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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translated by VG

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.

In mid-March, narcissuses, crocuses, and tulips are in full bloom in Belgium. You can find these flowers everywhere: in Brussels and in the cozy suburbs surrounding the city, such as Ukkel (where the Russian Embassy, a beautiful building and a pond, is located). Russia’s envoy to NATO Dmitriy Rogozhin hosted the Ekspress Nedelia journalist in the luxurious foyer of the embassy.

(Ekspress Nedelia) I would first like to explain to the readers what the Permanent Mission of Russia to NATO is doing and the difference between the mission and the Russian Embassy in Belgium, which is located in the same building. I also would like to explain to the readers the difference between your work and the work of the “ordinary” diplomats in Brussels.

(Rogozin) Perhaps only the divers – or to be more exact the divers who can go down some 50 meters or more, where the ocean is full of sharks and other sea beasts, and to be even more exact, the divers who can do all that without the aqualung – could understand the difference. I used to participate in the underwater sports and I know what I am talking about. So, we can say that the Russian Permanent Mission to NATO is a group of Russian diplomats and military officers placed in the predatory environment. We are a group of 37. This is a big group of people, but we work in several buildings, not just in the embassy, but also in the NATO headquarters in Brussels and in the NATO Military Command in Mons.

Our work is based on the activities of the working groups, which, in a way, reflects the structures that exist in NATO. Moreover, there is the Russia-NATO Council, which organizes summits of the presidents, the heads of the Foreign or Defence Ministries, or the commanders of the Defence Headquarters at least twice a year… We spend the rest of the time having meetings at the ambassadorial level and the level of steering committees.

(Ekspress Nedelia) What about your status? Do the people call you “Your Excellence,” just as they do the Russian ambassador to Belgium?

(Rogozin) Well, they do call me “Your Excellency.”

(Ekspress Nedelia) Do you have an aide-de-camp?

(Rogozin) I have an aide-de-camp, a BMW, and a Ducati, if you are interested in such things. I have all that.

(Ekspress Nedelia) If it is not a secret, are you paid less than the Russian ambassador to Belgium?

(Rogozin) The amount of my salary is established by the Russian Government, which has set up the Russian Permanent Mission to NATO. I have the same salary as the Russian ambassador to Belgium, and the chief military adviser earns 95 per cent of the ambassador’s salary, paid in euro.

(Ekspress Nedelia) What are the specifics of your work?

(Rogozin) I find it difficult to relate myself to diplomats, because I came from politics.

(Ekspress Nedelia) And you came to politics from journalism!

(Rogozin) There are diplomats who think that the art of diplomacy is not to reveal your thoughts. Unlike diplomats, politicians are seeking to express their thoughts clearly and concisely. Considering the delicate balance in the relations between Russia and NATO, the diplomats have to work with public opinion issues, besides working with each other. There is a difference between our work and the work of the Permanent Missions to the UN or the EU, the Permanent Mission to NATO deals with issues that have to do with war and peace…

(Ekspress Nedelia) You have once said that Russian diplomacy has to be like an iron fist in a soft kid glove.

(Rogozin) Or like a wise head in a strong helmet.

(Ekspress Nedelia) In your opinion, is NATO an aggressive organization?

(Rogozin) It is a military-political organization.

(Ekspress Nedelia) Does it pose any threat to Russia?

(Rogozin) If you have in mind the NATO troops deployed near the border with Russia, they do not pose any threat, because it is obvious that the number of such troops is not sufficient to be seen as a threat. On the other hand, there is a certain discomfort. Believe me, I feel genuinely hurt when people are playing the game of war! Everybody understands that Russia does not pose any threat. And we feel a certain degree of discomfort when we see that somebody is acting childish and irresponsible.

(Ekspress Nedelia) Perhaps Russia could join NATO? NATO leaders have mentioned such a possibility: Robertson was the first to mention the idea; then Ruhe, former defence minister of the Federal Republic of Germany; then it was Naumann, former head of the NATO Military Planning Committee; and finally the current NATO Secretary General Rasmussen and US State Secretary Hillary Clinton.

(Rogozin) I can rephrase your question: Perhaps NATO could join Russia? On a serious note, I do not understand how the people can part with something very precious to them. I have in mind the sovereignty of a country, the country’s right to be in charge of its own armed forces and the right to have its own foreign policy.

(Ekspress Nedelia) This summer, NATO will conduct a large-scale military training in the Baltic countries. NATO’s “hawks” are saying that this is a response to “Russia’s aggressive ambitions in this region.” What can you say about these military manoeuvres?

(Rogozin) This is absurd. On the other hand, I must say I am genuinely happy for the prostitutes living in Klaipeda. They perhaps would be the only ones who will benefit directly from the disembarkation of the US Marine Corps in this Lithuanian city.

(Ekspress Nedelia) May I quote your words?

(Rogozin) You are welcome to do that!

(Ekspress Nedelia) What can you say about the recent NATO military exercise in the Baltic skies? If I am correct, you promised $1 million to anybody who proves that the manoeuvres, in which the potential adversary was “some Eastern land,” were not directed against Russia?

(Rogozin) I am sure NATO did not mean that the manoeuvres were organized to act against the aggressive plans of Iran. I am stunned. It ridiculous to think that the two L-39 fighter planes Lithuania has, (which are actually training aircraft), or the two tanks Estonia and Latvia have, could pose any threat to the security or the sovereignty of Russia. But what really worries us is the fact that the NATO military structure, and  even more so the US military structure, is drawing closer to our borders, for example the Patriot missiles in Poland.

(Ekspress Nedelia) What is your take on the current Russia-NATO relations? What can you say about the reassurance of the NATO leaders who are saying that NATO does not pose any threat to Russia? And what can you say about the statements by some Baltic politicians that Russia poses a threat to the Baltic countries?

(Rogozin) The relations between Russia and NATO are like “an average temperature in a hospital.” For example, there are partners who do not want our relations to deteriorate and speak in favour of mutual understanding in strategic issues. And there are countries that see nightmares in the sleep that the Russians are coming to their countries, and they wet their beds in sleep. We should remember that NATO is a group of 28 countries, and that what NATO Secretary General Rasmussen is saying is an average (consensus) opinion. The same goes for NATO foreign policy; it is also an average of foreign policies of all the NATO members.

(Ekspress Nedelia) It is noteworthy that Georgian President Saakashvili shares the fears of some of the Baltic politicians. We all remember the television show broadcast by the Imedi television station, which scared the wits out of many residents of Georgia and even of many European officials. Even EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso spoke at the joint conference with Georgian Prime Minister Gilauri, urging “to drop any activities that could lead to a political tension on the local and the regional levels.”

(Rogozin) No comments. Mr Saakashvili is a “sick person” whom we cannot help.

(Ekspress Nedelia) But do you think there is any possibility that the “sick person” will get well and will “mature” enough to become a NATO member?

(Rogozin) Who? Saakashvili?

(Ekspress Nedelia) No, I have in mind Georgia.

(Rogozin)I do not think so. But this is my personal opinion.

(Ekspress Nedelia) What about the United States? This country plays the leading role in NATO.

(Rogozin)Indeed, the United States plays a big role in NATO, but this role is not the decisive one. To explain this to you in business terms, the United States has the “blocking stake” in NATO, but certainly not the “controlling stake.” Even though the United States could carry out its own policy in NATO, it prefers to share the responsibility or to burden others with the responsibility. Generally speaking, NATO’s intention is collective responsibility for the decisions.

(Ekspress Nedelia) In your opinion, what role does Lithuania play in NATO? Judging by the continuous declarations made by some Lithuanian politicians and the verbal attacks on Russia, Vilnius is playing an important role in NATO.

(Rogozin) I will tell you this: In Soviet times, we saw the people living in the Baltic countries as someone extraordinary. The Baltic countries were in a way a “show window” of the Soviet system. It was a great thing to live in the Baltic countries…. I remember, when I was in the 9th grade, the girl I liked told me that she had a friend living in a Baltic country. She said that to hurt my feelings, because it turned out later on that the friend was only in her imagination…. The situation has changed now. Not long ago, I was coming back from my trip to London and had a chat with a Lithuanian woman at the airport. She was very eager to tell me about her life in the United Kingdom….

(Ekspress Nedelia) In Russian?

(Rogozin)Yes, even though it was very difficult for her.

(Ekspress Nedelia) Did she recognize you? Did she know that she was talking to the Russian envoy to NATO?

(Rogozin )No. Young people are not interest in these things. Coming back to the issue of Lithuania, there are three aspects that we should consider. In Brussels, I have a wonderful and a very constructive relationship with the Lithuanian envoy to NATO Linas Linkevicius.

(Ekspress Nedelia) Who came to diplomacy from politics, and to politics from journalism, just like you?

(Rogozin) I did not know that. Well, we meet, have coffee, and speak about everything openly. On the other hand, Lithuania is one of the “cheerleaders” of various campaigns directed against Russia. And, finally, Lithuania wants to convince everybody that nobody knows Russia better than Lithuania does. But if in the past such strategy worked, now it does not.

(Ekspress Nedelia) Neither Russia, nor even France managed to convince the Lithuanian politicians that the contract for the purchase of the two French assault helicopter ships Mistral does not pose any threat to the peace and stability in the region.

(Rogozin) On the one hand, NATO is saying that the cooperation with Russia should be strengthened, and that the Alliance is highly interested in the acquisition of Russian military equipment, for example the “helicopter set” for the NATO operations in Afghanistan. On the other hand, when we want to buy from our NATO partner two ships, there are problems. This is illogical.

(Ekspress Nedelia) Several years ago, you successfully solved the problem of the Kaliningrad transit, when a perfect solution was found (acceptable to all the parties involved: Russia, Lithuania, and the EU). How serious are the disagreements between Russia and Lithuania as far as military issues are concerned?

(Rogozin) To begin with, there is no military cooperation between Russia and Lithuania. The problem of military transit remains unsolved. And, as you know, NATO is interested in the transit of its military shipments through the Russian territory (3,500 km) to the border with Kazakhstan. And we cannot solve the problem of the transit of our military shipments through the territory that is less than 200 km.

Nevertheless, the prospects for the Russian-Lithuanian relations are positive. All we need is the Lithuanian elite to focus its attention on constructive relations with Russia.

(Ekspress Nedelia) Do you have friends among Lithuanian politicians? With whom would you like to play basketball or tennis?

(Rogozin) Gediminas Kirkilas who came to Brussels last year, when he still was prime minister. I have already mentioned Linas Linkevicius. By the way, basketball is a good idea, we have a good team here and we often play with our partners from NATO countries. The Americans beat us once (there are members of the Naval Force on the team), but we played a very nasty trick on them, something only the Russians are capable of doing, we proposed them several boxes of vodka and Abkhazian wine, and we tied the score after half an hour.

P.S. (from Vladas Liubartas, the journalist): On my way back from Brussels to Vilnius, I was on the same plane as now former Foreign Minister Vygaudas Usackas. He asked me to give Mr Rogozhin his greetings, and when I mentioned the possible basketball game, he offered to organize it in…Afghanistan.

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.

A decade ago, when in Prague a decade of the velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia was celebrated, the former leader of the Soviet Union tried to convince that one should not reject the attitudes of the other side as well.

I do not believe that somebody, who nineteen years ago has experienced those events in Vilnius, would believe that the other truth also exists. The standard of „two attitudes“ can not pass the reality. Maybe the denial of Holocaust in some Western European countries is considered to be a crime to some purpose. And nobody doubts, that this is not contradicting to the concept of the freedom of speech.

The Lithuanian journalists can be proud of themselves that after the events of the 13th of January only  one side was introduced in our public sphere, that nobody went to work in the television of collaborators (TV set up by Soviets in the in the brutally occupied Lithuanian TV and Radio premises – LTribune), the so-called “What-a vision” ‘Kaspervizija’. Then we understood that a formal hearing of different sides can not be considered as a democracy. Social life is not a scale, on the first plate of which one can put justice, respect for human rights and democratic principles, and on the second – morality and propriety.

The story of the prisons of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that is today continuing in Lithuania is one of those phenomena when two different opinions are tried to be established and the illusion of controversy is tried to be supported. If we would rest upon the principles of honour, we would have to admit regretfully that the secret prisons existed in Lithuania.

One can wonder at the work of the work of the Seimas’ Committee on National Security and Defence. Previous September all the members of this committee were convinced that it is enough to deny a rumour, made by the media. During four months the opinion of these people has changed essentially. One can come to a conclusion that the partners could bring whatever to Lithuania, without any control and to do whatever in a closed sphere, the others being unaware of this. In legal terms, this kind of conclusion is streamlined, anybody can say (and says) that as there’re no evidences, concerning the prisoners, thus, there were no prisons either. However, these kind of statements we can fling around only at home, forgetting the international context as well as the principles of state sovereignty.

Today we have no choice: only after having proved that there were no prisoners, brought to Lithuania, we will believe ourselves that there were no secret prisons. Otherwise nobody in the world will understand, why the mover of the sortie against the twins of New York, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was taken from the secret prison in Poland to „somewhere“ exactly at that time when the object No.2 was finished to be outfitted in Antaviliai.

Only CIA could prove that there were no prison in Lithuania. However, CIA will not do this. There’s such a kind of a crime in the USA that is defined as impeding justice.

I want to believe that the wave of the so-called justice that arose in Lithuania, i.e. the drive of the denial of the secret prisons, is backed-up by the best patriotic motifs. It is necessary to rescue the honour of the state. However, neither by lying, nor by hiding his head in the sand, one can not rescue the honour. By doing this, we are only poisoning our public sphere that is not very clean.

The possibility that the story of the secret prisons can lead to the revision of Lithuanian political events of several previous years and to a totally alternative estimation of them causes the biggest fear for a lot of people. So far it was very complicated to explain rationally some of the decisions of the President Valdas Adamkus, made during his second cadence. Why did he support “Leo LT”? Why he confused between steadiness and stagnation and supported the government of Gediminas Kirkilas? Why in the case of Vytautas Pociūnas he [President Valdas Adamkus] in as many words  supported the side of the secret services?

When politicians are unified by a common secret, it is hard to expect that only the interests of a nation and state will dictate the decisions. If V.Adamkus would indeed had not known about the secret prisons, today his reaction would for sure be different – he would humanly rebel and would be the first one who would require to investigate the suspicions. A human who had matured in a democratic society, understands that even a bitter truth would better protect state’s honour than a sweet lie would do.

Someone can rejoice over the possibility that the story of the secret prisons will help to retrieve the impeached president Rolandas Paksas. I would have doubts about this. The hand of Jurijus Borisovas will not vanish, however maybe in the process of impeachment we will set eyes on more colours, not only on white and red. And we will remember once again in what a complicated geopolitical space we are living – in a space where only the truth can be an antidote against the games of foreign secret services.

Twenty years ago, when addressing himself to the nation for the first time via TV, the contemporary President of Czechoslovakia* Václav Havel* was reading his text from paper. To him it seemed that it is better to remind an old communist functionary than to trust prompter who is being steered by unknown hands.
———————————————————————————————————————
Gintaras Aleknonis, commentator and host of the Public Radio programmes, Dean and Lecture of the Mykolas Romeris University, former employee of the Radio Liberty.

Translated by Milda Bagdonaitė

Head of the National Defence and Security Committee Mr Arvydas Anusausakas said to the journalists after panel’s meeting, “I cannot answer at the moment whether (the prison) existed or not – if you let my hold a person brought here (for interrogation) by the sleeve, I might have a definite answer. If I’m not holding the sleeve, the answers are different. We are talking about presumptions and possibilities, whether they existed. This is the main focus of discussions.”

Meanwhile, another member of the committee, Social Democrat Gediminas Kirkilas, said he could not answer the question: “This cannot be confirmed or denied.”

“If we make presumptions, we have to continue the probe,” he said.

22 December is the deadline set by the Parliament for the Committee to conclude its investigation into the allegations of a secret CIA ‘black site’s’ presence in Lithuania.  The committee questioned 56 persons, collected documents and received a verbal reply from the US Department of State.

This “package” is disseminated methodically and in a planned way – one can observe the waves of preliminary bombardment: the “Lietuvos rytas”, the “national” broadcaster, the “national” broadcaster, and the “Lietuvos rytas”. Cannons are shooting: the two previous Presidents are speaking about the advantages, brought by the “rainbow coalition”, the mischief, done by Mr. A.Kubilius, the wisdom of Mrs.I. Degutienė and the irrepressibility of the Social democrats.

Of course, nobody in Lithuania is prohibited from having his own opinion and expressing it publicly, but the question is if both ex-Presidents actually are willing the same things they are speaking about? Or somebody else is trying to speak by his or her lips? Already for some time it’s possible to get an impression that the two Presidents are being used as the billboard, on which the Social democrats are announcing their dreams about the government. What makes this feeling even more uncomfortable; it’s the cynicism, with which the President A.Brazauskas is exploited, who deserved a good rest. Instead of compassion and tranquillity the hardly ill person as a present gets a task from the party – the auto-mechanics of LSDP (Lithuanian Social Democratic Party) are trying to start the branded limousine AMB [AMB is an abbreviation, used for the name and surname of the President Brazauskas by Lithuanian media] in order to make him to grumble with every last ounce of strength something about Mr. A. Kubilius.

However, the President A.Brazauskas is at least working to his party while the President V.Adamkus is declaring himself to be independent and non-partisan. However, this was long time ago – during the last three- four years we already got used to the fact, that from the previous celebrity of “Santara-Šviesa” remained only an oldish tape-recorder, which tapes are renewed and broadcasted by the sound operators of the Social democrats. For example, now such a tape is playing: “I.Degutienė should become a Prime Minister, the Social democrats should be involved into the coalition”.

The flexible leader of LSDP Mr. Algirdas Butkevičius immediately comments this track, broadcasted by the so-called national broadcaster: yes, the opinion of the President V. Adamkus is very interesting, and worth to be listened to, and the President of the Republic Mrs. Dalia Grybauskaitė has an immediate duty to express her opinion on this question. Thanks God, in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania such a duty of the President is not stated, namely, a duty to explain somebody’s dreams about government.

Thanks God, Mrs. I. Degutienė distinguishes the dream-reader from the reality and refuses to take part in the Social democrats’ push to the government.

Dreams remain dreams; however, what in reality would mean the return of the Social democrats? In economy, the governance of the state and the relations of the government with the media, such a principle will be returned: “it is more important to spend money than to earn them” (this principle is documented in the alternative government programme, presented by the LSDP this week; by the way, this programme is almost identical with the “conditions”, that Mr. Viktoras Uspaskichas is raising to the coalition).

This means that the policy, which was implemented till the parliamentary elections that could be called as “after us it can be a flood” is trying to be returned. This is the policy, which scotched the introduction of euro and left the country totally unprepared for the struggle with the economic crisis.

In this sense the Social democrats are behaving as hypocrites when criticizing the Conservatives’ policy of economy rescue. Yes, Mr. A.Kubilius is making mistakes, and sometimes – crude mistakes, however, he does these mistakes when trying to rescue the economy of Lithuania, while the aim of the Social democrats was to frazzle out the economy, thus trying to satisfy the interest of the supporters of the social democrats. The return of the Social democrats would mean the stopping of LEO dismantlement and immediate reanimation; in the worst case this would mean the generous compensation of “legitimate” expectations of the private investor to earn billions.

When Minister of Energy Arvydas Sekmokas announced a course towards the liquidation of LEO, the tape, that again was broadcasted through the President V.Adamkus, was not broadcasted in vain: that time the President was complaining about not being able to understand why the dismantlement of LEO is necessary. The Social democrats will light on the red light for the changes in the courts and judiciary. In the very common sense, the Social democrats are the government of friendly mutual assistance, in which the courts are playing an important role – they are helping those friends, who are working in the most dangerous part of the front – namely, there, where the laws are not respected.

The existing system is perfect – it is perfect for the Social democrats, thus, it is not necessary to change anything in it. The system is perfect, and it is perfect not only in the courts, but also in the whole state. The former political scientist Mr. Mindaugas Jurkynas (after taking the position of the adviser of the ex-Prime Minister Gediminas Kirkilas, he ceased being a political scientist) on the eve of parliamentary elections was explaining sincerely and feelingly the “iron truth”: people, please, understand, that it’s impossible to govern Lithuanian without the Social democrats.

Thus, the return of the Social democrats would also end the structural and governance reforms. For eight years the Social democrats retained the systems of higher education and health unreformed, in the ministries the Social democrats enlarged the vast army of highly consuming, but not-hard-working officers. And now any trial to optimize governance is awakening these voices: “the best specialists are being fired” (i.e. the former Undersecretary of the Ministry of Economy Mr. Anicetas Ignotas). The return of the Social democrats would mean a farewell to the changes in ”Lithuanian Railways” and “Lithuanian Post”. 

Maybe under the circumstances of the crisis this is not so much important, but the return of Social democrats would mean the death for the reform of the State Security Department of the Republic of Lithuania (SSD), that would occur before its start. Under the governance of the Social democrats, the SSD became a gambler in the internal policy, who was planning new parties for the election, who was feeding “the right” groups of business and media and who was keeping an eye on the “state” secrets of Social democrats and their press.

If the Social democrats will return, Mr. Povilas Malakauskas can expect to survive. Now the guard of Mr. Dainius Dabašinskas, which is scattered in the embassies (as in the shelters for political refugees), will be able to return quietly to the native place. (Mr. D. Dabašinskas is having a rest in the embassy in Kiev, the head of the first board (intelligence) Rimantas Martinonis is preparing to leave to the consulate in Kaliningrad, and the former advisor of the President Adamkus for “SSD questions” Mr. Mindaugas Ladyga is going to the Embassy in Minsk.)

If the Social democrats will come back, the Seimas will not get the “notes of SSD”, especially the notorious 12th note of SSD second board (contra-intelligence) “About the impact of business groups on the media”, that includes conversations of the Russian gas intermediators with “national” media bodies about money. (Why are sounding the cannons of the “Lietuvos rytas” and the “national” broadcaster?)

If the Social democrats will return, the system of the resting-house in the Lithuanian diplomatic service for the “veteran statesmen” and other related persons will remain. Then Mr. Antanas Valionis will be able to stop his worries about his embassy in Riga, Mr. Juozas Bernatonis – in Tallinn. Then Mr. Albinas Januška and Mr. Darius Jurgelevičius will be able to come back from their exile in Georgian government, and Mr. Valteris Baliukonis will be again able to feel himself as a white man.

If both ex-Presidents are welcoming the return of the Social democrats, this means, that they want things to be as they were. It means that the worst supporter of Mr. R. Paksas [Rolandas Paksas was the President of Lithuania, impeached in 2004] in the Seimas is better than the best Social democrat, because he is not a part of the machine of the “perfect” social democratic state. The same could be said about the fraction of the Labourites in the Seimas. Without its leader, of course, as Mr. Uspaskichas, that has a natural artistic talent; at the time is acting as a red cloth of the Social democrats for professor Vytautas Lansbergis – in order to tease Mr. A. Kubilius.

However, what is the worth of one benefit of a quite vulgar artist, when we are speaking about how to choose the allies, while taking into consideration the sum of strategic goals of the state – the defeat of the crisis, governance and structural reforms, the supervision of the special services, the arrangement of courts and judiciary. If the attainment of these goals is really important, then the Social democrats are the worst allies, because their goals are opposite. Their goals are opposite, as they have been in the government too long and they weaned the state on working to itself and themselves got used to this. And due to this the government is being changed in the civilized countries – in order not to get habituated.

I would like to end by a merry tune: if the Social democrats are already dreaming about the government, this means, that the economic crisis is already retreating, as there’re only two things that are motivating the Social democrats – the elite big capital and money. This means that the Social democrats already can smell something…

Disclaimer:
Views expressed in this article are not necessary correspond with those of the Lithuania Tribune editorial team.Alfa.lt