Israel has a well-developed high-tech industry and is open for cooperation in implementing bilateral projects with Lithuanian enterprises.

Minister A.Ažubalis highlighted that the Lithuanian-Israeli relations had reached a qualitatively new stage of development with the ongoing regular and active bilateral dialogue.

At the same time, according to Lithuania’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, greater attention must be dedicated to cultural and educational exchanges between the Israeli and Lithuanian societies, and the dialogue between the youth and the societies of the two countries has to be expanded.

“Lithuania and Israel are linked by a special relationship, which is determined by the history that the two nations shared for seven hundred years. Lithuania’s history is unimaginable without the history of the Jewish community, which was an integral part of the Lithuanian society and contributed to the development of science, economy and culture,” head of Lithuania’s diplomacy said.

Minister A.Ažubalis also expressed trust that Israel would open its Embassy in Lithuania at an early date.

The Ministers discussed the development of relations between the European Union and Israel, Lithuanian-Israeli contacts within international organizations and the issues of the Middle East.

Head of Lithuania’s diplomacy said that the country regarded Israel as its partner in the Middle East, whose expertise was very important for Lithuania’s upcoming Presidency of the European Union in 2013.

Lithuania approves of deepening the EU-Israel relations and also stresses that the cooperation between the EU and Israel should be advanced not only in the spheres of bilateral interests, but also with the aim for the common goal – peace in the Middle East.

Minister A.Ažubalis expressed the EU’s common position on the Middle East Peace Process that aimed at a two-state solution with Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace in the future. The Minister also stressed that Lithuania recognized Israel’s legitimate security concern and the country’s right to self-defense, and also urged Israel to comply with the fundamental human rights provisions.

Minister A.Liberman invited Minister A.Ažubalis to pay a visit to Israel.

Israel’s Foreign Minister is visiting Lithuania for the first time since the restoration of Lithuania’s Independence.

Like their fellow Europeans, many Lithuanians have expressed dismay that the administration of Barack Obama has turned its back on the Continent.           It appears that he has bigger fish to fry in Asia, that’s why he refused an invitation to meet with EU leaders in a May Summit. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the Georgian-Russian War, his decision to scrap George W. Bush’s anti-missile system in the Czech Republic and Poland has caused many residents of the East Baltic Sea region to express concern about Washington’s pledge to defend their countries. But such concerns are unwarranted and fail to take into account the horrible panoply of domestic and international problems that he inherited from his predecessor.

In any serious attempt to understand the Obama administration’s approach to foreign affairs, it is imperative to appreciate the magnitude of the poisoned legacy that he discovered as he entered office. It accounts for Obama’s laser-like attention to a multitude of daunting problems that he faces at home and is less a matter of his preoccupation with developments in places other than Europe. Also, in contrast to two protracted wars in the Greater Middle East and the prospect that Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons, could crumble into chaos, Europe is a peaceful place.

The place to begin is Bush’s disastrous decision to invade and occupy Iraq where he embarked upon the “wrong war” in Iraq before he finished the “right war” in Afghanistan. In spite of current efforts on the part of Bush’s Vice-President Dick Chaney and his leading political operative Karl Rove to justify this incredible blunder, the stunning truth is that Saddam Hussein did not possess the military prowess to harm the U.S. nor was he an ally of al-Qaeda.

Specifically, he did not have any nuclear weapons, and his chemical and biological capability was minimal and hardly a threat to the world’s most powerful military force. Moreover, Saddam was not allied with Osama bin Laden and the Iraqi dictator had nothing to do with the al-Qaeda 9/11 strike on the United States. Indeed, bin Laden deemed him an enemy. Some Democrats were mislead into believing false claims perpetrated by the Bush administration to the opposite while others cowardly supported the invasion less they look meek and lose the support of hawkish voters. Obama was not among them.

The fact is, key members of the elder George H. W. Bush’s administration like his national security advisor Brent Scowcroft and his Secretary of State James Baker both opposed the Iraq invasion for the simple reason that Saddam had been contained and represented no threat to the United States. They correctly predicted that if the younger Bush ignored their advice, the outcome would be disastrous for America’s national security.

Consequently, when Obama entered the White House, he had inherited two wars that have resulted in severe strains on the American military; international condemnation of ill-considered unilateralist policies that de-stabilized the greater Middle East and that among other things enhanced the capacity of Iran to make mischief there while giving Tehran the justification for acquiring nuclear weapons; declining faith in the moral rectitude of the U.S. in face of charges of  war crime violations; and finally a global shift in public opinion where-by America was deemed a greater threat to world peace than communist China. Significantly, this was not only the opinion of Muslims but of old American allies like the British.

To add to his misery, the young President was forced to address an economic meltdown that began in the United States and precipitated the worse global financial calamity since the Great Depression of the 1930’s. To make matters worse, Obama’s Republican opponents declared immediately after he entered office that they would obstruct him in his efforts to address America’s daunting problems with the declared intention of “bringing him down.” Indeed, his Republican opponents have been un-relenting in their campaign to sabotage the very policies that are required to address some of America’s most compelling problems.

The most glaring example here is the Republicans’ attempt to deny the American people a national health insurance program. It is unbelievable but until two weeks ago, the U.S. was the only advanced society that had not acknowledged that health care is a basic human right. Opponents of what amounts to a most health care program delayed its adoption by resorting to a disinformation campaign that was based upon distortion, out-right lies and fear-mongering.  It is no exaggeration to conclude that if Obama had lost the health care battle, his administration would have been dealt a lethal political blow. Among other things, it would have undermined his ability to address pressing international problems. It is against this backdrop that he has had little time to address foreign policies matters and then only those that are most urgent.

Also, as I noted in a Veidas article in the summer of 2008, presidential candidate Obama did not believe it was prudent to deploy an anti-missile system in Eastern Europe that did not work against a threat that had not yet materialized. Instead he has selected a system that is designed to meet Iran’s capacity to launch intermediate ranged missiles—that Iran possesses today–against its enemies in the Middle East and Europe. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has indicated, this is a better choice than the one that Bush has championed and Gates had earlier endorsed.

Finally a word about the 2008 Georgian-Russian War is in order. Presumably Moscow tricked the young rambunctious Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvilli into launching an attack against South Ossetia, but he took ill-considered actions that made this possible. The EU has concluded that he started the war in the first place. Consequently, former friendly American and European leaders have turned their backs on him less his capricious antics prompt another military exchange with Russia. The recent Georgian TV program that simulated a second Georgian-Russian war has been cited by his critics of further evidence of his irrational behavior. (He has denied having anything to do with it but his disclaimers have not convinced his critics on the one hand while on the other one the provocative program was a gift to Kremlin hard-liners who are bent on bringing him down.) At the same time, his commitment to democratic rule has been called into question. Is it any wonder then that leaders who are responsible for the welfare of their citizens in the dangerous former Soviet-neighborhood such as Lithuania are reluctant to share a diplomatic event with Saakashvilli.

Oh, one more thing. If George W. Bush had not invaded Iraq it is unlikely that there ever would have been a Georgian-Russian war in 2008. Burdened by a war in Iraq that had cost many lives and billions of dollars and a return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the American military was badly over-stretched. Simultaneously, the international stature of the U.S. had plunged under Bush’s stewardship. To make matters worse, the calamitous economic meltdown was waiting in the wings. Under these circumstances, the military-minded in Moscow believed they could act without interference from a discredited leadership in Washington.

When considering Obama’s policies toward Europe then, the poisoned legacy that he inherited from George W. Bush–compounded by his political opponent’s obstructionist policies and an economy under stress–are the place to start.

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

Excellencies, distinguished priests of One God, colleagues parliamentarians, ladies and gentlemen!

Let me share with you some words on tragedies in plural, not only that unique we are commemorating.

Haiti disaster caused by the earthquake is an enormous and terrible human tragedy, which does continue until now.

The tsunami, which passed over Aceha and other Indonesian areas, caused tremendously huge and painful human tragedy, as well.

But what about mass murders in Rwanda, Darfur, East Timor, Kambodja, Chechnya etc.? – there we need another, different definition.

Tragedy for the victims, not for the killers.

What then about the Holodomor or death camps of Nazis and Soviet Bolsheviks, indoctrinated and premeditated for extermination day-by-day of millions of innocents? We need again a different, special definition there for the dark creatures – from the system-builders to physical perpetrators, so similar to humans – but we would abuse the beasts when calling those shaped on two legs by this very word. Wild beasts never behave in such a way. Who could kill the elder, women and children – thousands and millions – only because they were Jewish?

Allow me to say, Ladies and Gentlemen, not so many words of sorrow and sympathy to the victims we are commemorating in solidarity and mourning, as they deserve, today and here, near to Auschwitz. Requiem aeternam. This European camp of death is a particular one, as it was used for real industry of killing and only by one totalitarian power only, not by two replacing each other like it was made in Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen or even Macikai in my native Lithuania. But if we stay on it, one may ask: why do you not look into the future?

Allow me to say more words about the mysteries of the degrading human soul. It may become deadfully significant for our common future. Holocaust of the 20^th century was a signal about essential failures of culture, even that called the Western one, but same time also about future disasters which are currently and worldwide coming on.

Did we receive that signal?

If “Work gives freedom” – along with the mockery of Auschwitz, – what gives freedom from morals, from compassion and love, from being human?

That false freedom is brought upon us by totalitarian, sorry, total relativism on what is good and what is evil. Unfortunately, this also eliminates an abyss of a distinction between love and hatred. The latter takes over and goes on applauding, and then we face the abyss.

Teachings of immorality and hatred do flourish world-wide, while love and compassion are becoming “politically incorrect”. If the time allows, I could tell you the story about the Constitution for Europe. Any reference to any religion was totally opposed there as having nothing with Europe, and it was expressed with harsh intolerance stemming from those who usually call for tolerance.

The entire world is on wrong track now. But going again a little back to the matters related with the historical and symbolical site Auschwitz, who could say, what is the destiny of the State of Israel? For the Friends of Israel, it should be the matter of greatest concern. The only victory for all sides in conflict is Peace, but Iran and its proxies do not want it. After producing a bomb, they will blackmail the region much more aggressively. As US direct support for Israel in an openly military way would be detrimental for the Americans, their adversaries fighting for domination will eagerly provoke such pro-Israeli American war in the Middle East. First success in such a pretty provision is isolation of the US, as well as unity of extreme Arabs and Moslem consolidated by strong anti-Americanism. Moscow’s dream, be sure. The second in line success, a sweet dream of the hegemonist Iran and its instructors, would be retreat and geo-ideological isolation of the US. The third, rather local, success of several totalitarian regimes in the area, would be the second historical exodus of the Israeli people… Save God, but I am not sure, as anyone may be, if there is no such planning and if Europe, increasingly tied with Russia, would rush into a crusade for Israel. The mantras about the two state solution or unceaseable right of Israel to exist may look not binding anymore, on line with many others. What would be the last alternative or preemption of second Holocaust – the Israeli bomb dropped on Iran? And what after that?

Excuse my painting such diabolic pictures in black colours only; but that very place of ashes and tears, short to what we now gather, is calling tremendously loud: do something, you people of reason and humanity, do something to change that fatal course drafted by the Satan! Even if it would be only one among several options, we have to do everything for that option ceases to exist.

At the same time, dangers for Jewish nation and State of Israel do signal much more, similarly they could do during the Holocaust. Approaches of all the nations to each other and Nature, if they wish to survive on our globe, should be essentially changed. The same about the relations between the groups and single people everywhere. As Mother Therese have said – and I heard it – adoption, not abortion! – accordingly we must insist everywhere on cooperation replacing any domination. A simple word – love – tells us what is to be found anew and fundamentally. If we still wish to survive, of course.

Speech at Conference of the European Friends of Israel, to the 65^th Anniversary of the Liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Camps.
26 January 2010, Krakow