Values, not pragmatism, should guide Lithuania’s relations with Russia and the EU, the country’s new foreign minister says.
by BBC Monitoring 16 February 2010
This interview with Lithuanian Foreign Minister Audronius Azubalis by Vladimiras Laucius appeared on the Lithuanian news website Delfi on 11 February:
On Thursday [11 February], the new foreign minister, Audronius Azubalis, was sworn into office in the Seimas [parliament]. He believes that if Lithuania has purely pragmatic relations with Russia and if these relations are not based on values – such as freedom, democracy, and human rights – Lithuania could face serious trouble.
"I personally want Lithuania to have normal, unbiased relations with Russia. We have opened old wounds because some problems seem to be impossible to solve, some are being ignored," Azubalis told Delfi.lt.
Moreover, the new foreign minister said that he supports the idea of deeper integration into the EU. "The stronger Brussels is, the stronger will be the EU countries that do not have the necessary resources to be powerful on their own, and the opinion of these countries does not always match the opinion of Berlin or Paris," he said.
Which focal points of our foreign policy will you seek to change after replacing former Foreign Minister Vygaudas Usackas, who had lost the president's [Dalia Grybauskaite] trust?
I will not comment on the issue of trust and on my predecessors. As for the focal points, they will depend on the tactics that I will choose after I get acquainted with the current situation in detail. One thing I can tell you already: I will ask the Permanent Representation of Lithuania to the EU to pay more attention to EU-Russia negotiations carried out by the European Commission. We need to pay more attention to negotiations with Russia to avoid the situation where we need to vote for an EU-Russia draft agreement in the Seimas and somebody asks us: "Where have you been during the negotiations?"
I am not saying that the negotiations have been conducted in any improper way. However, when the parliamentary foreign affairs committee was discussing these negotiations, we saw that not enough attention had been paid to the negotiations. As an EU member, we have the right to express our opinions. Among other things, we have to monitor that the provisions that Lithuania has asked to be included in the negotiation mandate are not ignored.
The former foreign minister started his term by announcing his plans to "turn a new page in relations with Russia." What was written on this new page? Was it a page that brought success? Will it be possible to continue writing on this new page?
You are again trying to make me speak about my predecessor. My answer is the following: We have existed with Russia as our neighbor for a long time, and I doubt there could be "new pages" or "old pages" in relations with this country. We have an ages-long history of our relations with this country.
[Passage omitted: on the history of Lithuanian-Russian relations in the 15th-16th centuries.]
I personally want Lithuania to have normal, unbiased relations with Russia. Our ages-long common history has opened old wounds on both sides. We feel hurt because some problems seem to be impossible to solve, some are being ignored.
There has been a lot of talk lately about a "pragmatic attitude" towards Russia. Has our foreign policy managed to implement this pragmatic attitude? If yes, what results have we achieved?
We are strong only if we base our policy on the key values of Western civilization. As my [former parliamentary] colleague Egidijus Vareikis has put it, it is very dangerous to base one's attitudes solely on rhetoric and business calculations. The Lithuanian market is so small. As far as economy is concerned, we are such a small country that one could simply buy us, even without any negotiations. Therefore, if Lithuania has purely pragmatic relations with Russia and if these relations are not based on values – such as freedom, democracy, and human rights – Lithuania could face serious trouble.
I have read that before 1940, Latvian industry received many orders from Russia and was very happy about that. The Latvians were happily manufacturing shoes and uniforms for the Russian Red Army. We know how that story ended.
Many people ask me, "Why did you behave like that in relation to these CIA prisons?" I think that all is for the best. It is good that we have discovered yet another flaw in our democracy and could remedy the situation. Certain responsible persons made important decisions that had to do with national security issues, and, according to the investigation material, they had not informed the president about these decisions. We have made this problem public, and I hope such things will not happen again in the future.
The Homeland Union (TS) [the conservative Homeland Union – Lithuanian Christian Democrats, head of the ruling coalition. Azubalis is a member] is always saying that the more there is of the United States in Europe, the less there would be of Russia in Europe. However, the CIA prison story was in a way a signal Lithuania sent that "there was too much of the United States" in Europe. Was it worth escalating the story that actually did not have any closure? Have we not damaged our relations with the United States?
The end of the story was the Prosecutor Office's investigation into possible violation of official powers. The most dangerous thing for new democracies is uncontrolled structures that do not adhere to the rule of law. Our strength is democracy, transparency, and the rule of law. I think that the Americans understand that very well.
EU policy towards Russia is often a policy of appeasement. Is it beneficial to Lithuania to follow such foreign policy?
The ultimate result of the EU foreign policy towards Russia should be based on an agreement. Everything will depend on what bilateral legal commitments we manage to agree on. This is why I am saying that Lithuania should participate in this process more actively.
What is your vision of the EU? Will Lithuania keep acting as an accommodating partner, always willing to accept and ratify anything Brussels proposes without as much as a minimal consideration? [Did we do that] when we approved the European Constitution? What kind of EU does Lithuania really want?
I cannot speak for the entire country. The reason the EU was created was to solve the problem of unity [then]. Unity remains a topical issue in Europe. Some countries are saying that a military deal with a third country is damaging to European unity, others are saying that such a deal actually shows that we have mutual trust. The stronger Brussels is, the stronger will be the EU countries that do not have the necessary resources to be powerful on their own, and the opinion of these countries does not always correspond to the opinion of Berlin or Paris. The TS has always supported the idea of strong EU institutions.
You have said that Lithuania is sometimes too eager [to ratify EU documents] and that because of that it looks ridiculous. I think that this eagerness comes from the understanding that we want the EU to be more allied, and we want to achieve that as soon as possible. Such behavior does not look very sensible or clever. However, we are acting like that because of our past and our desire to be together with Western countries as soon as possible.
In your opinion, do we need deeper EU integration?
Yes, I think that only if we have deeper integration will we manage to avoid the situations where some old EU countries are tempted to seek to have the so-called two-speed Europe. The two-speed-Europe scenario would be bad for us. Already now we feel inferior because we are not in the eurozone: It is more difficult for us to borrow money than it is for eurozone members. This is an obvious example of the problems we are facing because we have not fully integrated into the EU.
Is EU governance really democratic? Is the EU political system not in conflict with the democratic and liberal values of the EU countries?
I think that EU governance is not democratic. However, a transformation is under way, and this is why perhaps this is unavoidable. How can we call it democratic when some EU countries install their EU commissioners to manage certain areas of competence, and their expertise in these particular areas of competence is obviously questionable?
Are we witnessing an empire in the making? An empire that is above the EU member states. Will deeper EU integration strengthen this empire-based governance even more?
After the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the national parliaments have gained more powers. The European Parliament has gained more powers as well; it is not just some link in the chain of bureaucratic governance anymore. The parliamentary level is getting stronger. I think the time will come when the standards of liberal democracy will become mandatory in all high-level EU institutions.
In your opinion, why isn’t Lithuania paying attention to the questionable elements of EU governance, the growing influence of the big EU countries, the deficit of democracy, the wish to regulate every little detail, and the bureaucracy, but is so eager to fight when issues of sexual minorities are being discussed in the European Parliament or the Seimas?
Not always, there was a discussion on the Services Directive and the so-called third energy package. At least the foreign affairs committee of the previous Seimas had serious discussions and disagreements with the management of the Economy Ministry. However, if we want to play the EU power games at the same level [as big EU countries], we need a very big bureaucratic apparatus, something Germany and France have.
Yes, sometimes the odious things you have just mentioned do happen. It would be strange if there were no strange things. This is unavoidable. And it does not depend on the government. Life is life.
Not long ago, it was announced that France was likely to sell their Mistral naval vessel to Russia. It could be used in special offensive operations somewhere in the "near abroad." How do you view this decision by France?
The least they could do is explain. I agree with my colleague [Defense] Minister Rasa Jukneviciene, who said that we have to ask France to explain itself. From the formal point of view, and in the context of NATO, there are no legal acts or obligations that forbid France from doing that.
There are criteria for the export of weapons approved by the EU. According to them, weapons can be sold only to countries that observe the principle of not using one's power, who do not pose danger to their neighbors and EU members, and who do not violate human rights. France's decision in a way says that it believes that Russia is such a country. Can Lithuania accept such France's attitude towards Russia?
I agree with Jukneviciene that we need to ask our French friends to explain how they understand this situation. It is difficult to form a clear view from the separate media reports. I understand that Jukneviciene will try to clarify this issue with the French.
The Foreign Ministry will not get involved?
We have the defense minister's statement. It would be strange if all state institutions now started reacting and sending certain signals. On the other hand, if France shows so much trust in Russia, then perhaps Russia could cross out from its military doctrine a provision that NATO's expansion poses danger to Russia?
Will there be an adequate reaction to the steps taken by the French? Or will everything remain as it is?
I cannot say that the situation will remain the same, nor can I say that it will change. In any case, this story will generate some kind of reaction. I am certain these things will be discussed, but I do not want to speculate who and in what format would discuss them. We will see. The issue is very serious; this is the first time in NATO history that we’ve had such an incident. This is not just some aircraft violating the territory [an allusion to the incident when a Russian aircraft violated Lithuanian airspace several years ago].
Could we say that the United States is withdrawing from Europe and is shifting political priorities to the Middle East? There have been some public discussions about that. What consequences this could have for the world and Lithuania?
I think that the United States is not withdrawing from Europe, but it is focusing its attention on places where they are facing serious challenges. If I were in their shoes, I would have done the same. Where are the biggest challenges – in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or the Baltic countries? The place where U.S. soldiers die every day or the EU? On the other hand, we know that our partners are seriously engaged in plans to strengthen our security.
Do you have in mind the defense plan for the Baltic countries?
I have in mind what I have said. Among other things, there will be exercises organized together with our allies conducted in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.
Do you think that during the coming decades we will see a shift from the autocracy of the United States that has lasted for over two decades since the Cold War – and that has been seen as notorious by many – to the diarchy of the United States and China?
These two countries have strong financial ties, stronger than we may think. However, I believe in democracy and the free market. In this context, a democratic society has many advantages. And this means that the United States has this advantage against any developing undemocratic world power.
But China is catching up to the United States.
The practical values are free trade, free people, and a democratic society. It is these values that empower long-term successful growth.
Augusto Pinochet successfully boosted the economy in Chile without the aforementioned values.
And how did it end? Chile came back to where it started. An operation was carried out – I will not assess whether it was good or bad – and now Chile again has free elections. Chile is again a normal country. I think that as long as China and other undemocratic countries do not move towards democracy and respect for human rights and freedoms, they will never catch up with the most advanced democratic countries, such as the United States for example.
Source: Delfi website, Vilnius, in Lithuanian, 11 February 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment