NATO and Lithuania

Speech by Chairman of the Seimas Vytautas Landsbergis
at the international conference
“ NATO after 50 Years: the New Old Alliance”
Vilnius, 31 May 1999

Your Excellency President of the Republic of Lithuania,
President Algirdas Brazauskas,
Marshal of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland,
Excellencies Ambassadors and Ministers,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

In the latter several years, as the North Atlantic Alliance was approaching its 50th anniversary, new firm intentions of the organisation matured, became visible and were realised. Both of the most important developments directly concern Lithuania, the secure future we are seeking for: the geographical enlargement of NATO and the change of NATO ideology.

The first intention is the enlargement of NATO. It includes the principle of the openness of the organisation, a real possibility to accept new members - democratic states wishing to make their contribution to the international security, international stability in military and other fields of the ever-growing Euro-Atlantic area. The criteria of the preparation for joint defence and peace keeping encourage the applicant states to be a party to sincere and coherent partnership. Thus, yet before acceding to the Alliance, they are already involved in joint efforts, and adequate readiness for membership is a fair criterion evident to everyone.

The second intention of NATO is the change of the ideology of the Alliance covering the objectives and methodology. The territorial defence (when the territories of the member states are added up) is broadened with a move towards the task of protecting a broader international environment. This extends beyond the protection of NATO member states themselves from direct aggression by undertaking the surveillance and stabilisation of their international environment, preventive protection against the emergence, escalation or approaching of aggression.

What do these changes have to do with Lithuania?

We are concerned with NATO openness as a real thing, as a continuous non-stop  process.  Especially in Central Europe, from the Baltic to the Adriatic Sea, yet in further perspective, noticing the aspirations of the South Caucasian states, - nonetheless, certainly, we are primarily concerned with NATO openness in the direction of Lithuania.

Lithuanian policies themselves perceive this as the second stage of the liberation with further implementation of the principle of the freedom of choice and unquestionable, unrestricted national freedom.

A decade ago, we voiced our free will to leave the area of captivity.

It is our will now to leave the area of insecurity and instability. Leave for what? - Surely, for the area of stability, and its name is NATO. Insecurity always breeds fear, mistrust, and fair again is a half of the captivity.

We do not want anybody to threaten or intimidate us or deny us the right to choose.

We want freedom from insecurity and we want to freely take on the obligation of the member of the Alliance to the international security.

In this course, we had to get ready for mutual meeting: Lithuania had to make economic and military preparations, while NATO had to prepare itself psychologically and politically. I think, we assisted each other.

The years 1996 and 1997 witnessed a positive breakthrough, a step towards new transparency of thinking.

The Madrid document, which declares an imminent accession of the three Central European states, designates the Baltic States as ‘aspiring members’. Thus, still under a generalised title, still in the ‘Baltic basket’ (after the individually identified Slovenia and Romania), nevertheless, the word ‘members’ is already used - three future members, given the Madrid document is read by literate people.

The NATO-Russian Partnership Act signed at the same time meant that Moscow is getting rid of the old xenophobic mentality and accepting decisions taken in Madrid.

Meanwhile, the Baltic-American Quadripartite Charter and legislation passed in the US (to provide financial support to the preparations of the Baltic States for NATO membership) expressly strengthened our positions. Lithuania, being convinced of this priority, has regularly multiplied its efforts directed at the military compatibility, and by early 1999 has become a publicly acknowledged leader among the Baltic States, according to the readiness criteria.

In this spirit, the Washington summit came, where I discern two further steps forward.

First, the document, which characterises applicant states, entitled by names in a straight order. Two from the Southern flank and three from the Northern one are characterised as the best ones, under identical labels; thus, they make up the group of the five leading countries. In alphabetical order, they are Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia. Then follows the second group with a different label - Bulgaria, Slovakia, and yet further - Albania, Macedonia.

According to this list, either all five of the leading states, or some of them which are more leading than the others can expect to be invited to accede NATO in the year 2000.

Alongside the document, an important step forward was the Washington atmosphere. Some of the issues are no more debated, they are bound to be true. The enlargement is underway, and it will not be stopped. Three new members mean three new votes in favour of not stopping the enlargement. If you want, they are three experts who feel on their own skin what is security and insecurity in the post-Soviet area.

Even the Russian generals, in their turn, are beginning to apprehend the reality, the fact that NATO is expanding and will keep on expanding, and that Lithuania will be accepted.

In the period between Madrid and Washington, even more clear-cut position about membership criteria was shaped. They are not geography, not group ‘baskets’, but individual achievements and actual readiness to shoulder a part of the common responsibility.

This way, the Washington atmosphere left the Atlantic reasoning with the inscriptions of the following names of the countries best fulfilling the membership criteria: Lithuania and Slovenia, or Slovenia, Lithuania and Slovakia.

The events in the Balkans can broaden this circle, however, this should not mean that the key criteria and the principal openness to all the ready ones are given up. This is evidenced by the approved Membership Action Plan (MAP) too.

On the other hand, the Balkans events, even more that the end of the Cold War, have ripened the internal ideological transformation of NATO. This is, first and foremost, the conception that NATO is the alliance for the protection of not only territories, but also values, maybe in essence, it is the alliance for the defence of values. It defends the democracy and cannot be indifferent to mass inhumanity, military violence against civilian population, phenomena of genocide.

Unable to stay aloof and having exhausted all the possibilities of persuasion and negotiations, the Alliance inevitably stands up to the states perpetrating and accepting genocide.

Today NATO stands up to Serbia, to the Hitler of the Balkans.  As long as Russia advocates Slobodan Milosevic and the regime of Belgrade without denouncing the brutal expelling of a million of Albanians from their native villages, Russia, unfortunately, remains on the different side of the value line than the Western democracies.

This was the choice of Russia itself, maybe spontaneous, but still a step towards self-isolation from Europe, from Russia’s partner - the North Atlantic Alliance, refraining even from participation in the latter’s fiftieth anniversary.

The criminal regime received a political support, which could not prevent Belgrade from repeated crime of ‘ethnic cleansing’, but rather encouraged it. This stance must have one logical consequence. It would be the awareness that Russia’s protesting against NATO enlargement bears yet less weight than earlier. In other words, the so-called “Russian factor” should be minimised.

I said - it should, would be - if the system of values actually determines the trend of the policy pursued by the Alliance.

Since sometimes things happen in a different manner, and the political logic at the end of the century is full of paradoxes, the bombarding of the new Hitler’s country and a mistake in Russia’s stance will not necessarily mean that the accession of Lithuania and other Baltic States into NATO is becoming easier. Yes indeed, that would be logical, but events may take an opposite course.

One cannot reject the risk that for the weakened support to Milosevic and efforts to find the solution Russia can be paid a promise: not to invite a single Baltic state to NATO in 2002.

The outcome would be disastrous, however, now the forecasts are still too early to make, or maybe, there is no need to make them.

There is only a question: will not the Russian authorities be paid some promise of this kind?

I do not expect a quick answer, I only want the question to be heard and stay open.

We feel the tragedy of the expelled people stronger than those who have never experienced it. Lithuania has undergone mass deportations to Siberia and will approve of the returning of Kosovo deportees to their native settlements, where no  executioners remain. This must happen before winter. The deportees will have to be protected and assisted. I believe that our country will manage to do that together with the North Atlantic community.