However, we note that according to the reports the freed political prisoners will have to leave for Spain. Besides, according to the data of the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, over 100 political prisoners remain on the island. Cuba still has not ratified two UN conventions on human rights, and representatives from international NGOs, for example, from the International Committee of the Red Cross, have been repeatedly refused entry into prisons.

Lithuania’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs is closely following the situation in the country and is looking forward to follow-up steps that the Cuban Government will take towards democracy. We also participate in the discussion of the European Union on further relations with Cuba and we will decide on Lithuania’s position taking into account further changes of the situation in Cuba.

Lithuania shares the common EU position on Cuba from 1996. The objective of the common position on Cuba is to encourage a process of transition to pluralist democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as a sustainable development and improvement in the living standards of the Cuban people. The common position considers that full cooperation with Cuba will depend upon improvements in human rights and political freedom.

Lietuvos rytas noted that at the same time, Kubilius’s visit also reflects the changes in the Lithuanian foreign policy that are declared by President Dalia Grybauskaite. She uses every opportunity to emphasize that she works to ensure our country’s pragmatic interests abroad, but the president is afraid to even mention defence of democratic values in the post-Soviet sphere.

If such a visit had taken place while Algirdas Brazauskas or Gediminas Kirkilas were in the prime minister’s post, the Conservatives would have beaten up everyone brave enough to talk about improving the ties with Lukashenka’s Belarus. Now, this is the official foreign policy course of the Conservatives.

Yet, the paper writes, one has to admit that Brussels position towards Lukashenka’s regime is also much softer – the EU suspended sanctions against Minsk, including the prohibition to issue visas to Lukashenka and his closest advisers.

Of course, Minsk made some concessions as well – political prisoners were released from prison, the opposition media was allowed to breathe more freely. The nature of Lukashenka’s authoritarian regime, however, is still the same.

This was also said during Kubilius’s meeting with opposition representatives, who told him that repression in Belarus did not go away, only their form was changed.

Yet, Lietuvos rytas notes, even the formal softening of the regime allows the West to justify the decision to abandon the policy of isolating Minsk.

Not a lot of effort is needed – for example, Prime Minister Kubilius was allowed to talk to opposition leaders, and he was able to say he did not forget democratic values, even though the real goal of the visit was a dialogue with Lukashenka.

On the other hand, it is also clear that the policy of isolating Minsk did not produce fruit.

Using cheap Russian raw materials, Lukashenka managed to keep his regime stable, and the Belarusian opposition is so insignificant and divided, that it is unlikely to be a real alternative to the current regime.

Moscow’s desire to keep Minsk on a leash forces Lukashenka to look towards the West and forces Western countries to be more forgiving towards Lukashenka’s regime.

It is symbolic that Kubilius travelled to Minsk when the natural gas war between Russia and Belarus was not completely over yet.

Moscow demanded immediate payment of a 200 million USD  debt for natural gas, which had formed because Minsk had been paying less than the contract provided. Moscow also reduced natural gas supply even by two thirds.

The fight was between Moscow and Minsk, but there was a real chance for Lithuania, which receives natural gas only via Belarus, to become a victim of this war, because in response to Russia’s decision to reduce the natural gas flow to Belarus, Lukashenka order to significantly reduce the Russian natural gas transit to EU countries.

Poland also receives natural gas via Belarus, but the Poles also have an alternative supply route via Ukraine. Lithuania would have been a hostage of the natural gas war between Moscow and Minsk.

The natural gas war between Russia and Ukraine that took place in the winter of 2008 produced huge losses in Central Europe, even though Brussels and the most influential EU countries rushed to alleviate the situation.

The paper thinks that larger damage was avoided, but the conflict between Minsk and Moscow once again reminded us how important it is for Lithuania to ensure alternative energy supply sources as soon as possible and for the EU – with actions, not words, to ensure energy security of the Baltic states, which are called an energy island.

In this sense, Vilnius and Minsk have many common interests. Lukashenka, who recently has been increasingly fighting with Moscow and who has been looking for a counterbalance to Moscow in the West, today may be more interested in good relations with Lithuania than our country is.

It looks like by starting another natural gas war, Moscow merely wanted to discipline Lukashenka, because he has not agreed to sign the customs union agreement with Russia and Kazakhstan, has not recognized the “independence” of separatist Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and has sheltered Kurmanbek Bakiyev, the ousted Kyrgyz president.

It is also no secret that personal relations between Lukashenka and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin remain tense, and it is probably justifiable that Lukashenka views the words of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that Moscow expects to be paid for natural gas in dollars, not in pancakes offered by Minsk, as an insult to Belarus.

Therefore, even if not all, then at least some proposals put before Lithuania by Lukashenka (cooperating in the construction of a liquefied natural gas terminal, selling electricity, importing Venezuelan oil to Belarus via Klaipeda port) can also be viewed seriously.

Of course, it would be naïve to trust Lukashenka. Minsk, which receives natural gas from Russia at the lowest prices in Europe and this way manages to patch up its budget, is too dependent on Moscow.

Lithuania must take advantage of the new opportunities; it is necessary to take care of today’s economic interests in Belarus, but to do this by forgetting human rights and other democratic values would be a short-sighted policy, Lietuvos rytas concludes its editorial on 30 June.

Last week in Finland, Estonia´s Prime Minister commenting on the marriage of his Icelandic equivalent, he referred to the situation of this community in the country when he was asked.

Ansip stated “I think that marriage between man and woman is a sacred relationship, but I totally accept the fact that same-sex cohabitation could have the same social guarantees, such as the married couples”.

After PM statement, Estonian Free Press contacted the Estonian Gay Youth association to have a deeper view of the reality in the country.

The law in Estonia does not forbid same sex relations, however in the view of Madle Saluveer, member of the Estonian Gay Youth association, it does not give any guarantees as well.

“In the Equal Treatment Law, it is only forbidden to discriminate somebody on the ground of sexual orientation at the workplace, whereas it is not mentioned in the areas of education or social services”

In Europe there are several countries like Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal or Spain that recognize same sex marriage but not Estonia. And it seems it is going to be like this for more time as the new Family Law, a provision that took effect from the first of July, states in its first article clearly that “Marriage is the union between a man and a woman”.

The new law also declares “null and void” the union between two people of the same sex, and this is a regulation that affects couples married in other countries as Mrs Saluveer explains “foreign couples who married in other countries like Iceland, Holland or Spain, wouldn’t be recognized as a married couple in Estonia”.

Prime Minister Andrus Ansip also referred to a possible future change in the regulations ruling in the Baltic States saying: “I do not believe that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania would soon accept same-sex marriage in the eyes of the law, but it does not mean that same-sex couples living together would not be tolerated. This certainly not – Estonia is a tolerant country”

But for Mrs Saluveer, this statement could be understood in two ways “As what comes from the Prime Minister’s statement, I would like to stress that there’s a huge difference on being tolerant and being accepting and inclusive.”

“Estonia being a tolerant country to me reads exactly: “we do not ban your homosexual relations, we let you be (especially if you’re very quiet and don’t request more than you’re given)“, whereas giving LGBT-people the guarantees of having a legally recognized family would make Estonia an inclusive and accepting, open-minded European country”

According to the international league of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transsexuals and Intersex associations, there is a discrimination based on sexual orientation.

An affirmation that  The Estonian Gay Youth association supports with some examples: “We do have to agree that hateful acts and discrimination is present in Estonia towards LGBT-people”.

One of the most recent cases of discrimination for the homosexual community happened in Viimsi County, where the support for transportation and school dinners was denied to a lesbian couple.  The support was legally entitled to families raising 3 kids or more.

“Although it was guaranteed that being married is not a requirement to receive the support, they soon got turned down, with the authorities saying that because in Estonia a marriage is only legally possible between a man and a woman; their family cannot be considered as one.”

“The authorities in the county even changed the regulation after the incident, trying to ensure that it would only be possible for heterosexual couples to apply for the support” says Madle Sauveer.

The case ended up in court where the couple won the case.

According to Mrs Sauveer, in the roots of discrimination against this community is tradition. “Tradition is definitely a factor, because having a Soviet time background people are not used to have rights, knowing their rights and requesting their rights, not to mention the fact that gay relationships were banned during those times and lesbian relations pushed to invisibility”.

How the legal and social situation of the this community develops in the future is unclear, although it may seem that there could be a chance for change, because 2011 is going to be an important year for the gay community in the country as Tallinn will held the joint festival for LGBT rights of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the “Baltic Pride”.

Though Norway indeed has more to bring to the table than mere precious oil-money, this statement does nevertheless quite accurately points out the strengths of the abovementioned actors in the process of changing the authoritarian stalemate in Belarus.

As for sharing a common history that stretches back well beyond the Soviet interlude, Lithuania is arguably the EU country which possess the greatest experience and most profound understanding of Belarus.

This is maybe the main reason for the assertiveness with which Lithuania has acted as the self-proclaimed voice of the Belarusian opposition within the EU. There has been more than one occasion when Lithuania’s political representatives has entered high-level international summits followed by members of the Belarusian opposition, much to the dismay of their Western colleges.

Lithuania has, as such, consistently provided the Belarusian opposition with a platform from which it has been able to draw the attention to the practices of a regime that the EU, some experts argue, has chosen to turn their backs on. The reason for this has, prior to the armed conflict in Georgia, mainly been EU’s reluctance to antagonize Russia, although the relations between Minsk and Moscow during the recent years have proven to be less than lukewarm.

The Nordic states, then, have been significantly more active in Belarusian affairs compared to the EU at large; mainly because of their relative independence of Russian energy sources and pronounced concern for human rights issues. Although striving to fulfil basically the same goals, the approach towards Belarusian society and the regime has traditionally varied between Lithuania and the Nordic states; whereas the former has preferred to use diplomatic channels in order to foster political and social change, the latter has favoured to conduct relations within the framework of foreign aid projects.

In the aftermath of the Georgian-Russian crisis, much of the attention has been focused on the Eastern Partnership Programme (EaP), designed and elaborated jointly by Poland and Sweden. Although the Belarusian regime has been showing some interest in participating in the programme, critics have been fast to point out its many weaknesses. One might, for example, question whether the fairly modest funds available for modernization and development initiatives would be of any significant attraction to the regime, especially so since it is to be regarded as mere pin-money compared to the vast debt Belarus has incurred from Russia.

However, while the critique indeed may be accurate, it would be naïve to believe that the implementation of the EaP, regardless of the size of the funds underpinning the programme, would ensue in the unconditional accommodation of political conditionality or the undertaking of an immense reform programme reminiscent of perestroika. Instead, the strengths of the EaP lie in its elaborate mechanisms to promote reform in certain key institutions which, in turn, is envisioned to gradually change the mindset of society. Hence, the main long-term aim being to absorb Belarus into the European orbit.

It was against this backdrop of a revitalized dialogue with Belarus that the EU launched its policy of “engagement”, with the aim to break the self-imposed isolation of the country. This development should indeed be viewed as encouraging, especially so since the EU, until recently, seems to have equated Alexander Lukashenka with Belarus, which is to play right into the hands of the dictator. Moreover, with the apartheid regime in South Africa being the exception that proves the rule, efforts to isolate regimes which fails to comply with the rules of conduct set by the international community has, time and again, proven to be unsuccessful at best, and disastrous at worst.

However, though the policy of “engagement” seems as a promising initiative as it aims to increase interaction between the EU and Belarus, there is other vital actors, apart from a capricious regime and a muzzled opposition, involved in the struggle for democratization and reform which deserves the attention and support from the EU. In order to achieve long-term and sustained social and political change it will be of fundamental importance to create arenas for socio-cultural interaction and exchange between EU citizens and Belarusian people in general, and youth in particular.

As for now, the lion’s share of EU’s foreign aid is channelized into support for the fragmented Belarusian opposition. Notwithstanding the fact that that the beleaguered opposition forces are filling a political void in Belarusian society and therefore should be accommodated with all means possible, one should also acknowledge that this approach so far has produced rather meagre results. Instead of concentrating funds solely on the endorsement of the Belarusian opposition, it seems vital that money should be distributed among a larger number of social actors, and especially those who contribute to enhance the dialogue between Belarusian and Western civic groupings.

Lithuania had, prior to entering the Schengen agreement, adopted a fairly generous visa regime vis-à-vis Belarus which made is possible for Belarusian citizens to obtain a temporary visa to a considerably lower price than that which were stipulated within the Schengen zone. It is of course impossible to measure or correctly assess the impact this kind of policy could have on Belarusian society, but it seems plausible enough to suggest that the experience of interacting with people and institutions within a democratic society could stimulate a change of perception about the blunt authoritarianism prevailing in one’s own society. This policy unfortunately had to change as Lithuania had to comply with EU regulations on a common visa regime when acceding to the Schengen agreement in 2007.

A policy in the Nordic states which seems to have been equally efficient in terms of increasing the prospects of democratization in Belarus through cultural and social interaction was that of a free and universal university education. This meant that Belarusian students, among others, could receive a free university education of their choice and the possibility to indulge in social activities outside the narrow confines prevailing within their own society.

In 2006 Denmark decided to delimit the number of foreign students with the possibility to receive free university education by stipulating that only students from within the EEC and Switzerland were to be granted this opportunity. Finland and Sweden followed suit in 2009 when their respective parliaments passed a similar law. Consequently, the dismantling of this particular institution does not only increase inequality, as it is students from the most prosperous countries that remain unobligated to pay for their education, but it might also have dire consequences, albeit indirectly, for the prospects of enhancing democratization.

Nonetheless, apart from these setbacks, it will be interesting to see how Lithuania and the Nordic states will develop its efforts to enhance the prospects for democratization in Belarus, and how they are to act within the new EU policy framework of “engagement”. What is clear, however, is that their positions as forerunners in this process are likely to continue.

Although there are few incitements to coordinate efforts and policymaking within the field of foreign aid outside the framework provided by the EU, considering the disparities in the approach between the Nordic states on the one hand and Lithuania on the other, such an attempt could nevertheless be beneficial for both parties.

Though Lithuania may lack the funds, skills and experience of conducting foreign aid in the elaborated manner established in the Nordic states, the latter’s expertise in this field has, to a great extent, been acquired through collaboration with the Baltic States during the phase of reconstruction and transitional ordeal. Prior to the dissolution of Soviet Union in 1991, Nordic, and especially Swedish foreign policy, had an ideological penchant for “palm-leaf socialism” in the Third World and were likely to target experimental regimes with little respect for human rights. Among the beneficiaries were Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega, just to name a few. Consequently, given their understanding of Belarusian culture and society, Lithuania should, in this perspective, definitely possess the skills to evaluate and outline the apparent strength and weaknesses of Nordic foreign aid.

It might also be in place with a reminder of that Lithuania will take over EU’s rotating presidency in 2013. And although the powers invested in the presidency do not give Lithuania the prerogatives to direct EU’s unwieldy machinery after its own accord, it does nonetheless bestow Lithuania with the privilege to shape the agenda.

This has intermittently proven to be a distinct advantage as far as foreign policymaking is concerned. When Sweden held the presidency in 2001 and Denmark in 2002, their joint efforts paved the way for the 2004 “big bang” enlargement which ensued in that Latvia and Lithuania was granted membership together with those Central and Eastern European countries which previously were deemed to be far ahead in the accession process.

In 2013, therefore, Lithuania will be given the possibility to turn the EU’s attention towards its post-Soviet eastern neighbours. Though the short-term advantages of such an approach may turn out to be modest, it should be viewed as an opportunity for Lithuania to play a significant role in EU’s foreign policy making, and the effort would most certainly be met with acclaim among the people residing southeast of the Lithuanian border.

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 RydströmEurovision 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

His country wants to diversify its energy sources away from dependence on Russia — a very similar situation that Lithuania is in. Last week Belarus felt the cold shoulder from the Kremlin as it called in a $192 million dollar gas bill. When they didn’t pay, Russia began cutting off gas supplies to the country.

In a meeting in Minsk on Monday, Lukashenka told Lithuanian Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius that his country wants to increase energy independence.

“Belarus is interested in the liquefied gas terminal in Klaipėda, considering the possibility to participate in its development. He [Lukashenka] talked about a possible gas pipeline from Klaipėda,” Kubilius said via his spokesman in Minsk.

Kubilius sympathised with Lukashenka’s position, but informed him that cooperation would mean that Belarus would have to raise their standards of humans rights and democratic practices.

“We all know what it means to be dependent solely on any single supplier’s resources, it is sometimes problematic. To have an alternative, governed by economic logic is good,” Kubilius said. “This approach [shows] we have good opportunities to develop clear and effective projects. In this way we can strengthen our independence and sovereignty.”

Lukashenka said via his press service after the meeting that Lithuania and Belarus should work closely together.

“Belarus and Lithuania cannot have disagreements in trade and economic co-operation. We can accomplish a lot, but it is important that we do not lose time. We have similar problems today, but we also have similar approaches to solving them,” he said.

Lithuania is building a floating LNG terminal so it can import gas by ship, freeing it from dependence on Russian gas. Currently Lithuania relies on Russia for almost all of its gas supplies. The country uses gas for heating, electricity production, industry and domestic use.

The country is also in the process of building a pipeline to Poland to utilize their gas reserves.

It’s a generally accepted fact that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian society. The term “totalitarian society” can be understood in two ways. First, it can be understood as a society, in which citizens are under the firm control of the authorities (police, security service and military) in almost all aspects of life. In Lithuania in 2010 this is clearly not the case.

The second meaning of the term is a society, in which the generally accepted opinion is that there is a single belief system, religious, political or ideological, which has answers to almost all important issues confronting society. There is a belief system with the claim to be “total”. In the Soviet Union this official belief system was Marxism-Leninism and socialism in one country. In reality the Soviet Union was a bureaucratic and patriarchal class-society, which only recognized one “norm” in private life. Therefore, only heterosexual relationships were considered as “normal”. The country was run by a small elite, the communist party, a system justified as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The mental switch from this single “total” belief system to a belief system based on Lithuanian nationalism (corresponding to “socialist in one country”) and Catholicism (patriarchal subordination, a clerical elite and heterosexual norms) is actually not a very dramatic one. It’s a lot greater leap (forward) to move from the Soviet mentality to the insight that no single belief system exists, which has answers to all questions confronting mankind in general and the Lithuanian society in particular. Therefore, pluralism and an acceptance that everyone in society has the right to chose their ideological, political, religious, ethnical and sexual identity is necessary.

I would say that Lithuania is still a totalitarian society in the sense that still a single belief system is considered by many to be enough. Many believe that answers to all questions can be found in the Catholic dogmas and in Lithuanian nationalism. This delusion must be overcome. It will be a painful, and a painfully slow, process, but this change must happen in order for Lithuania to become a functional pluralistic society; with equal rights for both sexes, for all races, for people with all sexual orientations and of all religious beliefs.

Having stated this, I do think that Lithuania is opening up rapidly and the recognition that everyone has the right to his and her sexual orientation will be generally accepted and will evolve much quicker than in most western countries. In these countries this process took decades, if not centuries. A great part of the Lithuanian population is living abroad in other EU countries right now. These expat Lithuanians will help to bring in influences, which will enlighten the rest of the population. In addition, Lithuanians in Lithuania have full access to international media and many Lithuanians are travelling abroad.

Judging from my impression at the recent Pride Parade it seems that some don’t understand that this development is unavoidable and irreversible. Or perhaps they do understand and that’s why they are feeling so threatened. At the end of the Pride Parade on May 8 a pathetic clown dressed in a suit appeared. I was told that he was a Lithuanian parliamentarian and he had been the main advocate for the middle age law forbidding objective information to Lithuanian children and to teenagers about homosexuality. When I spotted him I remembered John Stuart Mill’s words:  ”Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”

However, when I saw that Lithuanian parliamentarian’s irrational outbursts towards the police, I started to doubt whether Mr. Mill was right. Perhaps all conservatives are stupid?

It’s difficult to imagine the reason for such uncontrolled fury. A person fighting an internal temptation might be acting against other people as a sort of self-treatment, or self-medication. Could it be that some of this visible homophobia is caused by own suppressed homosexuality?

I consider a man approximately as sexually attractive as a piece of furniture, like a table. If a man had approached me with homosexual intent, it would be like a table approaching me. The very thought is absurd in an entertaining way. In a free world every individual has the right to decline any offer; regardless whether the offer is from a man or from a woman. So, why is this thought so threatening for that Member of Parliament? I think he should really look into the mirror and ask himself whether he isn’t subconsciously attracted by homosexual fantasies. In any case, even as layman it’s all too obvious to me that he needs some professional psychiatric help to come to terms with himself.

However, as I stated at the very beginning of this article I consider a generally cautious attitude towards new ideas and changes to be sound. During the years I have had to review my own attitude towards women and gender equality. I have had to develop and change my own worldview. At times rethinking can be painful.

It’s clear to me that a great part of the Lithuanian society still has such a rethinking process in front them about homosexual, bisexual and transsexual orientations. It’s natural that such processes require time to evolve. Centuries of traditions are not changed overnight.

In the middle of the 1990’s Sweden joined the EU. Before the accession there was a heated debate in Sweden whether to join. One of the main arguments for not joining was the fact that many countries in the South of Europe are Catholic. It was feared that Sweden would have to adopt Catholic traditions and it would lead to more violence against women, more violence against children, etc, etc.

That whole logic was absurd and dangerous for several reasons. First, no one in Sweden would have to turn Catholic just because Sweden had joined the EU club. Second, the fear of Catholicism in Sweden was irrational, unless to recognize the incremental impact of strong Protestant propaganda from Church and the Swedish state over centuries. Third, with few Catholics in Sweden Catholicism was unfamiliar to a great part of the population. People all over the world fear the unknown and unfamiliar.

I see great similarities between the fear against Catholicism in Sweden some 15 years ago and the situation in Lithuania today. However, the ferocity of the fear for homosexuality and sexual education today in Lithuania is much stronger than the fear for Catholicism in Sweden a decade and a half ago. However, the main reason and the mechanism for the scare are still the same; lack of knowledge, lack of education and fear for the unknown.

The fear of the unknown and a resistance to adopt can also be viewed among the Lithuanian political parties.

Traditionally left-wing parties are expected to be the protectors of threatened and persecuted groups. In Lithuania of today it’s difficult to think of any groups fitting this description to a greater extent than the homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals.

Still compared with the female part of the population these groups are small. Left-wing parties could focus on improving the situation for the female majority of the population, which in many ways is discriminated compared with men. In Western Europe a left-wing party, which doesn’t have gender equality as a top priority, simply can’t be found. What is the reason why left-wing parties in Lithuania don’t focus on improving the situation for people, who are persecuted due to their sexual identity? And why are Lithuanian left-wing parties not strongly fighting stereotype gender patterns? Perhaps Lithuanian left-wing parties are simply not yet fully liberated from the ideological chains of Bolshevik dogmas?

For right-wing parties freedom for the individual is usually a core value. It’s difficult to imagine a more fundamental freedom for the individual than to decide over one’s own body and the right to have a close personal relationship with any consenting adult without any interference from anyone else. So why are not all representatives of the Lithuanian right-wing parties in the first line on the barricades in the defence for this very fundamental freedom for the individual? Is the ideological heritage of collectivism from the Soviet Union still too strong a burden to realize the importance of individual freedom?

Stereotype gender patterns are severely limiting freedom; both for men and women. In Western Europe many right-wing parties have embraced gender equality as an important tool to increase freedom for the individual citizen; both for men and for women. It seems that Lithuanian right-wing parties have not yet grasped the importance gender equality for individual freedom.

In short, tolerance of people with a non-mainstream sexual orientation should be a priority of all parties; both left-wing and right-wing. The same is true for gender equality. Unfortunately, it seems that in Lithuania this is not yet the case.

Still, at the Pride Parade I was somewhat surprised that I hardly spotted any older Lithuanians marching. Where were leading lawyers, journalists, academics and politicians standing up for fundamental human rights? One of John Stuart Mill’s quotes, which really tells it all about freedom of speech:

”If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

Hopefully, the educated Lithuanian intelligentsia will realize that freedom of speech limited to expressing what the majority considers right is basically the same thing as no freedom of speech at all. In any society the educated part of the population must be the backbone of society; never giving up even an inch of human rights. Anyway, it was a great symbolic victory for Lithuania as a whole that the parade really did take place. Last year a Pride Parade was allowed to take place in Riga. It would have been clear sign for the whole world that Lithuania is lagging the other Baltic States in democratic maturity and modernity, if the Pride Parade of May 8 had been cancelled. I saw many young people in the parade. And as we all know, the future belongs to the young. So, the future is bright for Lithuania!

In general I think that the public discussions and media coverage surrounding the recent march have been great for the public debate in Lithuania. It has been a great leap forward, but let’s hope that the development towards a more open society for all will be a speedy one. I really do think that Lithuania will succeed in making this transition quicker than many other countries. Hopefully, the Baltic Pride in 2013 in Lithuania will be much bigger and many more prominent Lithuanians will stand up for universal values such as freedom of speech and the right of everyone to decide and express one’s sexual orientation freely. I do wish that in three years time Lithuania will be mature enough to embrace the parade to take place in the very centre of Vilnius; on the Gedimino Prospect and on the Cathedral Square.

It’s understandable that the ongoing economic and social crisis in Lithuania is making the population feel threatened. People with this feeling are usually not embracing change, but at least it’s important that the development isn’t allowed to slip backwards. During an economic crisis freedom should still be maintained, because human rights and human dignity have no economic costs and are actually underpinning economic development. Freedom is free of charge and for everyone!

The individual’s right to security and freedom should never be under threat in our common European Union.

A foreigner’s thoughts on Lithuania after the Baltic Pride – Part 1 (Introduction, Homosexuality)

A foreigner’s thoughts on Lithuania after Baltic Pride Parade – Part 2 (Gender Roles)

A foreigner’s thoughts on Lithuania after the Pride Parade – Part 3 (Family, Church, Sex, Education)

Disclaimer

All views and opinions expressed are those of the author, Mr. Erik Edlund, and may not completely coincide with those of the Lithuania Tribune
—————————————————————————-
© Copyright 2010, Erik Edlund and the Lithuania Tribune, All Rights Reserved

Intelligence tasks to be coordinated with the highest-ranking Lithuanian officials, the State Security Department (VSD) is to have less duties – these are only several changes that are going to take place when the country’s intelligence system undergoes reform.

Vilniaus Diena asked Jonas Markevičius head of the Intelligence Coordination Group and president’s adviser, about what will be done to strengthen the oversight of the country’s secret services, what has already been done, and what will be done in the nearest future.

(Vilniaus Diena)  In January, the National Defence Council approved the concept of strengthening intelligence oversight and coordination, according to which the national intelligence system should be restructured. What are the main aspects of this concept?

(Jonas Markevičius) The document will not be made public. Its purpose is to make the work of the security services more effective. One of the problems is that the relations between the secret services and the executive branch have not been properly organized. The concept specifies the changes and that the main institution that will be coordinating the work of the intelligence services is the National Defence Council. Following the presidential decree, a working group – the Intelligence Coordination Group – was established and representatives of all the executive branch institutions were delegated to the working group. The group has already had a meeting. It will help the National Defence Council to organize the oversight of the tasks performed by the intelligence services.

This means that each representative of the executive branch – the president, the Seimas speaker, the prime minister, and the ministers will delegate their representatives to this group and the latter will express their expectations regarding the work of the intelligence services. Their requests will turn into documents, and these documents will turn into tasks for the intelligence services. In this way we will have a system and a process that should be working irrespective of political whims and irrespective of the individuals in power positions.

Another part of the concept defines how the parliamentary oversight will be strengthened. It has been agreed that the Seimas should be more active and more decisive in the implementation of the parliamentary control of the secret services. One committee that would control the secret services should be named and appointed.

(Vilniaus Diena)  The National Defence Council has approved the list of dangers to national security and the need for intelligence information. This information will be used to form specific tasks for the secret services. How will this process be implemented in practice?

(Jonas Markevičius) According to the legal acts, the services have to approve their plans and tasks. In the case of the VSD, this is done by the VSD director, and in the case of the Second Investigation Department, the defence minister does this.

According to the new concept, these tasks should be coordinated with the National Defence Council. Moreover, these tasks should be in line with the needs. The needs have already been outlined. The concept was approved during the National Defence Council meeting (which took place on 21 January), and both security agencies were told to prepare their action plans and to present their tasks.

Soon afterward, both services approved their tasks and submitted them to our group. Members of the group are analysing the tasks right now, and will issue their conclusions as to whether the tasks set by the VSD and the Second Investigations Department are in line with what the politicians want to see and hear.

(Vilniaus Diena)  Suppose the VSD is planning an operation the aim of which is to expose a group of people spying for a foreign country in Lithuania. Will the VSD need an approval from the National Defence Council to carry out such an operation?

(Jonas Markevičius) If the operation might lead to a political scandal, then it would have to be coordinated with the top state officials. If it is a routine operation, for example, if a contrabandist is caught or if a citizen who abuses the authorization given to him by the state is exposed, the VSD could do that on its own.

(Vilniaus Diena) How will the Intelligence Coordination Group control the work of the secret services?

(Jonas Markevičius) This will be done in various ways. The Intelligence Coordination Group will evaluate the information submitted to it on a regular basis; it will check whether the information is submitted properly, whether it is submitted on time, and whether it is in line with the requests for information.

The secret services have to report on a regular basis: Once a year they report to the top state officials. The purpose of the group is to control the situation so that manipulations are avoided. We are seeking to ensure that at the end of each year, when the services submit their annual reports, the group could issue its opinion and say whether the information presented by the services is true or not.

(Vilniaus Diena)  Does this mean that if it turns out during the next State Defence Council’s meeting, planned to take place in a year, that some of the tasks assigned to the secret services have not be fulfilled, the State Defence Council will replace a security service director?

(Jonas Markevičius) I think that if the tasks are not properly performed, we will see that earlier than that, because we are creating an oversight system that will be operational non-stop. If we see that there are some problems, we will warn the directors immediately that the work of the services is not satisfactory. In case of a conflict, the director of the service would have to assume the responsibility.

(Vilniaus Diena)  The VSD management has been asked to prepare a VSD strategy, and this strategy will be used to review the duties performed by the VSD.  What changes have been planned for the VSD?

(Jonas Markevičius) These expectations were expressed before the new VSD director (Gediminas Grina) was appointed. I cannot give you the details of the reorganization of the VSD, because this information is a state secret.

The new VSD director will have to review the tasks performed by the VSD; perhaps he will decide that some duties should not be assigned to the VSD anymore. For the time being, we are discussing whether the pre-trial investigation duty should be cancelled in the VSD. If this is done, the VSD structure would be reviewed accordingly.

The new VSD director has pledged to submit the new VSD strategy by the fall. It will be clear from this strategy what his vision of the VSD is and what his expectations are. Together with the strategy he will have to present a new VSD structure.

(Vilniaus Diena)  What other duties, besides the aforementioned pre-trial investigation, may the VSD decide to cancel?

(Jonas Markevičius) The VSD is carrying out many various duties. These are assessment and monitoring of the strategic objects, protection of secrets, protection of Constitutional principles, and many others. Some duties have been imposed by specific government decisions and resolutions.

We need to review all that. Currently, the VSD has many duties that are routine duties or that have been assigned to it to fulfil additional tasks that are not part of VSD’s immediate duties. This service should specialize in intelligence and homeland security. This should not be a police agency or a ministerial institution that has or performs the duties of an executive institution. The VSD needs to find its niche and its field of specialization.

(Vilniaus Diena)  The Presidential Office has announced that it will seek to improve the quality of intelligence information. Does this mean that the Presidential Office is not satisfied with the current quality?

(Jonas Markevičius) The quality is not satisfactory because there are many complaints. Information is given too late, which is normal because the institution does not have sufficient resources and does not always have sufficient competence. I think that the new director is an expert in information management. He has set himself a goal to improve information quality so that the key customers are satisfied.

(Vilniaus Diena)  Several statements have been made in public that the VSD was allegedly monitoring telephone conversations of journalists and even politicians. How is the VSD going to solve this problem?

(Jonas Markevičius) This problem is directly related to parliamentary oversight, which needs to be strengthened. If during such an investigation some evidence of criminal act is detected, the Prosecutor’s Office would join the investigation immediately and it would then have to decide on criminal liability.

(Vilniaus Diena) When are you planning to finish the reorganization of the national intelligence system? What are the plans of the Presidential Office?

(Jonas Markevičius) One of the most immediate plans is to evaluate the changes in the VSD, whether the changes match our expectations. Moreover, we are planning to review the entire intelligence system and to outline the existing problems.

We need to revise the definitions in the Law on Intelligence; some of the areas are not fully regulated. For example, counterintelligence activities are not fully described; there is no description of the scope and goals of foreign intelligence.

Another problematic area is the use of special measures. The definition is outdated. The president has already prepared amendments to the Law on Intelligence, and this law will be submitted to the Seimas in the near future.

Lithuanians have thrown the ball into Poland’s court on the issue of Polish minority rights in Lithuania.  On her visit to the Lithuanian ethnic minority in Poland’s border region, Parliamentary Speaker Irena Degutiene said publicly that the Lithuanian Poles should stop complaining about Lithuania’s names spelling law in the documents since it will soon be similar to Latvia’s law. 

The Speaker noted that Latvia’s Polish community is complaining about it.

Degutiene told journalists on 11 June, “Settlement of the issue is about to be completed and I have an impression that we have come up with a solution, which will be analogous to the law adopted in the neighbouring Latvia. This is to allow Lithuanian-language entries on the front page of passports and Latin characters on the second page.” 

The Speaker noted that Lithuania’s Constitution is very peculiar on the issue, but the Lithuania’s Polish minority should be satisfied with the new law.  “Poles residing in Latvia are at the moment happy with the solution. I believe there will be no objections in Lithuania, as well.”  She also added, “This, first of all, won’t violate the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.”

Degutiene was asked if Lithuania could apply the parity principle, since the Lithuanian ethnic minority in Poland is allowed to use the Lithuanian letters while spelling their names in official documents.  The Speaker once again referred to Lithuania’s Constitution saying, “there are different Constitutions in both countries, and this is the main problem. It would either require amending the Constitution or coming up with a compromise version.”

The Speaker also drew attention to the education problems of Poland’s Lithuanian minority.  “I have some regrets but the problems are old or, to be exact, long-lasting. This includes problems related with education and fostering of the ethnic culture,” Degutiene said to the journalists.  She also referred to the funding problems of a private Lithuanian-language School Ziburys.  The Speaker said, “I am astonished and surprised by the fact that the Ziburys School is virtually not funded (by the Polish state) this year and that it does not have any Lithuanian-language textbooks.”

Lithuania Tribune’s Introduction

It is a fact that in western countries during the last few decades the general attitude towards homosexual, bisexual and transsexual people has changed dramatically. It is also a fact that today visitors from these countries often are puzzled by the widespread homophobia in Lithuania and other new EU members. Also, by the same visitors the relationship between men and women are often considered curiously obsolete in the new, former socialist, EU members, although not long ago in all these aspects the situation in Western Europe was very similar as in Lithuania today. The Lithuania Tribune believes that as Lithuania will modernize its business structure and economy society will have to confront the same public discussions and issues as Western Europe. The final outcome and of these discussions and the speed of any changes are obviously to be determined by us, the Lithuanian people.

In this connection it can be really interesting to learn exactly what a visitor from Western Europe actually thinks about the current situation in Lithuania of today. What did they think about our discussion surrounding the Baltic Pride Parade of May 8? About our view towards sexual minorities? About the roles of men and women in Lithuania of today?

The below text has been exclusively written for the Lithuanian Tribune by a visitor from Scandinavia. All views and opinions expressed are those of the author, Mr. Erik Edlund, and may not completely coincide with those of the Lithuania Tribune, although we are convinced the text touches many aspects of issues, which will dominate public debate in Lithuania for years to come. The subject is large so reading the text is a little like going on a bike ride through a historic museum. The text doesn’t go into all details, but we view it as an excellent introduction to these topics.

Below is Part 1 of 4 of the text. The parts should be read in order. The subsequent parts, 2-4, will be posted on our site during the next two weeks. We welcome your comments to this text.

The Lithuania Tribune

”The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.”
                                                                                                                                                                           John Stuart Mill

A foreigner’s thoughts on Lithuania after the Baltic Pride Parade – Part 1 (Introduction, Homosexuality)

Never before I have had any direct contact with the gay movement; neither in Sweden, nor abroad. I wasn’t planning to participate in the Baltic Pride Parade, and I’ve never before in my life taken part in any sort of political parade, or political march. However, since I happened to be in Vilnius anyway, and some very basic and fundamental human rights were threatened I felt compelled to show my support for democracy and an open free society for everyone.

After the parade I have been writing down some thoughts about the situation in Lithuania today. However, it’s a general psychological phenomenon all over the world that people, who freely criticize their own leaders and their own country in discussions with their compatriots, are very sensitive to the very same criticism, when it comes from foreigners. Therefore, it’s clear to me that the very fact that I’m not Lithuanian might make many Lithuanians touchy, when reading my opinions.

In a way it’s like commenting on any family, but your own. Unless parents are really mistreating their children very seriously, it’s generally a good idea for outsiders not to get involved in how the children should be raised. However, it’s also true that in a family many small changes, which are each insignificant, over time can incrementally lead to a huge and crucially important shift. Parents seeing a child every day often fail to recognize children’s physical and mental development, while it’s obvious for a relative, who is only meeting these children once a year; for example at Christmas.

Hence, there are several reasons I feel that I have to share my thoughts on Lithuania today, although as a general rule it’s a good idea not to criticize the situation in foreign countries. First, threats against fundamental and universal human rights are of such importance that it’s justifiable to criticize other countries than one’s own. Second, just as it can be an eye-opener for a child’s parents to get the opinion from someone, who is rarely seeing their child, it could be important for Lithuanians to learn how a person who isn’t raised in your country and not accustomed to your political culture perceives the recent events surrounding the Baltic Pride Parade. Third, the EU is increasingly becoming more like a single country. Therefore, as an EU citizen I’m not really an outsider, when I’m having opinions about situations and events in the European Union outside Sweden.

To be fair and to enable readers to evaluate my opinions I feel I should briefly describe who I am. In Sweden a secular Protestant with generally centre-right values and opinions like me is considered a very average person. However, there are reasons why it would be easier for me than for the average Swede to understand Lithuania. For one, while I was still studying I was active in the Catholic student association, although I never converted to Catholicism.

Also, I’ve always considered a somewhat cautious approach towards new ideas and changes to be the right one. Back in school I infuriated girls in my class by being very critical towards feminist ideas, although, I have to admit, I’ve now been fully convinced that those feminist classmates were mostly right.

Enough about me. These are my ideas about freedom of speech and sexuality related to Lithuania of today following the Baltic Pride Parade of May 8.

What really forced me to participate in the Baltic Pride Parade was the feeling that freedom of speech was at risk. It’s sometimes stated that Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet) once said: “I may not believe in what you say, but I will die for your right to do so.”

However, the original purpose of the Baltic Pride Parade, before it turned into a crucial manifestation of human rights and freedom of speech, was sexual enlightenment. Therefore, let me start with stating my views on sexual orientation

Based on various religious and other beliefs people, who claim to believe in god, sometimes consider homosexuality to be unnatural. By definition what can’t be found in nature is unnatural while what is found in nature is natural. I read somewhere that homosexuality has been scientifically recorded in nature among some 3,000 different species. At the same time religion has only been recorded among humans. Therefore, homosexuality could be considered 3,000 times more natural than religion.

I’m not claiming that people don’t have the right to practise whatever religion they want. But no one in his, or her, right mind would use his, or her, own sexual orientation as an argument why other people should be forbidden to practice their religion freely. So why is it that some people seem to believe that their own religious beliefs entitle them to restrict other individuals’ sexuality?

One of John Stuart Mill’s quotes expresses it superbly: “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

At the core of this issue is the following question: What’s the purpose of sex?

Some people would answer that the purpose of sex is to create children. Therefore, since homosexual sex can’t create children, allegedly it’s somehow not as “natural” as heterosexual sex. However, why is it then that homosexuality is so ubiquitous in nature?

In order to answer this question, let’s first determine the purpose of sex in general. Both males and females burn energy when they are having sex. In nature energy is a scarce resource. Therefore, evolution and natural selection would quickly (over hundreds or thousands of generations) alter the sexual desires in such a way that individuals no longer had any desire for sex, which can’t lead to the creation of further generations. But pregnant women do have sexual desires, just like women, who have passed menopause. Heterosexual men can have sexual desires towards pregnant women and towards women, who no longer can give birth. Therefore, the main purpose of sex seems to be something else; not to create children, at least not directly.

What then? The obvious answer is that sex has a strong social function. It creates and maintains strong bonds between individuals. Animals, which are not social, such as fish, don’t have sex at all. Many animals, such as elephants, moose or buffalos, are only having sex during a few weeks every year. During the rest of the year males and females are living separately and neither males nor females have any desire for energy-consuming sex.

Among animals strong bonds between individuals of the same sex forged by homosexual sex can have a positive survival effect. Zoologists have shown how two middle-strong male lions can defeat a superior dominant male, if the two middle-strong male lions co-operate. Homosexual activity between these two middle-strong male lions then is necessary to create a strong enough bond between them to together defeat their superior rival. Only after victory over the dominant male the two middle-strong males had access to female lions and had any chance to heterosexual sex. Thus, for these male lions bisexuality had a positive survival effect on the chances of fathering lion cubs. With an understanding of this mechanism it’s clear why evolution has allowed homosexuality to be so frequent in nature.

In the same way, strong bonds between females can be necessary to ensure that one mother protects her neighbour’s offspring while the neighbour is looking for food. Such a strong bond can be forged and maintained by female homosexuality.

Thus, homosexuality, or at least bisexuality, at times has a positive evolutionary effect on the chances for an individual to pass his, or her, genes to the next generation. By definition nature is natural.

Earlier in history, when weapons were not as sophisticated as today, it was even more important than today for an army that each soldier was ready to die in order to protect the soldier standing next to him. Hence, the ancient Greeks considered male homosexuality between soldiers as something positive. In ancient Greece homoerotic relationships were not only accepted, they were encouraged, and it was said that an army of lovers would be invincible. Basically the logic was the same as for the male homosexual lions. Sex creates strong emotional bonds between individuals and in a dangerous fight that is a real advantage.

Several successful military commanders and strong head of states have been homosexual; Alexander the Great of Macedonia, Fredrick the Great of Prussia and Gustaf III of Sweden were all proven, or likely, homo- or bisexual. Other prominent homosexuals in history are Leonardo Da Vinci (proven homosexuality), William Shakespeare (disputed sexual orientation) and Pyotr Tchaikovsky (proven homosexuality).

Part 2-4 will be posted on Lithuania Tribune’s site during June 2010.

A foreigner’s thoughts on Lithuania after Baltic Pride Parade – Part 2 (Gender Roles) by Erik Edlund

—————————————————————————-
© Copyright 2010, Erik Edlund and the Lithuania Tribune, All Rights Reserved

This meeting follows the President’s invitation to the students which originated from his official visit to Vilnius and to the European Humanities University on October 2, 2010.

“These students, as many other students in Belarus, are to be praised because they have refused to accept a pre-packaged truth, which in fact amounts to little more than a farce of democracy,” said President Buzek.

“Their action is a form of intellectual resistance which is to be praised and supported. The free Belarus of tomorrow will need new elites capable of governing wisely and democratically: the European Humanities University is an excellent breeding ground.

Once again I urge the Belarusian authorities to make concrete steps towards a more democratic and open society, based on the rule of law and respect for human rights. Regrettably, in the recent months there has been no improvement in this direction. If things stay as they are, the European Humanities University and Minsk, regrettably will remain two very distant places.”

Background:

• Last autumn President Jerzy Buzek donated € 25 000 to the European Humanities University from his prestigious prize of North Rhine-Westphalia.
• The three day visit of the EHU students, which takes place under the auspices of President Buzek, also includes meetings with members of the European Parliament Delegation for Relations with Belarus including its Chairman, MEP Jacek Protasiewicz, and Chairwoman of the Human Rights Sub-Committee Heidi Hautala.

 European Humanities University is a university “in exile” that was shut down by the Belarusian regime in 2004 and reopened in Vilnius in 2005. It is the only Belarusian University that allows Belarusian students to study and express themselves freely without political interference. The ultimate aim of EHU is to return to Minsk.