The main goals of the new foreign policy strategy have been ranked in the following order: to achieve deep integration with the Baltic and Scandinavian countries, to regenerate relations with the United States, to normalize relations with Russia and Belarus, and to maintain friendship with Ukraine and Georgia…

Conservatives Have More Potential To Act
Lithuanian diplomats believe that one of the reasons why Russia has changed its attitude toward Lithuania is because the construction of the electric power bridge between Lithuania and Sweden has been started. The fact that Lithuania will have an alternative connection and that it will synchronize the frequency of electric power transmission with Scandinavia, means that Russia might have serious problems in Kaliningrad, which is connected to the Russian electricity system via Lithuania. Moreover, Russia wants to increase the import of gas to Lithuania, but Kubilius has said that Lithuania could buy more gas from Russia only if the price is not higher than the one paid in Germany.

“Time will show whether this upsurge of meetings and negotiations is artificial or genuine,” one of the officials participating in the shaping of the new Lithuanian foreign policy strategy told Veidas. “The fact that one or several politicians have met does not mean anything. Of course, it is a positive thing that the number of such meetings is growing, but we will see the results of the meetings and the real goals of our partners only after some six months. It is important that the Conservatives are in power now. They have more chances to develop an open dialogue of equal partners with Russia, because they do not have this aura of ‘pro-Russian politicians,’ which the Social Democrats and their partners have not managed to get rid of,” he added.

Return to Landsbergis’s Political Line
Broadly speaking, there is a serious transformation going on in Lithuanian foreign policy, but it is not obvious yet. Lithuania is moving away from Adamkus’s foreign policy, (or to be exact the policy of (a former Foreign Ministry official Albinas) Januska), which was directed toward the development of democracy in the East – in Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, and which was based on cooperation with Poland and the United States, toward Landsbergis’s policy, based on close partnership with the Baltic and Scandinavian countries. This is understandable, because Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia have close financial and business ties with the Scandinavian countries, and even if the Scandinavian countries wanted to discontinue these relations, it would not be easy to do. As for Lithuania’s partners in the East, the only ties we have are the nostalgia of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Soviet past. And, what is most important, Lithuania did not have human or financial resources to carry out such a policy independently.

As for the Scandinavian countries, their most influential member Sweden was one of the authors of the EU Eastern Partnership Programme, thus if Lithuania maintains close cooperation with Scandinavia, it can continue some of its projects in the East, especially in Moldova.

The biggest problem for Lithuania now is not relations with Russia, but, strange as it is, its relations with Poland, which Lithuania saw as its strategic partner for a long period of time. Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, one of the candidates for Polish president, has been clearly ignoring Lithuania and focusing his attention on the revival of Poland’s relations with Germany and Russia instead.

It seems that, as far Poland’s Eastern policy is concerned, all Sikorski is interested in is the problems of the Polish minorities in Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine. This is understandable, because the biggest part of constituency that votes for Sikorski and the party he represents – the Civic Platform – live in the territory that belonged to Germany before WWII, which is now populated by the Poles who had relocated from the former Polish territories that now belong to Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine. This circumstance and the pressure from the expatriates from the former Polish territories living in the United States have formed Sikorski’s attitude toward Poland’s Eastern neighbours.

“We notice everything and understand everything, but the answer is simple: Whatever happens, we will certainly not react to Poland’s nasty tricks in like manner,” a diplomat, responsible for the agenda of Lithuania’s current policy toward Poland, told Veidas. “However, it is obvious that our relations will become colder anyway. And this is why it is very important to restore our relations with the Baltic and Scandinavian countries; something that Landsbergis was very eager to do in the past,” he added.

Another task, which Lithuanian foreign policy strategists are deliberating at the moment, is the development of relations with the United States. “President Dalia Grybauskaite has set a task — to seek a meeting with US President Barack Obama,” the diplomats told Veidas. “Moreover, we have to find new topics for Lithuania’s cooperation with the United States, because our current relations have become very weak, and are limited to the joint military operation in Afghanistan.”

Lithuania will return to the Eastern policy initiatives not sooner than it achieves a diplomatic breakthrough in its relations with Scandinavia and the United States.

The commentary is published by courtesy of Veidas magazine

Some commentators call him Lithuania’s grey cardinal and a mastermind behind so called group called the ‘Statesmen’ (Valstybininkai).  This very rear interview with a man who is known for being the main Lithuania’s foreign policy strategist, but his influence in Lithuanian politics was also huge.

The interview is omitted.  Commentator Vladimiras Laučius conducted it.  

Foreign Policy Is Too Personal
(Delfi.lt) About a year ago, current Foreign Minister Vygaudas Ušackas announced his plans to “open new page in relations with Russia.” Have you noticed any changes?

(Januška) Usačkas is talented and brave. Visions and innovations are necessary. There indeed are some new initiatives. But it is important not to make a mistake and not to imagine oneself as the forerunner of a new historical period.

It seemed that the country was mature enough, that it had opened a sufficient number of “new pages,” and that we had the right to expect to have a predictable, stable, but also sharp and expansive foreign policy.

The biggest mistake is that we again chose to have relations with the Kremlin based on the tête-à-tête principle. This is why we are a member of a modern empire – the EU, to speak with Russia as an equal. A powerful rival against an equally powerful rival. The Kremlin’s foreign policy is based on the principle that one has to divide and rule, because when Russia deals with everyone separately, it is stronger. Our current policy helps Russia strengthen its interests.

I would like to remind you that when Adamkus and [former Minister of Foreign Affairs] Petras Vaitiekūnas were in power, they had added to the EU-Russia negotiation mandate some issues that were important to us and other EU countries: Russia’s commitment to observe the requirements defined in the Energy Charter, the possibility to renew the delivery of oil via the Friendship [Druzhba] pipeline.

Moreover, they proposed an additional declaration on Georgia and Moldova, on judicial cooperation to restore justice and ensure Russia’s cooperation with EU countries on criminal cases related to the 13 January 1991 events in Vilnius and 31 July 1991 events in Medininkai, as well as the cases related to the disappearance of EU citizens in Russia and compensation for damages to the people who had been deported from the occupied Baltic countries.

Perhaps somebody could tell us how successful have we been in defending our interests together with Europe?
(…)

(Delfi.lt) In your opinion, what has changed in Lithuanian foreign policy?

(Januška) There were attempts to find new possibilities in relations with Russia. But no changes have taken place.

Perhaps foreign policy has become more personal. The Foreign Ministry’s press releases stress the foreign minister’s personal opinion, his stance, and his achievements. There is no clear coordination of foreign policy with the Presidential Office. Of course the president could not ignore this situation. I think that the recent “exchange of opinions” [between the president and the foreign minister] is an outcome of this personalization of foreign policy.

America is not interested in us not because of Barack Obama, but because of our domestic problems.

(Delfi.lt) Does the shift in the US foreign policy priorities after Obama became president, if there is such a shift, means that the United States has become less interested in Lithuania and that because of that we have to harmonize our policy with the European policy more, no matter how pro-Russian it might be sometimes?

(Januška) It is our mistake that we pay too much attention to changes in US policy. Russia is not so important there. The superpower is looking for new ways to approach the Iran problems, by shrewdly offering diplomacy and veiling its power. This policy requires Russia’s participation. However, the United States, unlike Lithuania, knows very well what its goals are and it strives to accomplish them. And it will accomplish them, through diplomacy or power.

If we continue our active cooperation, if we help the United States solve global security problems, we will not lose its interest. We are becoming less interesting or not interesting at all to the United States not because of President Obama, but because of our domestic problems. If we want to punish someone in Lithuania, we could have done that without the involvement of the United States.

(Delfi.lt) What is your opinion on the story that CIA prisons existed or did not exist in Lithuania? What has Lithuania achieved by conducting a parliamentary investigation? Have we come closer to the truth? Have we protected human rights, democracy, or the Constitution?

(Januška) The investigation was unavoidable. The situation has not become clearer and the confrontation has not disappeared. Some people are saying that these are only assumptions, others that these are facts. Both feel they have come closer – some have come closer to the truth, others have come closer to Mečys Laurinkus, [former director of the State Security Department].

Whether these prisons existed or not, perhaps we all will finally agree that Lithuania had not violated (or simply did not have enough time to violate) international human rights. And if somebody someday proved that there were prisoners, the situation would be rather sad.

(Delfi.lt) What is your opinion on the statements that million of US dollars allocated to the Belarusian opposition had been lost in Lithuania?

(Januška) Indeed, Lithuania and other EU countries had hosted or perhaps still host US foundations that support democracy in Eastern Europe. This is not a secret. Everybody knows that the Belarusian and Russian Presidents have banned such foundations in their countries. The EU has also allocated big amounts of funds to development of democracy, and so has Lithuania. This is an obligatory condition for EU members. There had been doubts as to the transparency of the Foreign Ministry’s allocation of the funds, to the extent that appointment of one responsible person to an ambassadorial post had been suspended. However, as far as I understand, the investigation did not reveal any discrepancies, and this person was appointed an ambassador.

We did not and could not have any idea about the US funds allocated to Belarus, because Lithuania did not have these funds, it did not control them, and this is why it could not have embezzled them in any possible way. This was between the United States and the Belarusian nongovernmental organizations.

However, the Belarusian President has mentioned several times that the Belarusian opposition had allegedly embezzled the funds. Not so long ago, he again said that the opposition was disgusting because it had stolen the money.

Without a doubt, the Belarusian secret services are trying to block the flow of the funds to the nongovernmental organizations, and they will do anything to accomplish that, they will not hesitate to use a defamation tactic. It is obvious that they have their “representatives” in Lithuania, and that these people spread disinformation to discredit the Belarusian opposition and the financial donors.

Do not forget, only the Belarusian President and the sources of disinformation know the alleged amounts of money.

Because this defamatory information had been publicized on a number of occasions, representatives of the US State Department expressed their opinion on this issue to the Lithuanian Government. We should note that this disinformation from Belarus is used to suggest that it is not Belarus to be blamed for [State Security Department official] Vytautas Pociūnas’s death, but Lithuania and its mystical officials.

Perhaps they are trying to suggest that Lithuanian officials, who had embezzled the US money, went to Belarus and pushed Pociūnas out the window, and that Belarus had nothing to do with that, and that we need to clarify the issues in Lithuania. I think everybody understands who will benefit from this situation. It is very good that the Foreign Ministry has finally started clarifying who is who here

We should not forget that the Belarusian law enforcement institutions are fighting against us in this way and have initiated criminal cases against several state officials on absurd grounds – attempts to kill the opposition leader and to organize a coup. I am one of such officials.

Despite all that, I think that we have to look for ways to cooperate with the official Belarusian Government and with President Aleksandar Lukashenka. There is simply no other choice.

The article below (by Gabiele Vasiliauskaite of Alfa.lt) is considered as an attack from the former group against the Statesmen.  Some commentators pointed out that this article is a perfect example when secret information was leaked to media by one of other group for the media wars.

‘The individuals who were possibly involved in the CIA prison story – Mecys Laurinkus, [former State Security Department (VSD) director]; [former VSD director] Arvydas Pocius; Albinas Januska [former high-ranking Foreign Ministry official]; Edminas Bagdonas [former adviser to President Adamkus]; Mindaugas Ladiga [former adviser to President Adamkus]; [former VSD deputy director] Dainius Dabasinskas; and former President Valdas Adamkus – all speak in unison, saying that the CIA prison story could pose a threat to Lithuania’s good name in the international arena. If a CIA prison indeed existed in Lithuania – and the testimony of [former President] Rolandas Paksas and the president’s [Dalia Grybauskaite] words [that she has "indirect suspicions"] leave no room to doubt – it will be the sword of Damocles for the so-called “statesmen” clan.

If the parliamentary investigation proves that the CIA prison existed, Lithuania will have to admit the truth and apologize. The absolution the president has mentioned will be inevitable.

This is why the participants in this story will be doing all they can to emerge unscathed. After all, it is not good if Lithuania has to apologize and the “builders” of the CIA prison remain unpunished and keep representing Lithuania in the international arena. And what about Adamkus? If Laurinkus had asked Paksas about terrorists detained by the CIA, then perhaps he put the same question to Adamkus, who became president after Paksas’s impeachment and who was much more trustworthy.

All “statesmen” have found for themselves respected and cozy jobs, perhaps this was an award for some things they had done. Former VSD Chief Mecys Laurinkus has a post in the Lithuanian Embassy in Georgia. Former VSD Deputy Director Darius Jurgelevicius is close by; he now works as an adviser to the Georgian interior minister. Laurinkus’s successor, former VSD Director Arvydas Pocius, is a lawyer in an office of a Lietuvos Rytas shareholder. Former VSD Deputy Director Dainius Dabasinskas was delegated to serve as an attache in the Lithuanian Embassy to Ukraine. Edminas Bagdonas, former adviser to President Adamkus for foreign policy and one of the politicians involved in the Turniskes [property] scandal, has been appointed the Lithuanian ambassador to Minsk. Another Adamkus’s adviser, Mindaugas Ladiga, who was in charge of national security issues, is also working as an attache in the Lithuanian Embassy in Belarus. Albinas Januskas, former adviser to Adamkus and a former ! high-ranking Foreign Ministry official, is enjoying a signatory [to the Independence Act] annuity.

The majority of “statesmen” have occupied strategic posts and keep controlling the domain that they have always had under their control. And at the top of this pyramid is [VSD Director] Povilas Malakauskas, who was delegated to this post by Januska. Malakauskas has been actively safeguarding the 12 analytic reports prepared by the VSD and all other things the clan has done.

However, this time the danger to the “statesmen” is much more real than ever before. First of all, because it was American and not Lithuanian journalists who spoke up about the CIA prison. Even though the corrupt Lithuanian media and press were trying to discredit the ABC News journalist, presenting him as unreliable and trying to accuse him of creating conspiracy theories and disseminating disinformation, they did not manage to discredit him or the US media and press. The bad thing is that they cannot use their traditional line and accuse The Washington Post or ABC News of carrying out the orders from Gazprom of Russia in general, because nobody would ever believe that. The situation has become even more difficult because of [President] Dalia Grybauskaite. She is not an Adamkus. She does not stay in the background, she will not help them “kill” the cases they find troublesome.

The president has indirect proof that the CIA prison was in Lithuania. After Malakauskas testified before the parliamentary National Security and Defence Committee [NSGK], she expedited the signing of the amendment to the Criminal Code proposed by the Parliament, according to which false testimony given to the parliamentary committees and commissions will be penalized.

According to Alfa.lt’s sources, Malakauskas, who on Monday [ 14 December] resigned from the VSD director post, told the president one truth, and then he told another truth to the NSGK. Moreover, Malakauskas’s and his subordinate’s versions do not match.

Suddenly, during his second testimony, Paksas decided to speak up. All other participants in the story keep silent or lie. When Alfa.lt asked Laurinkus for the first time whether a CIA prison was discussed in the spring of 2003, he first laughed, and then said that he did not know anything about that. There are no penalties for lying to journalists. However, the president has now banned lying to the NSGK.

Paksas said that yes, he was asked about the possibility of bringing terrorists detained by the CIA to Lithuania, and that this was a confidential question asked by the then VSD Director Laurinkus. Immediately after Paksas made this statement there were some weak attempts to accuse Paksas of trying to take his revenge on Laurinkus, because the latter “had leaked” the information that put an end to Paksas’s presidential career.

The key detail here is that there had been no written applications, just a conversation between Laurinkus and Paksas. However, it would be too risky to accuse Paksas of lying, because it could lead to a criminal investigation, during which many things could surface. This is why the “statesmen” have changed the tune.

If Paksas, who had previously testified that he did not know anything about any CIA prison, suddenly regained his memory, Laurinkus did not get scared of the amendment to the Criminal Code. The experienced diplomat weaseled out by saying that he had been just following world events and had asked the then president a question having in mind a “hypothetical situation.” The VSD has long been famous for its analytic abilities. But to forestall the events and to clarify the president’s position in advance takes a special type of insight. Perhaps he had forestalled the events in the same manner when, just in case, before asking for the president’s permission, the VSD had taken care of the construction of a building for the CIA prison, in case the Americans ask, and in case the Lithuanian president agrees.

The CIA prison scandal is a continuation of the story of [Vytautas] Pociunas’s death [in Belarus] and the 12 analytic reports the VSD has been hiding. Only this story is international, thus it will not be so easy to “kill” this investigation. It is not likely that Malakauskas, who has been actively defending the VSD boys, can get away with saying that the CIA prison is a state secret. Especially that one would like to believe that he is also unusually insightful and has already considered “the hypothetical situation” if the testimony about the existence of the CIA prison became known overseas. Then the “statesmen” and Lithuania’s name would suffer much more than it does from the discussions whether [the prison] existed or not. It is one thing to successfully complete an investigation, and another thing is to acknowledge the truth. It is an entirely another issue to procrastinate an investigation, to lie and to expect that the investigation will be forgotten. It is not likely that the things that work in Lithuania will work in the international domain. And, what is more, it is impossible to order ABC News or The Washington Post to write some dirty lies about certain persons and to find some woman’s coat in the closet. [When Pociunas died in Belarus, the daily Lietuvos Rytas newspaper published an article, in which it claimed that Pociunas had a lover and that her coat and other things were found in his apartment in Belarus].

The president was very strict about the investigation and the consequences of false testimony. She also promised to depoliticize the main actor in the CIA prison story – the VSD.

For now, even after Malakauskas’s resignation, nothing has changed in the VSD. Former Malakauskas’s deputy Dainius Dabasinskas keeps controlling the department from a distance – from Ukraine. His eyes and ears is Rytis Muraska, former adviser to Adamkus and “Turniskes neighbour” [was involved in the Turniskes property scandal]. Muraska, whose office is next to the VSD director’s office, has the task to control the documents coming from the Seimas and the Presidential Office to the VSD and the documents sent from the VSD. Not a single document can be sent without Muraska’s knowledge. Before each more or less important VSD meeting, he calls Dabasinskas “to receive consultation.” The president knows that. She also knows who has lied about the CIA prisoners in Lithuania; otherwise there would be no amendments to the Criminal Code on false testimony.

The president knows that the decision to remove from the VSD two individuals – Dabasinskas and Jurgelevicius – has not worked. Perhaps this is why, as far as Alfa.lt is informed, when the president visited the VSD in November, she gave a list of questions she expected to be answered by the New Year’s Eve.

This list, Paksas’s testimony, and the findings of the NSGK investigation should become the beginning of the VSD cleansing and de-politicization processes, something the president has promised, and, let us hope, it will be the end of it.

Alfa.lt