You are on page 1of 13

     

Recent Lithuanian Debates  on Lithuania‘s Foreign Policy
«Recent Lithuanian Debates  on Lithuania‘s Foreign Policy»

       

by Raimundas Lopata

         
The following ad supports maintaining our C.E.E.O.L. service 

Source: Lithuanian Foreign Policy Review (Lithuanian Foreign Policy Review), issue: 22 / 2009, pages: 160­171, on www.ceeol.com.

 

 

“The success story” caused a stir both in Lithuania and in the world. Yet in 2003.. 6. Vilnius: Eugrimas. Lopatologija: apie politinį popsą (Lopatology: on political pop). Nr. in the present-day Lithuania we would encounter at least several such instances that are directly related to the country’s foreign policy. In the last analysis. Lithuania rejected an array of visions of neutrality and set a course for EuroAtlantic integration and development of good-neighbourly relations. There were collisions on “the Baltic way” to Europe or “Polish springboard” to the Euro-Atlantic space as well as efforts to control attempts at destruction of the aforementioned integration altogether. NATO and the EU. 1995. The first instance dates back to 1993-1994 when.1 At any time one must consider both the strengths and the weaknesses of the nation. Vilnius: Pradai. Raimundas Lopata is a Professor at Institute of International Relations and Political Science. It could not be said that Lithuania is oblivious to this truth. 2003. P. „Lietuvos geopolitinis kodas” (“Lithuania’s geopolitical code”) Politologija. voices were heard asking whether “the success story” would be a happy one and would not turn into a tragedy.lopata@tspmi. P.3 By doing so they did not appeal solely to the specific form the international relations took: * Prof. Vilnius University. One is to lose your heart’s desire. 17–18. 3 Lopata R. The other is to gain it. This strategic line by no means meant that the debates on the country’s foreign policy had died off. Diplomatija (Diplomacy).2 All this seems to have been crossed over in 2004. Lopata R. P. gaining the world’s recognition. 2005. and making alien troops withdraw. Not surprisingly. 18. That year the strategic goals were achieved.lt 1 2 Kissinger H.” It is this truth that Henry Kissinger reminded about after the USA had won the Cold War. upon restoring its independence. Email: raimundas.Distributed by CEEOL 160 RECENT DEBATE ON LITHuANIA’S FOREIGN POLICY Raimundas Lopata* George Bernard Shaw once spoke about two kinds of tragedy: “There are two tragedies in life. Žalys V. .vu. 146–159. its history abounds in both types of tragedy. prior to the official membership in collective Euro-Atlantic structures.

cyclic hot lines Moscow-Washington. as far as possible. opening a gate to the Russian transit. eagerness of Russian energy capital to find a way into the West. Moscow-Paris. Lithuania’s accession to NATO and the EU seemed to serve as evidence to the prospect of a stronghold to the West. the then Western CIS States (Ukraine. Historians entered the debate to immediately remind that Lithuania experienced a similar situation in the 18th century when Europe’s need for Russia resulted in Lithuania becoming a wayside inn. According to the second pattern. ambiguity.. This role would reveal itself through maximally rapid and fully legitimate integration in Western structures and encouraging. the “political activities”. and particularly Moscow-Berlin. which would enable Vilnius to move further away from the periphery boundary. cit. . and perhaps Moldova) to be geared to the West thus forming a certain embankment. One of them saw Lithuania as a stronghold for the West and at the same time. indeterminacy of the concepts of friends and enemies. gave food for the thought that Lithuania was becoming a certain overlapping area for Western and Eastern structures. that a discussion concerning the role of the so-called geopolitical status of Lithuania arose. note was made of the fact that the situation that was forming at the time could mean something different from what the projected patterns implied. P. – Op. Russia itself.4 In addition. etc. For example. However. 148. Attention was paid to a number of peculiarities of geopolitical planning. it was argued that there might be at least four patterns of behaviour Lithuania could follow upon its accession to Euro-Atlantic institutions. i.Recent Debate on Lithuania’s Foreign Policy 161 at the basis of those relations lay uncertainty. On the other hand. of this and similar capital.e. Some essentially stated that the country might assume the role of a regional leader that would be ensured by “special relations” with the USA (at 4 Lopata R. albeit influenced by serious events in Central Europe. a bridge that was by no means the outcome of solely Lithuania’s will. Lithuania was to encounter itself in a privileged position between the West and the East. This would enable Lithuania to conduct active regional policy and possibly to transform the East. it is in this context. its periphery. frequently overt. disappearance of many state insignia. Belarus.

etc.Paulauskas at Vilnius University “The new foreign policy of Lithuania” 2004 05 24. Lithuania’s active institutional involvement in collective EuroAtlantic structures was advocated as well as its engagement in active support of the EU and NATO enlargement policy.6 Implementation tools were also foreseen. let alone ensuring further progress of the country. when the country already had Valdas Adamkus as its new leader. In spring 2004 the country’s temporary President Arturas Paulauskas announced the beginning of a new approach to Lithuanian foreign policy which. by means of an agreement of the country’s political parties “On the country’s major foreign policy goals and objectives for the period 2004-2008” was formalized in October of the same year. although it would hardly become an idea mobilizing the nation. nevertheless demonstrated that the Euro-Atlantic membership program had already contributed to realization by the majority of political forces that the boundary between home affairs and foreign policy was no longer distinguishable. a centre that unites cultures and civilizations”. with more active involvement of the country’s diplomats and representatives of the academic community.5 The negotiations over the text of the agreement. 2004 10 05. This gave rise to commitment to Lithuania as an active and respected modern state. and fostering collaboration between Russia. For instance. Speech given by Temporary President A. 2004 10 05.lt/onephtml?id=4994>. an agreement of the political parties of the Republic of Lithuania “On the country’s major foreign policy goals and objectives for the period 2004-2008”. though insipid. The work was to be continued. 6 5 Agreement of the political parties of the Republic of Lithuania “On the major goals and objectives of the foreign policy of the country for the period 2004-2008”. the spirit of tolerance and collaboration. Others preached that Lithuania could just well be a “golden province of Europe” (these kindly reminded of the words of France’s President Jacques Chirac on the missed opportunity to keep silent). which took place at the VU International Relations and Political Science Institute.Raimundas Lopata 162 that time it was seen as comprehensive aid to Washington in its war with Iraq). Ukraine. In particular. <http://paulauskas. Moldova and the South Caucasus on the one hand with the EU and NATO on the other. It should be acknowledged that the debates of the time that emerged in Lithuania’s official foreign policy left a large footprint still discussed. Vilnius. . Vilnius.president. Belarus. the parties agreed that “Lithuania can achieve this goal by becoming an active and appealing centre of interregional collaboration that disseminated Euro-Atlantic values.

2005. over the decision of the country’s President in May 2005 not to go to Moscow. In other words. It has to be acknowledged that Lithuanian politicians of the time took little interest in the quest for this particular niche. integration into the collective Euro-Atlantic structures. All this meant that there were no paradigmatic discussions over Lithuania’s foreign policy.e. while at the same time “harnessing” Russia and weakening its influence in the post-Soviet space. Janeliūnas T. Specifically Lithuania sought to lessen its vulnerability by enhancing integration ties between Eastern European states on the one hand and the EU and NATO on the other. The implementation of Lithuania’s foreign Eastern policy was essentially to become the main guideline: it was sought to raise questions pertaining to the domain of Eastern policy in the main Western structures and to find effective influence mechanisms towards Russia.. over the Nord Stream gas-pipe in 2005-2006.7 Since about 2007 considerations of specific issues of Lithuania’s foreign policy have started to transcend into the paradigmatic domain. to be the “center of the region”). „Gegužės 9-osios problema saugumizavimo teorijos ir komunikacinio saugumo požiūriu”. So what has stipulated the revival of the interest in foreign policy? One of Lithuanian politicians has given the following answer: “It seemed as if we had to rejoice back in 2004 – we had joined NATO and accessed to the EU. 3–30. there were debates over Ukraine’s Orange Revolution and relevant Lithuania’s actions in the late 2004. This was not to mean that there was no discussion on individual events in Lithuania’s foreign policy.Recent Debate on Lithuania’s Foreign Policy 163 To tell the truth. a more careful examination of the aforementioned tools and their balance revealed that the agreement was an attempt to outline the guidelines that would facilitate Lithuania’s quest for a specific niche in EuroAtlantic structures. Nr. or at least the content of the “region centre”. and so on. 2 (38). for instance. to be “a golden province”) and what an alternative to such withdrawal from the EU foreign affairs meant – to find in them a niche and establish oneself in it (taken more seriously. (“The 9th of May issue” from the perspectives of securitization and communicative security”) Politologija. what it meant to trust in the common EU competency. while our relations with neighbours were demonstrated everywhere 7 See. i. The aforementioned issues were dealt with following the earlier momentum to defend a national interest. for example. to withdraw from foreign affairs and to engage primarily in the resolution of one’s own internal problems (seriocomically. it was not fully realized. . For example. P.

Pociūnas in Belarus.. „Vasario 16-ajai artėjant. Nobody had developed a new foreign policy strategy. but there was nothing to carry on. the concern being whether this policy was not merely a course “back to Russia”. i. 2009 02 08. a comprehensive albeit rather academic. However. However considerations grew in scale when several tendencies became clearly manifest. <http://www.e. In recent years politics has become more complicated: NATO and the EU did not fulfill or did not fulfill instantaneously the expectations of well-being and security. This aggravation was brought about by the death of the Lithuanian state security officer V. Some of its components were even being considered at several round-table discussions. and the EU was not like patching holes.Raimundas Lopata 164 as an example of a well-established policy. the project has been executed. One might think that all there was to do was to carry on. Euro-Atlantic and European policies and ultimately.. essentially to US interests. Although the document itself had never been publicized. the active regional policy Lithuania had been conducting in the East since spring 2004 started to raise doubts in the public space in the latter half of 2006. but a factual withdrawal from the sphere of influence of the East. for the strategic objectives as defined by Sajudis had been accomplished. the idea of the region centre gave rise to a great number of discussions. It was in the latter half of 2006-early 2007 that the political situation in Lithuania aggravated. Kokios užsienio politikos mums reikia?“ (“In the run-up to February 16th.lt/archive/article. Yet it was a permanent decision of two loyalties whose criterion was not a formal. What foreign policy do we need?”). php?id=20479127>. Let us note in passing that it was Vareikis E. It soon became a convenient pretext for not only settling internal political accounts. 8 .delfi. the relations with neighbours turned out to be changing quickly due to changes in those neighbouring countries. was indeed created. Let us say. document. Therefore foreign policy was undoubtedly a success. NATO was not a security guarantee. a few years were enough to better understand the paradigm “both NATO and the EU”. questions pertaining to the domain of Lithuania’s Eastern and Western policies as well as their intercorrelation. but also for drawing them into the context of the country’s foreign policy. It was not though like frying eggs from two eggs. and those who had to were busy with trifles and analysis of individual cases…”8 One must do justice and note that Lithuania’s foreign policy strategy. a covert sacrifice of Lithuanian interests to EuroAtlanticism. On the other hand.

from the long-term perspective. 2007 m. can hardly be accomplished. having regarded some of the statements by Lithuanian leaders about the Eastern neighbour or West-Russia partnership as scandalous. Akiračiai. This is why it is quite arguable whether the forces in the Western and Eastern fronts have been distributed correctly. In his opinion. should our policy become “more tender”?9 The impetus that gave rise to these questions can be found in the article “Naujoji Lietuvos užsienio politikos vizija” (“The new vision of Lithuania’s foreign policy”) published by historian and political scientist Česlovas Laurinavičius in the aforementioned “Akiračiai”. i. particularly in the Western part of that space. 1.. and Lithuania had aired considerations on discontinuing transit to the Kaliningrad region of Russian Federation. the goals set for Ukraine. 9 . to contribute to the development of democracy in the CIS space and to direct the political organisms that had formed. The West also started to look at Lithuania’s efforts with a jaundiced eye. viz. i. the state should withdraw from active regional policy altogether and maintain pragmatic relations with Russia. and was Lithuania’s international isolation so apparent? Is the development of democracy in the East a problematic issue due to the fact that this space does not belong to Western civilization? To what extent does Lithuania take into consideration US interests implementing Eastern policy.e. Laurinavičius criticized the vectors of Lithuania’s Eastern policy. Nr. such Vilnius’ efforts have significantly deteriorated relations with Moscow. to encourage their alienation from Russia.Recent Debate on Lithuania’s Foreign Policy 165 in the mid-2006 that the relations with Russians aggravated after Russians had decided to interrupt oil supply to Mazeikiai. sausio mėn.. and are not the latter neglected for the sake of US interests? Should the policy toward Russia be modified. “Ar Lietuvai reikia naujos užsienio politikos?“ (“Does Lithuania need a new foreign policy?”). Regarding Lithuanian policy as an attempt to destroy Russia. Georgia.e. to the West. and to what extent does it consider its own interests. let alone Belarus. Thus in January 2007 the editorial staff of the weekly “Akiračiai” (“Horizons”) suggested discussing the following: was the division between Lithuania and Western Europe countries becoming increasingly evident due to the Eastern policy implemented by our country. Moscow has intensified its imperial pressure. Therefore. Moldova.. Similarly.

This war of civilizations was also lost in the late 18th c. a version of the national state through ties with Russia (USSR) again turned a failure. thus failures absorbing EU financial flows make one give preference to roundabout routes. Lithuania announced many a time that the main objective of the state was to project and disseminate security and stability. through Belarus and South Caucasus. it would oblige other democratic powers to provide it with defense and protection. Yet besides values. and. Nr. the world is also based on interests. following the Union with Poland intentions were made to subject Russia to the West. In the first half of the 20th c. Some maintain that the highroad to better life is through integration in the EU by means of a better disposition of funds and perfect financial prospects. It is only argued about how to attain it. However. This suggestion also rested on a historical interpretation. dukes of the Lithuanian state essentially started to compete with Moscovian rulers on who would unite Russia and lost. according to which Lithuania’s will to identify itself with Russia’s issues had only brought tragedies onto Lithuania: after the collapse of the Kievan Rus. . This is why being a democratic state Lithuania had to be useful. March 29. „Apie Lietuvos santykius su Minsku“ (“On Lithuania’s relations with Minsk”). or the so-called sphere of Russia’s historical influence. 13. 2007. too. for instance. rather. It is not by accident that both NATO and EU Eastern policy makers pay great 10 Lopata R. in a manner similar to that of Finland and Turkey. 29. This critique garnered approximately the following response. it increases Lithuania’s reliability in the democratic world. This meant that primarily Lithuania had to be a democratic state itself. once again is adjacent to Russia’s problems. and essentially to promote the expansion of democratic structures beyond its (EU and NATO) borders. secure and respecting human dignity. Others state that there may be traffic jams even on highways. and the restored Lithuanian statehood in the late 20th c. It could be useful only provided that it paid its tribute to the expansion of democracy to the East. Thus active engagement does not limit the expansion of democracy in the East. it was suggested that Lithuania and its national statehood should organically refrain from Russia’s issues. Veidas. through Ukraine.Raimundas Lopata 166 Shortly speaking. primarily. by means of this valuable existence. and finally. to the territory of the former USSR. P.10 The strategic goal of Lithuania’s foreign policy is life in Europe that is good. Moldova.

The maximum version of Grand Duchy of Lithuania would be restored. laying the path for GDL to become a geopolitical agenda. In this way it would be possible to project gas and oil pipelines from Azerbaijan via Georgia. Paradoxically. Ukraine and eventually in the South Caucasus. but even the opponents of this view acknowledged that. “Neutral” from the value point of view. while demanding to maintain pragmatic relations with Russia. the Black Sea. equality of interests in exchange for that of impending threats. and expands its spacial coordinates. Besides.Recent Debate on Lithuania’s Foreign Policy 167 attention to Vilnius’ opinion. This is why it is not surprising that interdependence networks built on this principle are dangerous for they can “burst” anytime and anywhere. „Senosios ir naujosios Lietuvos susitikimai”(“Meetings of Old and New Lithuania”). Lithuania’s efforts to share its experience are favourably met in Moldova. Ukraine. the opponents argued. 6. Nr. the meaning of the GDL component for the geopolitical trend of Lithuania towards Ukraine. but also with Poland as well as Ukraine and Belarus (Guda).11 The activization of the heritage of Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) has become its basis and a juxtaposition to ethnocentrism: both a network and a movement of the aristocracy (witnesses of the “past of the alive” for Lithuania and GDL that symbolized a new identity of open Lithuania. a quest for the scattered Lithuania’s heritage in Poland and Eastern and Western Europe as well as support of the virtual restitution or. was that the implementation of Bumblauskas A.. 2007. The main problem. Yet “recognition” did not come easy. to put it in other words. these considerations were aroused by history as a phenomenon that modernizes. europenizes. This is why it becomes impossible to define “values” of individual interests and hence to recognize one’s own “true” interests. 6. Belarus and Poland. 11 . from the theoretical viewpoint. which it would be worthy to keep and advocate. viz. P. In the past Russia posited threat to Lithuania because of its restorative-imperial goals. this is why aid to states found inbetween the EU and Russia to a certain extent forestalls Russian imperialism and assists Russia in locating the boundaries of its own state. and Belarus to Lithuania. In the last analysis. cultural partnership not only with Scandinavia. There would even be no need for Poland. this principle never reveals the motives and reasons determining the commonality of interests. the main principle of such relations has to be remembered. drawing Belarus and Ukraine to the Western camp could be of great significance for Lithuania. Kultūros barai.

However. and it will be clear that this idea is but a myth.Raimundas Lopata 168 this endeavour was sought not through the geopolitical code “Westward ho!” but rather through the code “back to Russia”. Of course. It is obvious that at the core of the debate is the issue of the geopolitical function (or role) of Lithuania. while its doors are open”..delfi. i.php?id=15049673> Nekrašas E. it does not really know how to look for them. as they indeed adequately demonstrate the present direction of the debates over Lithuanian foreign policy.e. <http://www.12 Example 2. “the region centre” is a peculiar geopolitical function which will be vital as long as CIS countries are lively interested in the EU. „Ar tikrai metas laidoti regiono centro idėją?“ (“Is it really time to bury the idea of the region’s centre?”) 2007 11 19. 142.lt/archive/article..13 Please bear with these lengthy quotations. the basis of Lithuania’s foreign policy has to rest on its policy towards the West”. in the context of the geopolitical axis West-East. 13 12 . It is this discussion that was shortly labelled as the debate between the adherents of “the center of the region” and those of “the golden province”. From here follow our other declared interests. details can be added: is policy towards Georgia substantially reasonTalat-Kelpša L. Example 1. „Kritiniai pamąstymai apie Lietuvos užsienio politiką” (“Critical considerations on Lithuania’s foreign policy”) Politologija. and. to tell the truth. and “Western” interests in the “East”. Lithuania can hardly find supporters of its ideas in the European Union. Even though this is a foreign policy idea. According to our terms. Natural neighbourhood with both Central and Northern Europe let us employ far more instruments to disseminate “Eastern” interests in the “West”. Lithuania declares itself as the region centre. Nr. “The idea of Lithuania being the region centre and leader is rather megalomaniac.. 139. European attraction (if not dimmed by other attraction centres) is our greatest ally. 2009. 2 (54).. viz. “Lithuania may distinguish itself in that so far it is the only Baltic State that has referred to itself as the “center of the region” and announced intentions to enhance these positions. that the EU is united and is strong both politically and economically. Eastern policy and relations with Russia in particular are of great importance to Lithuania.. it is primarily intended for exclusively internal use. At first glance this is done in the traditional manner. It is also obvious that attempts are made to resolve it. Yet suffice it to ask whether there is a single country of the “region” that sees Lithuania as “the region centre”. Below are a few more recent examples. P.

<http://www. 2008 12 03. <http://www.lt/archive/ article. „Diplomatijoje nebūna nei amžinos pergalės.delfi. <http://www. 27 (820). „E.lt/straipsnis/10236844/?Donkichotiska. „Ar Lietuva Baltijos diplomatinis tigras?” (“Is Lithuania a diplomatic tiger of the Baltics?”) 2009 03 30.php?id=20520054>.php?id=20906532>.php?id=20517419>.lt/archive/article. <http://www. Su kuo tai valgoma?“ (“Pragmatism.delfi.centre=2007-06-13_1511>. „Ar įmanoma pragmatiška politika Rusijos atžvilgiu?“ (“Is pragmatic policy toward Russia feasible?”) 2009 01 12.alfa. <http://www.lt/archive/article.alfa. „Kokios užsienio politikos mums reikia?“ (“What kind of foreign policy do we need?”) 2009 02 11. (“In diplomacy there is neither eternal victory nor eternal defeat”) 2008 05 13.tigras. „Karosas siūlo reviziją”. Ronkaitis G.Zingeris – Lithuania’s Eastern policy – the lesson of the 1940s”) 2008 05 27.php?id=21341703>.ir. <http://www. „V.15 what is pragmatism and values in foreign policy (as if the classical definition of pragmatism by William James – worth. (“Mission impossible” in the centre of Europe”) 2007 06 13.delfi. (“On Lithuanian character and “value” policy”) 2009 03 09. (“Four questions to the prospective president on Lithuania’s foreign policy”) 2009 04 01. Nr. <http://www.misija. „Kabutės – Kiberkaras”. „Du pragmatikų veidai”.php?id=21265070>.lt/straipsnis/10266217/?Ar. (“V.=2009-03-30_07-50>. Makaraitytė I.php?id=21084486>. Saldžiūnas V. (“Karosas proposes inspection”) 2008 05 27.delfi.14 can Lithuania have pragmatic policy towards Russia. Dambrauskaitė Ž. II)”.alfa. Zingeris: Lietuvos Rytų politika – 1940-ųjų pamoka”.Lietuva.politika=2008-11-17_08-14>. (“Don Quichotes foreign ans security policy”) 2008 11 17.Recent Debate on Lithuania’s Foreign Policy 169 able and “just”. 2008 10 08. <http://www.delfi. „Apie trumparegystę ir drąsą Lietuvos Rytų politikoje”.lt/archive/article. Sirijos Gira V.lt/archive/article. Vaitiekūnas P.delfi. <http://www.php?id=17178730>.alfa. (“Misguided paths substantiated by “values”) 2009 02 11.lt/archive/article.delfi. Nr. Girnius K. (“E.17 what role does history play in the country’s foreign policy?18 Yet this is not going to change the core of the matter. Laurinavičius M.lt/archive/ article. <http://www. „Apie lietuvišką charakterį ir „vertybinę“ politiką (I. Girnius K. „Ko trokšta Lietuva?“ (“What does Lithuania wish?”) Lietuvos rytas.lt/archive/article.php?id=18804212>. Landsbergis V. <http://www.lt/archive/article. <http://www. <http://www. <http://www.php?id=20030816>. 2009 04 06.. (“Two pragmatists’ faces”) Lietuvos Rytas. <http://www. Digryte E.lt/straipsnis/140319/?Neimanoma.php?id=16315699> Karosas J.delfi.16 does Europe understand Lithuania.php?id=17185921>. 28 (821).had been forgotten). „Vertybėmis“ grindžiamos politikos klystkeliai”. What’s it about?”) 2009 03 20. performance and usefulness . „Keturi klausimai būsimam prezidentui apie Lietuvos užsienio politiką”.(“On short-sightedness and bravery in Lithuania’s Eastern policy”) 2008 03 15. 2009 07 04. „Pragmatizmas. Adamkaus užsienio poezija”.lt/archive/article.delfi.lt/straipsnis/10269418/?KabutesKiberkaras=2009-04-20_13-55> Kasčiūnas L. 16 15 14 For a discussion between Secretary of Lithuania’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Laimonas Talat-Kelpša and political observer Kęstučio Griniaus as well as its assessment. 17 Ališauskas V.php?id=17013317>. 18 . delfi. 2009 07 11. Baltijos. „Neįmanoma misija“ Europos centre”.lt/archive/article.uzsienio. „Donkichotiška užsienio ir saugumo politika”.Europos.delfi. <http://www.Adamkus’s foreign policy”) Respublika. What is it?”).delfi. and how could it get the relations between Vilnius and Moscow back to normal.lt/archive/article. J. Kas tai?“ (“Pragmatic foreign policy. Misiūnas T. „Pragmatiška užsienio politika. nei amžino pralaimėjimo”. see: Lopata R.saugumo. Landsbergis V. Girnius K.diplomatinis. (“Quotation marks – Cyberwar”) 2009 04 20.

may be sought in several ways. realistic. 14. Žalys V. pro-American. Moreover. Upon presenting these conclusions. and unrealistic”) 2008 09 18. „Lietuvos užsienio politika: hyperaktyvi. the Nordic. In the second instance we are dealing with a historical complex of political and legal. You decide whether it is good or not. i. Let me remind of the basics. The Brits have defined the three countries as follows: smart Estonia (small yet nimble. 20 . Latvia and Lithuania that emerged in the autumn 2008 and later were used by a Lithuanian political observer. North-European identity).e. ambitious Lithuania (abnormally active. a Lithuanian political observer stated the following: “This is how it is. <http://www.. Since we are speaking about adequate foreign policy of any country. and political culture of the state that determines the will of the state. In the quest for differences that had stipulated the foreign policies of the Baltic States and paying particular attention to Lithuania.20 The concept of the geopolitical code that in practice is disseminated at the local. they have already been suggested. its power. (“Lithuania’s foreign policy: hyperactive. cit. while membership in the collective Euro-Atlantic structures was but another impulse for the ambitious direction of the foreign policy. let us have in mind the dependence of this policy on objective parameters – the geographical situation of the state. yet frequently confused with the gravitation concept. based on the considerations of British analysts on the foreign policies of Estonia. It is these parameters that define what geopolitical code of the country will be implemented by foreign-policy-makers and executives. P. an e-state. modest Latvia (historically logical). In the first instance subjective phenomena dominate. social and cultural phenomena..alfa.”19 The second way may be referred to as classical. the country’s perspective is primarily determined by the political will.. One of them may be referred to as the Baltic-comparative answer.Raimundas Lopata 170 It looks like the answer to the question: what is Lithuania’s foreign policy and what should it be like? . regional and global levels is close to the concept of political orientation. In 19 Račas A. partnership with Poland.lt/straipsnis/ c88665> Lopata R. the Brits explained that Lithuanian politicians of both the period interim the wars and after the end of the Cold War always sought to sustain the GDL vision.. markedly pro-American). proamerikietiška ir nerealistiška”. – Op. which determines natural drift of the state.

21 An analysis of this nature clearly demonstrates that (critically) adequate debates on the country’s foreign policy can disseminate only in and integrated society with a sociopolitical focus.Recent Debate on Lithuania’s Foreign Policy 171 an ideal world these processes coincide. P. Lopata R. However. This key to the complicated character of Lithuania’s foreign policy may be (found) in the specific nature of national identity and foreign policy relations. 21 Laurinavičius Č. 2009.. yet no there is no support found for that search. 91–122. . „Kritinis požiūris į Lietuvos užsienio politiką: kas pasikeitė nuo Augustino Voldemaro laikų?“ (“A critical look on Lithuania’s foreign policy: What has changed since Augustine Voldemars’ times?”) Politologija. Sirutavičius V. 2 (54). Nr.. the current debates over Lithuania’s foreign policy demonstrate that this is the ideal that is being looked for.