[ad_1]
“So far, we have been pleased to have a united and quite clear position, at least in the international arena, and the positions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the President do not differ here,” said Professor Tomas Janeliūnas of the Institute. of International Relations and Political Sciences (TSPMI).
“As long as it is a matter of domestic politics, it can be seen as a domestic balance of power or a game, and at the international level it can be a little more problematic, because then it is not very clear to foreign partners which direction we are turning and what coalition of values are we choosing, “he said.
TSPMI Associate Professor Kęstutis Girnius recalled the conflict between Vygaudas Ušackas, former Foreign Minister, and then-President Dalia Grybauskaitė, which ended with the removal of V. Ušackas, also highlighting the importance of coordinating positions.
According to him, the situation in which it is not clear who is “the person speaking on behalf of Lithuania” complicates the country’s relations with other states.
“There are internal political disputes that do not paint Lithuania in the most positive colors. They show that Lithuanian politicians cannot agree on even some key issues,” he said.
According to Rima Urbonaitė, a political scientist at Mykolas Romeris University, this case raises the question of whether Lithuania’s foreign policy will not be “applied on various train tracks” if the coordination of positions continues to decline.
On Thursday, the president refused to sign a bill of rights for the LGBTQ community by the leaders of some European Union countries.
Earlier this week, many of the same countries expressed “serious concerns” about the law passed in Hungary in a joint letter. Lithuania signed this letter, which was made by Deputy Foreign Minister Arnoldas Pranckevičius.
The decision is not unexpected
According to political scientists, the president’s decision not to sign the petition is not unexpected in itself, as Lithuania has not yet paid much attention to the problems of the LGBTQ community.
“We ourselves are not very advanced in the field of LGBT rights compared to Poland itself or other countries in the region. Therefore, I think that the leaders of the European Union are not used to seeing Lithuania as a leader on this issue, ”said T. Janeliūnas.
Therefore, according to him, a major change from the usual position of Lithuania is the current efforts of the ruling majority on this issue.
K. Girnius pointed out that this decision by G. Nausėda was not noticed in the foreign media, so it is not clear to what extent his position was expressed in the European Council.
“I think that G. Nausėda dedicates this message more to Lithuanian domestic politics than to Lithuanian foreign policy. It is a way of informing voters that he is determined to defend traditional values,” said the political scientist.
Meanwhile, R. Urbonaitė lacked a clear argument as to why G. Nausėda chose that position. According to her, statements that “problems are not solved with letters” or that other leaders are not familiar with the criticized Hungarian law do not sufficiently explain the president’s position.
“The president should be able to explain each of his decisions with arguments. Otherwise, there are unwanted interpretations, which are also unpleasant for the president,” he said.
The tension does not subside
Political scientists say this case shows once again the tension that has existed for some time between the rulers and the Presidency over who should represent Lithuania in the European Council (EVS).
“We can see that the tensions between the rulers and the presidency are not diminishing. Although last week the decision was made to withdraw from the EVS issue and it was said that there will be a pause until the fall, now this pause is filled with other episodes , which still do not allow to alleviate tensions ”, says R. Urbonaitė.
According to T. Janeliūnas, at the moment both sides are reacting quite aggressively, and this case shows that this is beginning to make it difficult to coordinate positions.
According to him, although the president is not obliged to obtain a mandate from the government and can act at his own discretion, he is removed from criticism from politicians and the public.
“You cannot get any formal denial from the government, but the public and other politicians can criticize you during that public debate, and that is also a cost, a result that you must evaluate: how much it will cost you politically inside Lithuania,” says the political scientist.
According to him, although the conflict over representation in the EVS was initiated by the conservatives, the current presidency “in some cases is not responding adequately” and is likely to return to the political agenda in the autumn.
[ad_2]
