime Minister, Zigmantas Balčytis, as with A.Paulauskas before him, failed to receive the confidence of the Seimas.

The head of Government was taken up by Gediminas Kirkilas, a representative of the younger generation, who was nominated to the post by the independence era formed political elite which now formalized its victory over the old “Brazauskas” political elite.

The true extent and breadth of ones political personality only becomes clear once one leaves high office. A.Brazauskas’ influence in government remained significant even after he stopped participating in active politics. His words were seriously regarded not only by fellow Party members, but also by the business world, diplomats and the public at large.

Of course, over time even the most powerful leaders lose influence. This last year was particularly difficult for him as the new Government not only significantly cut the budget of his personal project  Valdovų Rūmai (Royal Palace) but also saw his chosen successor not approved for Party leadership. In looking back, the usurper of his position as Chairman of the Social Democrats, G.Kirkilas, lost his post in a shameful way – even A.Brazauskas’ now long time protégé Zigmantas Balčytis recognized the advantages behind non Soviet Party elite associated Algirdas Butkevičius.

Time will tell. But even from within the current generation, a universally recognized leader like A.Brazauskas isn’t readily apparent.

In analyzing his work, the proponents of A.Brazauskas will point out that during his leadership Lithuania established friendly relations with its neighbors, created strategic partnerships with Poland, implemented the Litas currency, became a candidate and then full member of NATO and the European Union and experienced unforeseen levels of economic growth. Opponents will recall that each forward step taken only happened with pressure from behind, no systematic reforms were created via his initiative yet he became the “shining star” and partook in the fruits of other peoples labors. Both versions will be true.

Translated by VG

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.

Do you regret that a year ago you supported Grybauskaite’s candidacy during the presidential election?

Not at all. We work with the president closely. I can tell you that over the year Grybauskaite was able to reveal herself well. I think Lithuania is lucky to have such a president.

Do you feel the president’s support for yourself and the cabinet?According to the Constitution, we are independent institutions, and we do not necessarily have to have a united opinion on every issue. We hold discussions; sometimes we see certain things differently. Yet, in my opinion, we have the same opinion on vitally important issues.

What complaints do you hear, when you meet with the president?We definitely did not have any illusions that the president’s role during this year would be only to praise us: Look how well the government is working!Hurray! Applause! We ourselves see things were work is needed, where it is necessary to concentrate our strengths. For example, the fight against corruption, smuggling, and the shadow economy.

Yes, we are criticized and disciplined, but we still try to achieve tasks after listening to the criticism and proposals and after discussing them.

In the beginning of the term in office it seemed like the relations between the president and the cabinet were almost ideal. Later, we started seeing disagreements. Are things only getting worse with time?

I cannot say that we have a critical mass of issues on which there are big disagreements. Maybe there are different positions on some of the questions.

For example, regarding land. In my opinion, strengthening the self-government is a priority. It is impossible to strengthen them without giving them more power and responsibility. This is how we saw the issue of land. May be we did not coordinate this issue with the President’ Office fully, and the president’s proposal was adopted.

Talking about appointments to posts in the law enforcement, I can say that the government does not have some sort of special powers. I would like to wish success to the new prosecutor general in reforming the office and in improving its prestige.

When it comes to selecting candidates for the posts in various law enforcement institutions, however, our knowledge about proposed candidates is pretty limited. In this situation I said we knew nothing about the candidate for the prosecutor general’s post. The conversation with him in the parliamentary group was very brief.

In such a situation it is very hard to accept responsibility for appointing someone to such a post.

Once you said: “Not only the government, but also the Seimas and the president should be responsible for the finance policy. Was this a complaint against the president for avoiding responsibility for the finances and for blaming everything on the government?

No. I do not want to create an impression that there are some sort of major disagreements. During discussions in the Seimas sometimes we would like to see understanding why the government presents this or that decision in the area of finances. The amount of understanding, however, is increasing, even among some of the opposition members.

Even though we discuss this or that tax or financial issue with Grybauskaite, as an experienced economist, in the end we come up with common decisions.

Do you already have the president’s support for the future decisions regarding tax hikes in autumn?

We are not planning this. Therefore, there is no need to gain support.

Does this mean that you can guarantee that in the fall there will not be tax hikes?We are definitely not planning this at this time. We will see how things are, when it is time to form the budget.I can only assure you that Lithuania will not be pushed into debt up to its neck. To achieve this, we must reduce the deficit. This is our main goal. The president understands this very well and she often has said that for a few years there will not be any opportunities to be generous with our spending.

Your answer “we are not planning this at this time” is confusing. The period “at this time” can end tomorrow. Can you say clearly whether taxes will be increased?

The next question is how to achieve the goals related to the deficit reduction. Can we continue reducing spending, or should we look for additional income, or should we try to regain more revenue from the shadow economy.

We are discussing all those issues; sometimes our discussions are too open. We are looking for solutions, and the year and a half of our work in the coalition shows that we are capable of finding them.

Do your hear complaints from the president because of improperly implemented reform of the Government’s Chancellery and leadership of ministries and because of weak office of the Prime Minister’s Chancellery?

Well, we have different views. I, for example, do not know and do not assess the chancellors of other institutions that I do not know. I know the Seimas Chancellor. I think it was no accident that in one survey he was voted number one in terms of professionalism. I also value my chancellor – Deividas Matulionis, who was third in the same survey.

I understand that the bread and butter of journalists is to look for disagreements, biggest conflicts and accusations.

Just do not tell me that your relations with the president are ideal…I only want to remind you that the media constantly escalates certain things, for example, that Kubilius’s is in conflict with Vytautas Landsbergis. This has been continuing for over ten years. I have already gotten used to the apocalyptic visions related to the alleged disagreements between myself and Landsbergis.Yes, we know what foreign policy we are implementing.Compared with the past, I see certain natural changes in his area. I think there are fewer declarative-style positions and more consistent work. The most important goal in the foreign policy is to ensure Lithuania’s geopolitical security. This will be greatly influenced by the future perspective in the region between our country and Russia. I see potential for that region to gravitate closer towards Europe.

The president is responsible for setting the foreign policy directions and is responsible for implementing the foreign policy together with the government. Do you know what our foreign policy is?

What about the fact that we are turning away from the United States, as our biggest ally?

Over the past six months I visited the United States twice. I met with President Barack Obama and State Secretary Hillary Clinton. I do not see here any turning-way. I see a changed US policy towards Russia and our region. What this means we can see from positive things. Yet, we must monitor the situation closely and analyse it.

Will the president’s support for the government last at least until the end of the term of this Seimas?

I do not know whether the issue of support needs to be raised. Here is the essence: Do we agree on essential political issues? I see such a consensus.

The fact that sometimes we are unable to convince the public is our mistake and unfinished work.

How can you explain this paradox – the president, who supports you is the most popular among the public, while your ratings are the lowest?

Perhaps it is for the best that this is how we divide things… (Laughs!)

A government that comes to work during such a difficult time must choose whether to worry about its popularity or whether to concentrate on the works it must implement quickly and effectively. In this case, popularity plays a secondary role.

Of course, one always wants to see more understanding and appreciation from the public. In the end, however, you ask yourself whether you are really doing what you are supposed to be doing, and you go do what you have to do.

“It is an historical moment for Europe and Iceland. I strongly believe that Iceland’s EU membership would bring important contribution to European security, economic cooperation and cultural diversity,” the letter of the head of Lithuanian diplomacy reads.

The Minister stressed that Iceland had always been a close partner of the EU, integrated into the European Economic Area and member of the Schengen Agreement.

Minister A.Ažubalis also encouraged Iceland to take advantage of Lithuania’s experience during EU accession process.

The EU opens talks with Iceland on 27 July. Iceland and the EU will hold negotiations in 35 chapters. Experts estimate, that the negotiations could last for 18-24 months.

The EU foreign ministers also discussed the EU’s actions following the publication of the advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice on the declaration of Kosovo’s independence. On 22 July, the Court ruled that the declaration of Kosovo’s independence was not a violation of international law.

Minister A.Ažubalis welcomed the publication of the advisory opinion of the Court and highlighted that in the Western Balkans key attention had to be dedicated to regional cooperation, stability and closer relations with the EU. According to the Minister, the EU had to send a strong signal to Kosovo and Serbia, inviting these countries to open a dialogue with each other.

According to the head of Lithuania’s diplomacy, facts and arguments based on the international law showed that Kosovo was a unique case and, therefore, it was not a precedent for solving conflicts in other regions of the world.

Before the Foreign Affairs Council and the General Affairs Council in Brussels, the foreign ministers from the Baltic States and Nordic EU countries had a separate meeting to discuss the situation in Central Asia. Minister A.Ažubalis presented to his counterparts the results of his meetings with ministers of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

“We are going to visit these countries in spring 2011, during Lithuania’s chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe,” Minister A.Ažubalis said.

The Minister stressed that Central Asia faced numerous challenges, such as water and energy resources management.

The crisis in Kyrgyzstan was also discussed. Lithuania’s Minister of Foreign Affairs said that he valued the decision of the OSCE Permanent Council to send a Police Advisory Group to this country. According to Minister A.Ažubalis, Lithuania’s OSCE chairmanship will pay considerable attention to this region.

On 25 July, the eve of the EU foreign ministers’ meeting, the political directors from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the Baltic and Benelux states (Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) held an informal meeting, during which the EU’s relations with strategic partners, the European Neighbourhood Policy and activities of the European External Action Service were discussed, and an agreement was reached to hold the Baltic and Benelux foreign ministers’ meeting this autumn.

Former members of the George W. Bush administration and critics of President Barack Obama have endorsed this narrative. It also contends that Obama’s foreign policy advisers are amateurs and beyond their depth. Among other things, they moved too quickly in withdrawing support for expanding NATO to Georgia and Ukraine, and in addition to their scrapping Bush’s anti-missile defense system in Europe, they have engaged in risky arms control agreements with Russia. And there is more: Obama has not staunchly resisted Kremlin claims that Russia enjoys a “special sphere of influence” throughout the former Soviet space. After the 2008 Georgian-Russian War, all of these accusations caused alarm in Central and Eastern Europe.

Lucas, the author of a book that pillories the Kremlin leadership—The New Cold War—has been a resolute supporter of the Baltic countries in their confrontations with Kremlin hard-liners. This year for his commitment to Lithuania’s security he was awarded the “National Defense System Medal.” His commentary on the charges leveled at Obama then are of special interest to anyone living in the East Baltic Sea region.

In commenting upon the claim that Obama has betrayed the Baltics, Lucas has observed. This “is a potent and poignant narrative. It is popular among Republican critics of the administration. If it were true, it would be a scandalous story. But in reality, (in) almost every element (it) is untrue.”

To provide perspective, one must acknowledge that Obama inherited a poisoned legacy from Bush including two wars and the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. It is especially noteworthy that the invasion of Iraq, and subsequent abuses associated with it, represented a monumental savaging of the very Western values that Bush and his associates had celebrated. “It was not just that western values and credibility were shredded, first by the contempt for international law, second by the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction, thirdly by the incredible incompetence of the American occupying forces, and finally by the scandalous abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.” Worse yet, all of these things were done “under the guise of a common cause: freedom.” Consequently, when members of the Bush administration correctly cited human rights violations in Chechnya, the Kremlin leaders responded that the Americans were engaging in double standards. “The final ignominy came during the Georgia war, when America’s impotence was starkly exposed. It was neither able to restrain Mr. Saakashvili, nor to deter Russia.” Lucas might have added: Had there been no Iraq War, Russia probably would not have risked one with Georgia.

Lucas concludes, when one considers the legacy that it inherited from Bush: “…it is actually rather surprising how much the Obama administration has achieved. The single most important decision has been the president’s personal decision to push through full NATO contingency planning for the Baltic states.” Furthermore, Obama has pledged to employ U.S. power to protect all three of them. “This year sees no fewer than four American military exercises in the Baltic states, involving thousands of troops, dozens of aircraft and ships, and intense involvement of everything from electronic intelligence to special forces.” Consequently, “Russian military planners are in no doubt now that America has serious plans and capabilities to defend its weakest allies.”

Lucas finds the Obama administration guilty of some mistakes in the former communist space in Europe, including: its failure to forewarn the Poles and Czechs that he was scrapping Bush’s anti-missile system; personnel limitations among U.S. diplomats in the area; and not inviting Azerbaijan’s leader to the recent Nuclear Security Summit, but when considering the charges against Obama—well, he finds them bogus.

In this connection, a few words should be said about Georgia since its summer war with Russia is responsible for fears about Russian aggression throughout much of the former Soviet space. It is significant that many Georgians take issue with the anti-Obama-pro-Bush narrative. According to Giga Zedania at IliaUniversity in Tbilisi, “One of the problems of the Bush administration was that it had no leverage over Russia, because there was no cooperation” between Washington and Moscow. “When these links are established that mutually benefit Russia and the United States, Russia will have more incentive to think twice before it does something like it did in 2008.” Or listen to Irakli Alasania, Georgia’s former Ambassador to the UN. “I strongly believe that if the U.S.-Russian relationship expands and grows closer, it will only benefit Georgia.”

Furthermore, recent trips to Georgia by Vice-President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been applauded by the Georgia government; in particular, their pledge to protect the country against foreign aggression. In her visit to Georgia, Clinton demanded Moscow end its occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Because both President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have clearly stated that they welcome close relations with Obama, such pledges take on more meaning than similar ones that were made by the Bush administration but never acted upon. Indeed, many Georgians recall that under the Bush administration there was lots of tough talk when it came to Washington’s protecting Georgia but no concrete actions when it clashed with Russia in the summer of 2008.

Finally, Obama’s critics chastise him for caving into Russian pressure when he scrapped Bush’s plans for an anti-missile system in the Czech Republic and Poland. Last year, this development prompted prominent statesmen from the region to express their fears that their countries would be harmed by Washington’s re-setting relations with Moscow. But these noble dignitaries, all of whom played a vital role in bringing their countries into the democratic camp, ignored some important facts:

As Bush indicated, his anti-missile program had nothing to do with Russia’s awesome nuclear-missile strike capability. Conversely, the same holds true for not deploying it.

During his race for the White House, Obama indicated that he saw no reason to deploy a missile defense system in Europe that did not work to address a threat that had not yet materialized—namely, an Iran nuclear arsenal.

As U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has indicated the new system championed by Obama is far more sophisticated than that which the Bush administration favored.

Consequently, Radek Sikorski, Poland’s Foreign Minister has indicated, he is quite happy with the Patriot anti-missile system that the Americans have begun to deploy in his country. Indeed, he has invited Russian observers to visit the project when it is completed. Such transparency is consistent with a re-set in relations between Russia and all members of the Western alliance.

Consequently, Lithuanians should welcome the Americans and Russians finding ways to address common security problems—assuming the Obama administration does not remain silent in face of actions from those hapless hard-liners in Moscow who remain mired in the cold war.

And one more thing: listen to Lucas’s message to all EU citizens. “So the grand narrative of betrayal by a cynical, weak and distracted superpower is phony. The real betrayal is different one: it is the betrayal of national and European interests by the politicians charged with promoting them. If Ukraine’s security is in trouble, it is not America’s fault, but Ukraine’s politicians. If Europe fails to gain American respect and attention, then it is because Europe’s leaders are weak, distracted and cynical.”

Perhaps Lucas is being too harsh here but no one can argue with the observation that as Washington’s influence in world affairs diminishes, Europe must help fill those spaces of instability left vacant by the Americans. But is Europe ready to re-set relations with a world in turmoil or will it choose to be a mere bystander?

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

***In the fall, Dick Krickus will be serving as visiting professor of international affairs at Vytautas Magnus University.