Since the beginning of her term in office, President Dalia Grybauskaitė has not stopped to surprise us with radical decisions: a vocal reaction to the CIA prisons, invitation to Belarusian President Aleksander Lukashenka, somewhat strange communication with Dmitriy Medvedev regarding Lithuanian auto carriers and regarding anniversary commemorations, failure to invite Mikhail Saakashvili to the 11 March commemoration, and, finally, rejection to meet with Barack Obama in Prague. No one had promised such a drama: who could have believed that the foreign policy guidelines of the grey and abstract president would gain such colours and such a speed?…

Back then no one was able to get an answer from the president’s team how Lithuania’s interests would be defended (the election platform said it would be done “firmly and consistently”) and what “better ties with the neighbours” would look like.

Before the elections, Grybauskaitė also implied she would give up the utopian ambition of regional leadership. The Georgian president’s ostentatious shunning during the 11 March celebration was an excellent illustration of this direction. Of course, there were many disagreements over this conception and it is definitely not unequivocal. Europe, too, views Saakashvili as a somewhat strange authoritarian leader. There are a few questions, however: How, then, should we understand the fact that Lukashenka, whose reputation is much worse, was invited to the 11 March celebration (Lukashenka did not even bother to come)? What did the president try to achieve by inviting Lukashenka and by not inviting Saakashvili? Better ties with the neighbours? To receive another golden star from the EU?  Perhaps a golden star from the oligarchs (the one’s the president had promised to crush), who really wanted Lukashenka to come?

Are the ties between Lithuania and Georgia, into which Lithuanian diplomats and President Valdas Adamkus invested a lot of effort, really that useless in the international context? If all that it takes is to exchange a few words with the leader who is not liked by our president, then perhaps it would be wise to retain good relations with Georgia?

An even bigger diplomatic blooper occurred with the newly baked pro-Russian president of Ukraine – Viktor Yanukovich. After being greeted very enthusiastically by Grybauskaitė after the elections, to the 11 March celebration, Yanukovich sent a minister who was no longer minister…

This week we witnessed how the President’s Office, by refusing to meet with Barack Obama in the bilateral meeting, was implementing its election campaign platform notion: “… let us fix the foreign policy pendulum – let strong and consistent efforts to defend Lithuania’s interests replace the country’s merely-imagined leadership in the Euro-Atlantic sphere.”

True, we witnessed only the second part of the statement. Because the refusal to meet with Obama will probably significantly chip away at the progress in the Euro-Atlantic cooperation, but, once again, perhaps this will please Europe? Perhaps this is some sort of a smart chess move: Obama’s team is ignoring Eastern Europe anyway, therefore, the meeting will be very nominal, and it is not worth the effort?…

For now this is not clear, because the president’s office and the prime minister’s press service are ostentatious in avoiding commentaries on the invitation replacements related to the Prague visit.

However, the nation should be explained why we were the only nation out of four to decline. Perhaps some sort of a consistent and wise strategy, which is not intended for wider public discussion, indeed leads the President’s Office. In such a case, however, its explanations to the country’s public should also be well thought-through.

The President’s Office should not be content with just a few words thrown together haphazardly, because such actions (politicians’ words are viewed as actions) generate the image of the president as a capricious, unpredictable, and petty person.

Thus, no matter what sort of dirty games the so called statesmen were playing while they were in power, it looks like they were right in saying that the President’s Office destroyed the previous consistent foreign policy and did not offer anything new. Because for now, the President’s Office is making pretty strange and destructive decisions, and who could say what Lithuania’s foreign policy conception is today anyway?…

One wants to ask whether Lithuania has an independent foreign policy at all. Perhaps we simply yield to the EU line? Can this be tied to the speculations that Grybauskaitė is preparing for her further career in the highest EU echelons? Finally, what is that EU line, and what do we get in return? Some sort of an imagined favour or concrete things? Perhaps next time Lithuania’s voice will be listened to regarding the damage of the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline, when Russia and Germany will be trying to strike yet another deal behind Europe’s back? Perhaps someday, when the ties with Russia will get sourer, Nicolas Sarkozy, who takes walks with Dmitry Medvedev holding hands and who sells Mistral ships to Russia, will support us? And who was so eager to head the talks between the EU and Russia after the Georgian war that he even forgot about Russia’s obligations.

Lithuania’s good relations with Nordic countries are worthy thing, but we are having no luck in fixing the issues with the biggest political players. The results of the unexpectedly frequent meetings with Vladimir Putin are vague, and we are ostentatiously trying to turn our behinds towards the US. It is hard to say whether we are really trying to become a truly European state, or whether we are finally confirming our status as a regional province that has only one ambition – to survive.

Finally, if the president was consistent in her foreign policy guidelines, perhaps she should think about going to Moscow on 9 May together with the presidents of Latvia and Estonia? This would be a completely-logical continuation of the current policy, and, let us assume, would fix that mystical foreign policy pendulum… Here, however, all of a sudden we started worrying about principles. Or perhaps the uncertainty how the Lithuanian voters would react to this?..

Let us assume that Lithuania is a small country and is no player in the international arena, something that certain political analysts are constantly telling us. This, however, does not mean that we cannot have our own policy or that we should damage it by unpredictable diplomatic extravaganza.

The commentary is published by courtesy of Delfi.lt portal.  The original commentary was published on 2 April

Norwegian Ambassador to Lithuania Steinar Gil expressed his disappointment about lack of reactions from the Lithuanian political elite regarding nationalistic youth rally on 11 March in Vilnius.  More than 500 nationalistic youth marched from the St. Ann’s church to former the Vilnius Sports palace.

The Ambassador expressed his disappointment during a seminar “European and Lithuanian Values: Identical or Different?”held on 19 March in Parliament.  During discussion the Ambassador said, “These people were shouting – Lithuania for Lithuanians. Two years ago they were shouting “Juden Raus.” We know the history of Lithuania during the 2nd World War… My question is – how many parliamentarians have spoken up against this kind of demonstration? How many officials in Lithuania have spoken up against this kind of manifestation?”

The Norwegian Ambassador reminded that the same authorities that issued a permit for this rally to take place in the centre of Vilnius are refusing to do the same for the Baltic Pride.  The Baltic Pride permitted to be held away from the Centre of Vilnius.  Steiner Gil noted that, “All foreigners in Lithuania noticed this, we’re aware of this and I must say we are quite shocked. The gay parade is not about likes or dislikes, it is not about tolerance, it is about respect and it is about rights. Whether we like it or not, we have to respect the rights”.

Lithuania’s Member of the European Parliament Leonidas Donskis who also participated in the event called on the Lithuanian political establishment not to be afraid of loosing their political capital in talking about problems of tolerance in Lithuania.  The politicians should also remember that they must lead.  MEP Donskis on Alfa.lt said that he is surprised that Lithuania’s Prime Minister and President did not comment on the 11 March rally.

Lithuanians have a serious tolerance lesson to learn, the participants of the discussion “European and Lithuanian Values: Identical or Different?” in Seimas agreed on Friday.

The lack of tolerance and the values of Lithuanians and Europeans were discussed in the panel, organised by the Nordic Council of Ministers Office in Lithuania, the Human Rights Monitoring Institute and the embassies of the Nordic countries.

These issues have caught attention of foreign ambassadors in Lithuania, who unanimously expressed their concern about the appeal to the Prosecutor General, signed by a group of Seimas members, asking to ban a parade of homosexuals.

“We are shocked,” the UK’s ambassador Simon Butt said.

The ambassador underscored that, on the contrary to the intensive actions against gay parade, there were almost no political leaders who would condemn the recent nationalist parade on March 11 and their intolerance towards homosexuals.

He stated that a democratic country and a European Union member like Lithuania should not shut its eyes on the current situation in the society.

The participants of the discussion pointed out that Lithuanians are not willing to understand that human rights are universal and that the mixing of European nations is inevitable, as is the variety of the values, races, languages, genders and models of living.

“The word ‘tolerance’ doesn’t seem to fit really well, when we are talking about discrimination: it does not define it but indicates that a part of the society has a right to look down to others and chose whether to tolerate the ones they don’t like, or not. It’s not tolerance we have to talk about, but respect,” said Randi Solberg, an Adviser at the Norwegian Equality and Anti-discrimination Ombudsman office.

“Finally, when we say that ‘we don’t like it’, ‘we don’t want to tolerate it’, we have to answer a question – what is that ‘we’? We have to find our identity, to understand, what is the current society like, how has it changed in 20 years. We, Norwegians, were simply Christians and fishermen once, but now we have changed a lot and that is challenging, when the issues of the current living are solved,” said Solberg.

According to Henrikas Mickevicius, the head of the Human Rights Monitoring Institute, the recent tendencies are clear: the country had political aspirations to enter the certain institutions and various conventions were ratified, but after entering the EU in 2004, the actions in human rights field have practically stopped. After accepting the Family Concept in 2008, the situation started regressing.

“Not only the economy or national defence determines the future of Lithuania, but also the choice of verities: will this country be an advanced, dynamic, modern community, or will it become a dense province, which will be abandoned by both foreign investors and its citizens? How deep are our western values? 20 years ago, we announced that we are coming back to the family of the democratic European countries, but do we believe, that we want to be its full-time members? Are we determined to live by its values?” said Mickevicius.

kasandras than optimists, and the snappy talk of the former are more memorable and draw more attention. However, the analysis of kasandras does not reflect the reality, it more reveals their psychological condition than Lithuania’s political and economical situation.

Of course, the majority is bothered by the frequent reminders, that by getting into the European Union (EU) an NATO, Lithuania twice passed the exam, that she is a normal and prosperous state. Also – that it is universally accepted that Lithuania, as well as Latvia and Estonia, are the

only Post-Soviet countries that managed to establish a stable democratic system. Are those achievements insignificant?

Recently I read somewhere that Lithuania is safer, its citizens live better life than ever before. It’s necessary to approve to this statement, despite of the constant apprehensions concerning Russia’s designs and economic crisis. I do not understand why the fear towards Russia is so big. It is experiencing a double demographic crisis. The size of population and birth rates are intensely decreasing. And the non-Russian inhabitants, that do not have special reasons to love Russia, compose bigger and bigger part of the population.

The military power of Kremlin is falling into decline even quicker. Russia’s plans to buy from France the “Mistral” military ship, caused a huge agiotage, however, the main thing, namely the fact, that Russia’s military industry is so withered away, that it cannot itself produce this kind of ship, as well as robot planes that the Kremlin buys from Israel, remained unnoticed. The unsuccessful experimentation of the new intercontinental ballistic missile “Bulav” also indicates the decline of the military power.

Russia is an unpleasant neighbour and will remain such. However, it does not menace the NATO members, such as Lithuania. The claims, expressed in the doctrine of the President Dmitry Medvedev to have “privileged interests in certain regions” is becoming more futile every year, and give more consolation to the authorities of Kremlin that are a real threat to the neighbours.

Russia’s cultural influence is also overestimated. Maybe children still swear in Russian and listen to Russian songs. However, the majority of them speak poor, if any, Russian, and do not dream to go to work or study in Russia. For them Russia is a strange country.  It’s kind of immoral to speak about economic achievements, when unemployment is raging, the living wages of the majority of people is declining, and the reorganization of “Sodra” is planned.

However, in order to assure oneself, it’s enough to have a look at car and bus parking places, at cafes and magazines, especially at women’s footwear, mobile phones and computers and to remember, how Lithuania looked like 20 years ago. The crisis left its imprints, however, signs that the economy is recovering, the budget deficit is manageable, the business is adapting to the new, more complex situation, are visible. International media is not writing any more about the likely devaluation of the Litas [Lithuanian national currency] or application to

International Monetary Fund, because the menace is away.  There’re a lot of defects, however, progress is obvious and indisputable.  Social inequality is screaming out, however, during Soviet times, the mere mortals were not invited to the saunas of the authorities of the party as well; they did not receive trips to the foreign countries. The retirement age is increased; however, Russia will not avoid this as well. We will not come up with the Western Europe quickly; however, it’s possible to live decently without doing this as well. Every year various international and non-governmental organizations, i.e. World Bank, “World Economic Forum”,

“Transparency International”, “Freedom House” announce annual reports on the level of democracy, economic competitive abilities, condition for business, respect for press and human rights, life quality, social development, etc.

Already for some time Lithuanian is considered as more progressive and developed country than the three-fourths countries of the world almost in all areas. When the new EU members are assessed, Lithuania is not a high achiever, but is not a straggler as well. There’re reasons to be proud of.

How it is then possible to explain the fact that in Lithuanian media articles about Lithuania’s failures, flaws, gloomy present and even blacker future are glimmering? Two things are meaningful here. Lithuanians are pessimists, maybe complainers, attracted by gloomy predictions. Is it possible to say something positive? This is obviously contrasting with

Estonians and especially Americans, who annoyingly hard believe in the advantage of their own country and are announcing this to everybody. The second thing is the lack of an outlook. We know the disadvantages too well and are pay too much attention to them. One cannot estimate woman’s beauty properly, if he looks at it through telescope or microscope. Lithuanian media, analysts and political scientists often behave as if the microscope, directed towards the scandal is the most proper instrument that could help to reveal the beauty of the landscape.

Even though Lithuanians have never had such a secure and prosperous life, I cannot approve of the claim of Andrius Kubilius that during the latter twenty years it was achieved more than during any other 20 years of the millennium of Lithuania’s existence.

The fact that we are living better than earlier does not mean that we did more than the previous generations. The unquestioned present achievements are not only our merit. The international conjuncture was highly favourable.

Friendly-minded NATO ensures Lithuania’s security, Lithuanian economy is already developed, and EU was sustaining further economic growth.

The situation between 1919 and 1939 was more complicated. Then Lithuania was surrounded by enemies, international organizations were not providing economic support. It was necessary to create a completely new state, new education system, reorganize economy, to implement the reform of agriculture, to transform Lithuanian ethnic group into a politically conscious, modern nation. It was a lot of various flaws, democracy was buried promptly, however, love for one’s own country and nation was implanted, and it was so strong that it did not flag during long years of occupation. During those 20 years it was achieved more. We can acknowledge this, without devaluating the present achievements.

*Translated by Milda Bagdonaitė*

The article was published in Alfa.lt on 15 March

His bags were packed and he was waiting by the phone, but in the end Georgian head of state Mikheil Saakashvili never got a call from the Lithuanian president for the country’s 20th anniversary of independence.

The presidents of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine were all invited by the President Dalia Grybauskaite, but Saakashvili, who is a huge fan of Lithuania and its success since independence, was left out.

The president’s office was informed about Saakashvili’s dismay at not being invited by the Georgian ambassador to Lithuania Giorge Kerdikoshvili.

When asked by Delfi news portal why the Georgian head of state had not been invited, an advisor tried to cover up the mess.

“Friends are many, but this time it was limited to neighbours and European Union officials. As for Ukraine, I can be funny in a sense – this goes back to the time of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania,” president’s office spokesman Darius Semaška said.

The Grand Duchy of Lithuania stretched into present-day Ukraine from about the start of the 13th century until 1795.

Ultimately, the many “friends” invited by the president all declined to attend. Russia, Belarus and Ukraine all sent second-tier officials to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Lithuania’s independence.

History professor Edvardas Gudavicius once stated that “March 11 became the ground for a chain reaction, which destroyed the Soviet Union.”

The “Lietuvos persitvarkymo Sajudis” (Lithuania’s changeover movement, Sajudis) was one of the main forces, driving the country towards the independence.

Professor Vytautas Landsbergis, the leader of the movement, says that it destroyed not only the Berlin wall. “It also destroyed the fear, the syndrome of the slavery, the alienation, the antagonism. It suggested looking at things in a simple and human way instead of a Soviet way.”

The Sajudis movement was established by the country’s intellectual and artistic elite on June 3, 1988. The initial group of the movement was formed by 35 famous Lithuanian academics and artists. 17 of them belonged to the communist party, but the nation believed in its leaders.

According to Landsbergis, Sajudis acted within the permissible borders, but would always cross them at the same time. It remained not split and not overthrown, extending the space for freedom.

“Well chosen tactics of non constraint, non armed political fight helped Sajudis to avoid provocations and demolition, and let us strengthen ourselves. (…) Our pretext and cover was the Soviet Union reform programme, stating that we were implementing it more decisively and radically. Gorbachev, the three-coloured Lithuanian flag and the anthem of independent Lithuania was the primary puzzle, where the analysts of KGB would break their necks trying to understand what’s going on,” Landsbergis writes in his book “Luzis prie Baltijos”.

At first, Sajudis declared the goals of cultural resurrection, democratization and economic sovereignty and cooperated with Lithuanian Communist Party. However, at the end of 1989 on Feb. 16 Sajudis publicly stated that the main goal of the movement was the re-establishment of the independence of Lithuania.

The movement had the support of the masses and on March 25,1989, 31 candidate of Sajudis were elected to the People’s Deputies Congress of the USSR.

In January 1990, a campaign on the election of the Supreme Council of the Lithuanian Soviet Social Republic began. Sajudis nominated their candidates in all election constituencies. Two main political forces ran in the election: Sajudis and the Lithuanian Communist Party. Sajudis stated in their electoral programme that they aim to “re-establish an independent state of Lithuania immediately and unconditionally.”

Sajudis candidates won 101 mandates out of 141. Their votes determined the passage of the act of the independent state of Lithuania on March 11, 1990.

If Lithuania managed to keep alive while sandwiched between two neighbours like Russia and Germany it did something right.  On the other hand, perhaps because of our wrong choices we lost our statehood so many times.

However, in the last twenty years of its statehood, the Second Republic of Lithuania could be regarded as a manifestation of the dreams of all previous Lithuanias come true we are part of the West and we have never felt safer.  Hence, as many say, let’s not in the past, let’s live for the future.  Will history give Lithuania a chance to live for another forty, fifty or more years in the way we aspire to live? 

Recently Prof. Vytautas Landsbergis noted: look at Sweden, how lucky they are with their geographical location, only if we could had a chance to keep our Independence at least fifty years.  Mr. Jónas Baldvin Hannibalsson the Iceland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1991, when his country was the first in the in the world to recognise Lithuania’s Independence said at a meeting with students at Vilnius University on 9 March, ‘Let’s not forget that at the beginning of the WWII we, the Nordic and the Baltic states, lived through a similar experience.  After the war we received a second chance, and you, the Baltic States, because of the accident of geography, did not.’

We received the chance, and we did incredibly well during this time.  The anniversary comes at a very unfortunate time, during the worst economic crisis.  We have acquired many skills, and we have done so extremely quickly.  However, one of the biggest shortcomings we have is that we never managed to learn one of the most important skills needed in the liberal economy: we simply do not now how to present ourselves, how to advertise ourselves, brand ourselves, well, basically how to brag.

Another thing we need to learn is how to plan strategically, that is long-term planning.  As Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius said on 10 March, we need “a new and ambitious vision for Lithuania for the coming 20 years and collect our efforts for its implementation.”  It is not an easy task to look to the future when you have such a long past.  With all due respect it is less difficult for our Baltic sisters of Latvia and Estonia to look to the future in this way.

Lithuania should decolonise its mind, and put its efforts toward anchoring itself to Western Europe.  We must become such an integral part of the West that it would be simply inconvenient for our biggest neighbour to draw us back.  Just look at Estonia, which is already better integrated with the West via Finland.  It is bound to make another step towards this integration by successfully adopting the Euro next year.

Perhaps Lithuania should attempt to integrate itself into the West through the Nordic states, which is a shortcut in comparison with our efforts to integrate via Poland.  At least for the time being, it seems that the President and the Prime Minister understand this well.  We have attempted to do so via Central Europe for the last thousand years.  Maybe the time has come to change paths.  Perhaps it is not original to say, but let us name our vision for 2030 Lithuania: ‘Lithuania – just another boring Nordic country’.  Lithuania has all of the possibilities to achieve this goal, only if we want that.

The Minister said to journalists, “I will be one of the participants who will give speeches. I also call for more people to participate. I’m going to try to gather my colleagues at the Ministry of European Union Affairs to join me. I know that more people are interested. It is important to attract more politicians to the event.”

Birgitta Ohlsson also criticized a controversial Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information, which censors certain information as unacceptable for the country’s youth.  The Law came into effect on 1 March.  The Minister said, “I know that the word “homosexuality” was removed from the law but, at the same time, you are not allowed spread information about the same sex marriages, for example, and about other not traditional family values.  It is not beneficial for teenagers and the open society to apply the laws, which related to censorship in any way. This is not a correct way to proceed, you have to be open.”  She also added that this law is seriously damaging Lithuania’s image abroad.

The Swedish Minister thinks that in democracy and open society the homosexual minority should not excises any special rights, they should be given basic human rights.

One could get such an impression last Monday (February the 8th) when it was announced that France is possibly going to sell to Russia a military ship of “Mistral” class, which is of amphibian type and is capable to bring to urgent operations several battalions of soldiers, tanks and other combatant cargo, helicopters (thus, it is being planned to sell a ship, which anywhere in the “near neighbourhood” could be used as a platform for any several-hours-long special operation of an offensive character). The criteria, confirmed by the European Union for the export of weapons, makes one to dream this French dream, because according to this criteria weaponry can be sold only for those states that comply to the principle of non-use of force, does not cause a threat for the neighbours and the EU member states, does not violate human rights. It could seem that the decision of France shows, that France considers Russia as exactly a state, complying with these criteria or would like to consider it as such at least in a dream.

Unfortunately, the reality seems to be completely different than that one of the French dream. On the 8th of December 2008, in the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the Council of the European Union adopted a Common position 2008/944/CFSP by which the general rules for the control of military technology and equipment were defined. This Common position replaced the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Export (adopted in 1998), which was in action till the adoption of the new Position, and which had essentially an identical content. The 2nd article of the Common position defines the criteria, resting upon which decisions, concerning exports of weaponry, should be made. In total eight criteria that should be taken into consideration are indicated and revealed. While selling a ship of „Mistral“ class for Russia, France is seemingly disregarding even four of these criteria.

First, the first criterion would be disregarded, which indicates that while making a decision on the sale of weaponry, respect for human rights and humanitarian law in the purchasing state should be taken into consideration.

Especially such severe violations of human rights as tournaments and inhuman treatment of other kind, non-judicial executions, forced disappearances should be taken into consideration.

The European Court of Human Rights has so far investigated more than 40 cases of violations of human rights in Chechnya, in these cases it is stipulated that Russia is responsible for the mass massacres of civic people, executed by her military forces (non-judicial executions, i.e., immediately in the street shooting at women and children, burning their corpses, attacking the caravans of war refugees), for their torments in the places of unauthorized detainment (in such concentration camps like

Chernokozov), for disappearance of many people (herewith, the Court stressed that the forced disappearances is a mass phenomenon in Chechnya).

The decision of France on the “Mistral” ship could demonstrate that all the EU countries are on equality with each other and solidary with, however some of them enjoy more equality than others, and solidarity, according to the French point of view, should only mean an approval to her aforementioned sweet dream about the trustworthy democratic partner Russia. Out of these cases one can make conclusions about crimes against humanity and war crimes, committed by Russia, however, one still has not heard about effective investigations of these crimes and the punishment of the guilty (the European Court of Human Rights has just noticed that Russia is not fulfilling her duty to investigate the violations if human rights). It is not even worth to write about other violations of human rights, executed in different regions of Russia. It’s just possible to remind that most of the petitions, submitted to the European Court of Human Rights are directed against Russia.

Second, one of the most important and relevant criterion, defined in the 2 nd article of the Common position is the third criterion, which notes that it is necessary to take into consideration the interests of regional peace, security and stability. In other words, weaponry should not be sold, if it can be used for aggression against the other country and satisfaction of territorial pretensions.

It is obvious that the decision of France to sell the “Mistral” ship to Russia is contradicting to the aforementioned criterion, as the representatives of Russian armed forces have declared that by purchasing this kind of a ship, Russia would compensate present deficiencies of her capacities and would be more effective in the sea while reacting to the actions of Georgian forces, while “defending Abkhazia and South Ossetia”. So, an intent to use, in case of a need, a ship, which is planned to be purchased, for aggressive actions against Georgia, for the continuation of the occupation of the parts of her territory (Abkhazia and South Ossetia).

Third, the decision of France would obviously contradict to the fifth criterion, which demands to take into consideration the security interests of the other EU countries, as well as the ally countries (i.e., those of the other NATO countries), as well as of the other friendly states (though Georgia’s). One *inter alia*, should take into consideration the risks of using the purchased weaponry against the armed forces of the other EU or NATO members. The appearance of the ship, purchased by Russia, in the Baltic Sea would cause a reasoned concern of the Baltic states about Russia’s soar away military potential, and, what is most important, in a critical case, this ship could be used for announced and simulated in the war games Russia’s plans to prevent the backup, provided by the other NATO members to the Baltic states across the Baltic Sea and to block the entrance for the military ships of the NATO countries to the Baltic Sea.

Fourth, the decision of France would also be incompatible with the sixth criterion which *inter alia* indicates to take into consideration the way, how the purchasing state is regarding international law, especially the commitments of non-use of force. It seems that the most eloquent indicator of Russia’s point of view to the international commitments of non-use of force is the continuing occupation of the parts of Georgia’s territory (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) and the fact that the six-clause plan, which was undersigned in August 2008, under the intermediation of the French president, and according to which Russia committed herself to withdraw her forces to those positions that she had before the commencement of military actions against Georgia, was not implemented.

On the contrary, international law is being violated further on and more severely while Russia is recognizing the puppet “state” bodies of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In such a context the fact that while conflicting to the international law and commitments under the bilateral Treaty of interstate relations, Russia is denying the restoration of Lithuania’s independence on the 11 March, 1990 and is making an attempt to the very basement of Lithuania’s statehood, looks like a tiny thing.

While seeing that France is going to disregard the criteria for weaponry purchasing, established in the Common position, it is also necessary also to state, that in such a case France would not comply with the 29th article of the treaty of the European Union (until the Treaty of Lisbon it was named as the 15th article), which is committing the member states to ensure that their national policies are complying to the common positions of the EU.  And in general such a decision of France would be incompatible with the principle of solidarity between member states, which is established in the EU Treaty (i.e., the 3rd section of the 24th article of the Treaty stipulates that the member states should in the spirit of solidarity support Common Foreign and Security Policy, develop mutual political solidarity).

According to the EU criteria, for the exports of weaponry, weaponry can be sold only for those states that comply to the principle of the non-use of force, are not causing threat for the neighbouring countries and EU members, are not violating human rights.

Of course, France could start claiming that it is possible not to apply the Common position, because she will ostensibly sell the ship without weaponry, only as a platform and for civic purposes. However, only very naïve people or those who pretend to be like that could believe that in such a ship no modern weaponry will be placed and it will be used only for catching sprats, crabs and other seafood or for rescuing the fisherman. Moreover, one also has to be deaf and not to hear the dreams of the chief of the Russian military fleet about opening possibilities of quick operations against Georgia, when the “Mistral” ship will be purchased.

France also could support the formal attitude while claiming that the Common positions of the EU are the documentation that is more politically than legally binding, as there’re no effective legal means to force the states to regard this documentation (i.e., an analogical responsibility procedure for the violation of the legal acts of other areas while submitting a claim to the Court of Justice of the European Communities is impossible).  However, after having adopted this attitude, one should turn one’s back to the idea of solidarity and the EU, as union of countries, cherishing common values.

Solidarity is not and cannot be only a formal legal category that is allowing disregarding national security interests of the other EU states and international security interests in general.  The contents of the real solidarity is revealed, having in mind not so much legal, but its moral and political aspect, which presupposes not unilateralism, but regarding the interests of the club of other EU states, the search for common attitudes and common decisions. Usually France, while encouraging the deepening of integration, also used to advocate such a conception of the solidarity between the EU members.

Meanwhile now it seems that France’s decision on the “Mistral” ship would demonstrate, that all the EU countries are on a equality with each other and solidary with, however, some of them enjoy more equality than the others, and solidarity, according to the view of France, should only mean an approval for her aforementioned sweet dream about the trustworthy, democratic partner Russia. Similarly, solidarity should mean an approval for the dreams of Germany, according which the “Nord Stream” gas pipe is “nothing else than business and no politics” and will not cause any threat for the energetic security of the other EU states.

Thus, looking from the perspectives of Lithuania and other Central Europe countries, being solidary with and loyal soon can mean unconditional implementation of EU legal and common positions on foreign and security policy questions, when the great and old EU members (such as France) can afford themselves to ignore these positions, by raising, in cases of need, some formal arguments or simply pretending that the reality is such as they would like it to be. Namely, “Mistral” can create such a French precedent of solidarity.

—————————————————————————-
The commentary is published by courtesy of Prof. Dainius Žalimas.  The author is an Associate Professor at Vilnius University, Faculty of Law.  The original article was published on delfi.lt

According to her, the initiative for the meeting came from Kremlin.  Grybauskaite said to the reporters today, “At Putin’s request, we agreed to such meeting.”  The Lithuanian president and the Russian Prime Minister will participate on the meeting of the leaders of the countries surrounding the Baltic Sea.

Grybauskaite was asked if during the meeting she will raise a question to Putin about a statement made in 29 January by the Russia’s Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson in which he declared that Independent Lithuania did not exist in January 13 1991, when the Soviet military killed 14 civilians and injured hundreds injured.  Grybauskaite answered, ‘I think that this statement is a misunderstanding.’  She added, ‘Why should I raise this question.  I know that Lithuania did exist then.  I don’t have any questions about this question.’

On 29 January the Spokesperson of the Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mr Andrei Nesterenko stated, ‘As to the gist of the propositions set out in the resolution, in particular, about “the aggression of the USSR against the independent state of Lithuania,” they are not only essentially absurd but also legally untenable. Under international law, aggression can only be a wrongful use of armed force by one state against another, and the UN Security Council gives a legally significant act of aggression qualification, but as of January 1991, an independent Republic of Lithuania did not exist because it was not recognized by any state.

Also improper are the references to the Treaty between the RSFSR and Lithuania of July 29, 1991, in which the parties recognize the state sovereignty of each other. This document at the time of signing was an agreement between two entities of the Soviet federation and, accordingly, could not engender international legal consequences.’

None other official reaction Vilnius came after this statement of Mr Nesterenko.  Some of the Lithuania’s commentators stated that this was Kremlin’s answer to Grybauskaite’s question if the Russian President Medvedev will come to Vilnius on 11 March to celebrated twentieth Lithuania’s Independence.  On 13 January Grybauskaite said that she will invite the Russian President to the celebrations and would like see how much the Independence of Lithuania is appreciated in Kremlin.