2024-04-29 03:44:03
After the long winter of occupation, during the spring of Lithuania, G. Kirkilas was a budding politician of a new generation, an active participant in the turbulent Lithuania, a mediator between Sąjūdis and the people, some of whom were still formally in the old government, but who had already decided for an independent state.
So far, one of the best books about Sąjūdis by V. Čepaitis “With Sąjūdius for Lithuania” (2007) reads: “August 11 (1988) member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Secretary of the Central Committee for Ideology A. Jakovlev was supposed to come to Vilnius.
Before that, several officials from Moscow visited Vilnius, preparing the visit.
One of them, A. Cvetkovas, deputy head of the culture department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Lithuania, met with seven members of the Sąjudis initiative group – B. Genzel, V. Landsberg, A. .Medalinska, R. Ozolu, K. Prunskiene and G. Songaila.”
Since the visits of non-high-ranking officials from Moscow meant a lot in those days, A. Tsvetkov’s evaluations of the Sajūdis may even have stopped the government’s maturing desire to “delete an obscure movement”.
In another part of V. Čepaitis’s book, it is said: “The LKP Central Committee office has appointed its representative for relations with Sąjūdis – the head of the culture department, J. Paleckis.
He said that we will be able to solve minor current matters with the instructor of the same department, G. Kirkilus – he should be acceptable to us (Sąjudzis. – Auth.), because he has only been working in the Central Committee for a couple of years, he was previously a restorer of monuments and is not from the old Communist Party nomenclature. “
Since I was a member of the Sąjūdis Seimas Council at that time, I remember G. Kirkilas as an organized and wise politician.
His political decision regarding the future of the already free Lithuania left no doubt.
Later, the political career of G. Kirkilos had to be observed from the “depoliticized zone” – working in the VSD, in the diplomatic service.
Those qualities of Mr. Kirkilo’s personality, which have been highlighted in the media in recent days, were evident.
Delving into the proposed solutions, what are the possible consequences, tolerance for those who think and see things differently. Not conceited. Written or not, at least until now I have not come across such a thing, it is the history of the separated LKP, its internal discussions, relations with Sąjūdis.
Politicians who find themselves in high positions somehow suddenly become omniscient. G. Kirkilas constantly improved himself – both by learning languages and expanding his horizons. I had the opportunity to participate in international conferences with him, mainly on European security topics. He listened carefully and afterwards liked to discuss what he heard.
Attention did not wane on the second or third day of the conferences either. He was interested in what was new in the political science lecture.
When I was ambassador to Spain, G. Kirkilas already visited it as prime minister on a working visit. The most important concern is investments in Lithuania. We discussed what the state’s foreign policy is. According to G. Kirkilos, these are the economic, security and cultural interests of Lithuania.
From my point of view, G. Kirkilas could have remained the leader of a large political group and currently applied for the post of prime minister or president. And how would he be worse than the current applicants?
I listened to the first series of debates by candidates for the leadership of Lithuania on foreign policy – on the most important area of activity of the president. What did I hear? Two-thirds of the discussion is about how to help Ukraine beat Russia. A third is devoted to relations with China, Taiwan and even Belarus, although the latter is already defined as part of Russia. Support for Ukraine in the air, land and waters is a noble, important and necessary thing, but is that the end of Lithuania’s foreign policy?
There are 203 countries in the world, of which Lithuania recognizes 195. What is Lithuania’s relationship with them? And with those with which official diplomatic relations exist, and those with which they are planned?
A slogan once heard – Lithuania is brave. Then – Lithuania in the world. Even later – Lithuania to the north. After closing in the east – Lithuania to the north and south. Which directions are going now? What is the goal? In short, what does a significant institution – the Ministry of Foreign Affairs – do?
The only story that has stuck with many to this day is Taiwan. The discussion of this topic took place during the debate for less than half an hour.
However, it remains unclear what each candidate for the presidency would personally decide on this issue after becoming the leader of Lithuania. EU development and Lithuania’s position on it are also part of foreign policy. Or maybe not? No questions on this topic, no answers.
One thing I remembered from the debate was the concrete (at least in words) promise of presidential candidate I. Vēgėlė to remove the Istanbul Convention from circulation. Whoever supports this candidate has heard.
One young candidate, who completed a lot of education (among them military) in the West, suggested that any Lithuanian citizen who wants to engage in high-level political leadership should first live abroad. Probably the “correct” foreigner is meant. And if a citizen had more than one year’s vacation in Tenerife, could he already apply?
Another candidate, pretending to be a white crow (by the way, knowing in advance with which country his speech will be identified), tried to tell the truth about the real reasons for the war in Ukraine, but here he was silenced by Prime Minister I.Šimonytė. The candidate decided not to continue.
We look forward to the next series of debates – on defence. A battle between drones and tanks will probably boil over. But what is foreign policy here?
2024-04-29 03:44:03