Weekly Briefing, Vol. 24, No. 4 (LT), December 2019
Lithuania’s foreign policy continues along the proven course of strategic priorities defined by geopolitics
Despite the changing international environment, the year 2019 in Lithuania’s foreign policy has continued without significant changes. Though many speculated that some changes might be underway following the change of guards in the President’s office, yet the departure of President Dalia Grybauskaitė (who served two-terms at the helm of the country) and the election of President Gitanas Nausėda as her successor have not occasioned a change. Though the new President right from the start of his time in office has declared himself as the successor of President Valdas Adamkus (who served as President from 1998 to 2003 and from 2004 to 2009) rather than of President Grybauskaitė, yet it did not signal a change in foreign policy – just announced the new style of leadership. Below is a brief outline covering the President’s positions on the key foreign policy issues of the last year, trying to explain the drivers which keep the foreign policies of the country entrenched along the well-trodden strategic paths based on the geopolitical considerations at large.
Already the first steps of President Nausėda in office (his presidency started as of 12 July) bore remarkable similarities to those of President Grybauskaitė, especially concerning the neighbouring countries which are at the focus of Lithuania’s foreign policy brief, namely Belarus and Russia. In her initial years in office (the period of 2009-2010), President Grybauskaitė considered a possibility of a more open policy towards those countries, regardless of a problematic track-record of Lithuania‘s bilateral relations with both countries.
President Nausėda has taken a similar approach during the first half-a-year of his presidency. In September 2019, the President was put on record saying that “I believe relations with Belarus can be maintained and we will take steps to develop those relations even taking into account the fact that, nevertheless, everything remains the same on the Astravyets nuclear power plant.” The Astravyets power plant (which has been constructed by Russia’s Atomstroyexport and is due to become operational in January 2020) has become a thorny issue in Lithuania’s relations with Belarus. Lithuania decided to boycott the purchase of electricity generated by this power plant as all other avenues in stopping the construction of the plan were exhausted.
Though at the same time Lithuania has been keeping the doors open to continue the dialogue with Belarus. On 25 September, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Linas Linkevičius met with his Belarusian counterpart, Minister Vladimir Makey, on the occasion of the UN General Assembly in New York. He proposed Belarus to import oil through Lithuania to reduce its dependence on Russian energy resources. “We are interested in Belarus retaining its sovereignty, as far as possible,” Linkevičius said on occasion. “I believe that a dialogue between Belarus and the European Union should also help mitigate the situation that is now emerging.” Though Lithuania’s Minister of Foreign Affairs reiterated Vilnius’ demand that Belarus should comply with international safety requirements and allow the representatives of the European Commission to monitor the operations of the nuclear power plant, the domestic opposition (the Conservatives) found Linkevičius’ expressed position as too soft, inadequate to the circumstances and contradictory to the national interests.
According to Tomas Jakeliūnas, the author of his recently published book on the foreign policy of President Grybauskaitė, before her presidency “for more than a decade the strategic position of Lithuanian foreign policy was more than straightforward: to integrate more deeply into NATO and the EU, to seek the security guarantees from the United States and to contain the threats from Russia.” This narrowly defined remit of foreign policy suited the country during the transitory period of democracy-building. However, the ambitious President Dalia Grybauskaitė often, as the book on her presidency explained, took the initiative which ventured beyond the default rails of the foreign policy of the country. The more personal style of engagement in international relations at the highest level helped to achieve visibility and find new partners in the international arena. A somewhat similar approach has been pursued by President Nausėda, who, during the first half-a-year of being in office, has attempted to create and present a more personal style of leadership.
The strategic positions of the President on foreign policy became public on 12 December when he delivered a speech on foreign policy at the annual Lithuanian Foreign Policy Conference. In his speech, President Nausėda lent the support for the existing strategic approach, as mentioned above, by reiterating his strong belief in keeping the US further involved in the defense architecture of Europe (amidst the growing calls for strengthening the EU defense separately from the US) and increasing the military spending to reach 2,5% of GDP by 2030, as is foreseen. As regarding Russia, the President said that “Russia continues to be an immediate, long-term threat to the security of not only Lithuania but also the entire Euro-Atlantic space” and has confirmed his support to continuing the containment policy, including keeping the sanctions in place.
“We obviously cannot make the decision for others to return to the rules-based world order. Neither can we make Russia do it. What we can and must, however, is to respect our own decisions: not to legitimatize Russia’s illegal actions, to hold it accountable for the things it does and to safeguard the cornerstone of our existence as independent nation. Stabilization and normalization of relations cannot go against common values. Sanctions must stay in place until there is a fundamental change in Russia’s behaviour”, – said President Nausėda.
As concerning the relations with Belarus, the President has indicated a different stance, in contrast to that toward Russia. „From a broader Eastern Partnership perspective, we need to acknowledge that Belarus poses a distinctive challenge to us. I hold the position that Lithuania’s up-to-now foreign policy to isolate Belarus has not worked”, mentioned the President. At the same time, he acknowledged that “it does not mean that we are ready for an artificial warming-up of the relationship.” The President urged to stay “on the alert to see that the red lines we have set down are not crossed.”
More importantly, a new dimension to Lithuania’s foreign policy was included by the President’s mentioning of China. In his talk, the President mentioned the ongoing changes in the international space that ask to address China’s growing power in the world. President Nausėda said that “China seeks to change the existing international order and tailor it for its own needs. Therefore, together with our Euro-Atlantic partners, we need to work on a common response.” At the same time, he emphasized that “still, Lithuania does not see any obstacles for developing a constructive dialogue and bilateral economic ties with China, if they are not used to increase political tension.” The President added that “the relationship with China must be built on mutual respect for human rights and the rules-based international order. It cannot work against our national security and the common interests of the European Union”.
The President mentioned in his speech “the Lithuanian-China dilemma” but does not explicitly state what exactly constituted this dilemma. Instead, he said that “the Lithuania-China dilemma very clearly illustrates the challenges that the Lithuanian foreign policy faces today. We must promote respect for democracy and human rights at the moral level and assess the shifting balance of international powers in realistic terms. We must remain ourselves, and we must also work actively on the international stage to reach favorable decisions for Lithuania. We cannot afford the luxury of standing on the sidelines as passive onlookers”.
Thus, to round up the President’s annual address on foreign policy, three countries have been singled out as the countries on a watch list for Lithuania’s foreign policymakers: Russia, Belarus, and China. The President’s speech lends support to the view that Russia is a direct threat and Belarus – a potential source of threat (due to the nuclear power station and more closer integration with Russia). The President’s position towards China differs from a well-defined confrontational position towards Russia and the less confrontational one towards Belarus. The position toward China is ambiguous. China is presented here as an agent of change in international politics; the President expresses himself with caution and moderation when considering China.
The perception of the foreign policy field (as defined through the perceived and projected Lithuania’s relations to those three countries, as mentioned above) can be explained through the concept of the power of proximity. According to the recent research of Jonathan N. Markowitz and Christopher Farris, the states choose to develop power projection capabilities when they face a competitive geopolitical environment. The level of geopolitical competition a state faces is determined by three components: the relative economic power of other states, their geographic proximity, and the degree to which they possess compatible interests.
The level of geopolitical competition is partially a function of the relative economic power of other states in the system. Therefore, the more economically powerful other states in the global state-system are, the greater their ability to invest in military forces that are capable of threatening. Russia, in this case, provides the highest threat to Lithuania (whose small military footprint is compensated by NATO and, more visibly, strengthened through the NATO Enhanced Forward Presence force in Lithuania), as stated by the President.
The geographic proximity of other states and the degree to which they possess compatible or incompatible interests both influence the level of geopolitical competition. Thus, the level of geopolitical competition with Belarus is lower than with Russia due to the compatible interests shared with Lithuania, such as cross-border cooperation and the further engagement with the EU (as part of the EU Eastern Partnership policy). In May, Lithuania blocked the EU-Belarus agreements on partnership priorities leverage influence regarding the Astravyets nuclear power plant. Lithuania demanded Belarus to take into consideration the EU stress test recommendations when finalizing the construction of the Astravyets plant and preparing safety procedures.
Distance influences the degree to which states must consider the interests and capabilities of other states in the international system. Research on military competition and conflict has shown that there is a relationship between geographic proximity and conflict. According to the seminal work “Conflict and Defense: a General Theory” by K.E. Boulding, as distance increases, relative power decreases, because of the loss of strength gradient. Bruce Russett and John R. Oneal when addressing the interplay between democracy, economic interdependence and international mediation, argued that distance is the most important constraint on power projection. Thus, the countries which are distant from each other are not in geopolitical competition. Thus, a more ambiguous stance taken in relation to China which is separated from Lithuania by ca. 5000 km.
The geopolitical considerations which have been driven by Lithuania’s foreign policy led towards the creation of an extensive network of diplomatic representations of Lithuania around the world. The network of diplomatic service coupled with other means of public diplomacy (including the active partition in multilateral relations and international organizations) has helped the country to increase its significance in global politics. It is also reflected in the 2019 Global Diplomacy Index, where Lithuania is ranked as 31st of 36 OECD countries and 47th globally, surpassing many Central and Eastern European countries with exception of Poland (ranked as 19th), Hungary (22nd), and the Czech Republic (29th) which have larger diplomatic services and interests.
References:
- Jonathan N. Markowitz and Christopher J. Fariss, “Power, Proximity, and Democracy: Geopolitical Competition in the International System”, Journal of Peace Research, 55,1, pp. 78-93; https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343317727328
- Tomas Janeliūnas, Grybauskaitės doktrina: Lietuvos užsienio politikos kaita 2009–2019 (The doctrine of Dalia Grybauskaitė: the change of Lithuanian foreign policy in 2009-2019), Vilnius: Eugrimas, 2019
- President of the Republic of Lithuania, „Speech by President Gitanas Nausėda at the Annual Lithuanian Foreign Policy Conference“, 12 December, 2019; https://www.lrp.lt/en/media-center/news/speech-by-president-gitanas-nauseda-at-the-annual-lithuanian-foreign-policy-conference/33568
- Bruce Russett and John R. Oneal, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, the Norton Series in World Politics, New York: Norton, 2001.
- Lowy Institute, Global Diplomacy Index: 2019 Country Ranking; https://globaldiplomacyindex.lowyinstitute.org/country_rank.html