Ahead of Sunday’s presidential election in Lithuania, here is what the candidates had to say in response to some of the major foreign policy questions.
Eight politicians are vying for the presidency, including the incumbent Gitanas Nausėda, Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė who is running on the ruling conservative Homeland Union’s ticket, Freedom Party’s candidate Dainius Žalimas, dean of the Faculty of Law at Vytautas Magnus University, the Labour Party chairman MP Andrius Mazuronis, and Giedrimas Jeglinskas, a former deputy defence minister, who was nominated by the Democratic Union “For Lithuania”.
Moreover, Ignas Vėgėlė, a lawyer, Eduardas Vaitkus, a medical doctor, and Remigijus Žemaitaitis, leader of the Dawn of the Nemunas party, are standing as independent candidates.
According to the poll conducted on April 10–21 by Baltijos Tyrimai for the ELTA news agency, 35.2 percent of the voters support Nausėda, followed by Vėgėlė (12.3 percent) and Šimonytė (10.2 percent).
Further down the list, 8.7 percent said they would vote for Žemaitaitis, 4.7 percent for Vaitkus, 3.9 percent for Žalimas, 2.1 percent for Mazuronis, and 1.6 percent for Jeglinskas.
Moreover, 13 percent of those surveyed said they are undecided about which candidate to support in the presidential election and 8.3 percent said they do not support anyone.
Would you suggest renaming the Taiwanese Representative Office in Lithuania?
Jeglinskas: Despite the fact that this decision was politically divisive within the country and that allies were not consulted, I think there is no need to look back now. At this point in time, changing the name to “Taipei” would be a particularly damaging diplomatic move.
Bowing to the undemocratic People’s Republic of China would be a reputational blow to Lithuania. The Chinese market has never been open to Lithuania or to other smaller European countries. Meanwhile, the economic potential with Taiwan is enormous, and we need to strengthen the channels of economic diplomacy in order to attract investment and, at the same time, to be able to invest in Taiwan’s high-tech economy ourselves.
Mazuronis: I would suggest that urgent action be taken to re-establish diplomatic relations with China at the ambassadorial level. It is unwise and even harmful to close ourselves off from one of the world’s largest economies when other EU member states do not do so. If this were to involve considering changing the name of the Taiwanese Representative Office, it would require a broader discussion, but I do not rule it out.
Nausėda: Using “Taipei” in the name of Taiwan’s representative office is a common international practice in line with the One China policy, which was acceptable to all parties. Now, the representative office in Lithuania has an unconventional name (“Taiwanese”). What is more, experts say that the translation of the name is different in English and Chinese, and it is the Chinese translation that is of great concern to China. While welcoming in principle the establishment of such a representative office in Lithuania, in the context of the stabilisation of relations with China, I would see the need to change its name. Respectful dialogue with all the parties concerned and agreement with both Taiwan and China must be maintained in all steps. The adjustment of the name could serve as Lithuania’s signal towards the normalisation of diplomatic relations with China.
Šimonytė: No, I would not propose changing the name of the representative office.
Vaitkus: Yes, because it would improve Lithuania’s relations with other countries. There is no need to take a position of moral superiority and interfere in China’s internal affairs.
Vėgėlė: Yes, because the opening of this representative office under this name was an ill-considered step that threw Lithuania into a diplomatic spat with China and caused significant economic damage. Taiwan does not have a representative office under this name in any other EU country. Strangest of all, when the current government withdrew from the 17+1 format a few years ago, it called on other EU countries to move toward unified EU relations and yet took the reckless step of opening the Taiwanese representative office rather than coordinating such a move at the EU level.
By the way, the opening of Taiwan’s representative office was not about Lithuania’s “value-based policy” but it was a decision that brought financial benefit to some politicians. [...]
Žalimas: Absolutely not, because there are neither the reasons nor the possibilities. The name of the Taiwanese mission does not violate the One China policy because it is not an official recognition of Taiwan as a state. Nor can the name of the Taiwanese mission be changed unilaterally. And such a proposal to Taiwan would mean a worsening of our relations.
So, instead of looking backwards, let us finally move forward in a coherent way with a strategy to develop relations with the countries of the Indo-Pacific, one of which is Taiwan, which is close to us in terms of values.
Žemaitaitis: Yes.
Would you approve of the recognition of the Palestinian state within the next five years?
Jeglinskas: Lithuania’s foreign policy must be coordinated with its allies, especially the US and other NATO countries. The situation in Israel is complicated. On the one hand, we must support Israel because they must have the right to defend themselves against the terrorists who carried out a brutal attack against Israel and its people on October 7, 2023. Israel has the right to pursue terrorists who, unfortunately, are deliberately hiding among the civilian population in the Gaza Strip. On the other hand, we must urge Israel, as the US and other democracies do, to avoid civilian casualties and to conduct operations in accordance with all the norms of international humanitarian law. The question now is whether there is even a minimum potential for a Palestinian state to emerge, as all parties to the conflict would have to agree. Unfortunately, as we can see from the recent Iranian attack on Israel, the creation of such a state is difficult to imagine.
Mazuronis: I don’t think that the establishment of a Palestinian state would help resolve the tensions in the region. On the contrary, I think that such behaviour by the international community would only exacerbate and further escalate the situation in the region. We need to first search for other ways to find peace and for the Arabs to exist alongside Israel.
Nausėda: For the international community, the most important thing at the moment is to de-escalate the situation in the region, secure the release of all Israeli hostages, and ensure a smooth delivery of humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. As long as intense warfare continues and the situation escalates further in the Middle East, it is not appropriate to consider active steps towards the recognition of Palestine. The humanitarian aspect is the most pressing now – it must be ensured that the people of Gaza receive vital services and that all captured hostages are released. It is difficult to predict how the situation in the Middle East will evolve over the next five years. As of now, the consideration of Palestinian membership in the UN Security Council yielded no results (vetoed by the US).
Šimonytė: A timeframe for recognition cannot be set, but conditions can. Overall, a two-state solution seems the only rational one, all the more so because it was agreed on decades ago. However, it is impossible to imagine Hamas-controlled territory starting to show signs of statehood, which would serve as a basis for talking about a state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Vaitkus: No. I would support recognition within two years. As a member of the United Nations, Lithuania has to comply with the UN decision on the creation of two states – Israel and Palestine.
Vėgėlė: I emphasise that the Western world could have avoided conflicts if it had consistently followed the two-state policy. However, we must understand that Gaza is controlled by the Iranian-backed organisation Hamas, which has recently carried out acts of terror against civilians. The strategic goal is to end the war as soon as possible and to put a stop to politicians’ actions that raise concerns from the point of view of humanitarian law. It is then necessary to return to a peaceful settlement of the conflict, seeking an agreement between Israel and Palestine.
Žalimas: I do not see the preconditions for the recognition of a Palestinian state at this point. I will not speculate on whether they might emerge in the next five years. I believe that recognition of a Palestinian state can only be possible when it unequivocally recognises Israel’s right to exist and when the terrorist organisation Hamas is eliminated from the governance of any part of it. In general, I do not doubt the Palestinian right to self-determination, which, together with the coexistence of two states (Israel and Palestine), is unequivocally recognised under international law. However, as we have seen for decades, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not yet have any real simple solutions. It is to be hoped that hatred will gradually be overcome by the will to live and coexist peacefully.
Žemaitaitis: Yes. The first thing it needs to do is to become a member of the UN.
Should Lithuania resume political contacts with Russia, Belarus, and China? If so, at what level?
Jeglinskas: No. Russia and Belarus are the aggressors that started the war against Ukraine together. The first thing we have to do is to ensure Ukraine’s victory, and as long as Ukraine is fighting a war, there can be no talk of any political contacts with the aggressor countries. To all those who call for friendship with China because of its economic potential, I can tell you that this is a bubble that is bursting, and its intention to “reclaim” Taiwan shows that not only does it not abide by the rules of the international world order, but it is also openly threatening Western democracies. Lithuania’s policy towards China must therefore be coordinated with its allies, especially the US.
Mazuronis: It is impossible to talk about some kind of resumption of relations as long as Russia, with the help of the Belarusian regime, is waging war in Ukraine. We should resume diplomatic relations with China at the ambassadorial level. We must seek to revive economic cooperation [with China]. While the leaders of Germany, France, and other EU countries are looking for ways to trade more actively with China, any other position on our part is detrimental to both our economy and our people.
Nausėda: The three countries are not identical. Our allies also maintain active political contacts with China, as evidenced by their recent intensive visits. First of all, Lithuania needs to restore diplomatic representation on both sides. Diplomacy is an instrument for acting in defence of our interests. Engaging in dialogue does not mean compromising on international rules or violations of international law. Dialogue is only possible on the basis of mutual respect and compliance with international obligations.
In today’s geopolitical and security context, dialogue with the Belarusian regime is hard to imagine. Engaging with the regime would be contrary to the democratic vision of Belarus. Political contact with Russia, which uses or threatens to use brutal military force against its sovereign neighbours, is impossible. There is now an urgent need to prepare a strategy for restraining, limiting, and containing Russia and to agree on the specific means and ways in which this can be done.
Šimonytė: Maintaining the current level of contact with the mentioned states, I believe, is sufficient to address day-to-day challenges. Elevating the level of dialogue with Russia or Belarus would be unjustified because Russia attacked Ukraine and Belarus is Russia’s accomplice in this war. The downgrading of diplomatic relations with China occurred at China’s initiative, so changing the situation is possible only through their initiative.
Vaitkus: Yes, at the highest level, to ensure Lithuania’s comprehensive security.
Vėgėlė: Historically, Russia has been a threat to Lithuania, having occupied Lithuania more than once. Putin’s statement that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century confirms that the Russian government poses a threat. High-level political contacts with the aggressor state, which caused the war in Europe and occupied the territory of the sovereign state of Ukraine, are not possible at the moment, either politically or morally.
What is Belarus? The Lukashenko regime or the people? At the moment, Belarus has effectively become a province of Russia. But who pushed Belarus into Russia’s embrace? Among other factors, this was the result of the actions of our politicians – this ruling majority. It is regrettable that the conservatives’ policy was endorsed by the president. Belarus’ ruling regime is responsible for its constant support for Russian aggression, for gross violations of democracy and human rights, as well as for hybrid attacks against Lithuania and neighbouring countries, including through the instrumentalisation of migrants from third countries. On the other hand, we must have a long-term strategy for relations with Belarus – after all, we cannot accept that the Russian border will permanently be 40 kilometres from Vilnius. We will therefore be forced to think about resuming selective economic contacts (ensuring that sanctions against Russia are not circumvented). It is in Lithuania’s interest that the country retains at least a minimum degree of independence and is not finally swallowed by Russia. Therefore, we should not rule out targeted political contacts at a lower level in the future to deal with specific bilateral issues.
It is in Lithuania’s interest to resume political contacts with China and to normalise relations in general. Let us rename the representative office to that of Taipei’s and try to normalise economic relations with China, of course, taking into account the specifics of national security.
Žalimas: Obviously not. In general, all three countries are identified as a threat to national security and international peace. As far as Russia and Belarus are concerned, there is no prospect of re-establishing political cooperation as long as the aggression against Ukraine and crimes against humanity in Belarus continue. As far as China is concerned, it is not Lithuania that is responsible for the deterioration of relations with China, and it is not Lithuania that should be the first to make efforts to restore them.
Žemaitaitis: Yes. With Russia, we need to start discussing through the citizens of Lithuania that we are not against the Russian people; with Belarus, we need to discuss it at the level of the executive government; with China, the president needs to discuss it at the highest level.
Do you back Lithuania’s decision to turn away migrants at the border, even though it may clash with EU law?
Jeglinskas: Yes. First and foremost, we need to ensure the security of our country and people. We also need to strengthen the institutions, which must have the capacity and resources to be able to fight hybrid attacks of this scale against Lithuania.
Mazuronis: The neighbouring regime’s decision to use people as bullets in a hybrid war against us in order to influence political decisions both in our country and in the EU as a whole contradicts EU law. Therefore, any response to such aggressive actions is justified. Firstly, there are national security interests. Everything else comes after that. We have defended, however belatedly, not only our own external borders but those of the entire EU. A policy of deterrence should have been put in place from the very first days of the hybrid attack.
Nausėda: In today’s complex geopolitical context, national security interests come first when making one or another decision. This is all the more so given that both the Belarusian and Russian regimes have carried out hybrid attacks and instrumentalised migrants.
Since the beginning of the hybrid attacks, I have stressed the importance of protecting the EU’s external borders and sought to make the instrumentalisation of irregular migration part of the EU acquis. We succeeded in securing funding from the European Commission for systems to monitor the physical barrier on the Lithuanian-Belarusian border. [...]
I supported and continue to support the decision to turn migrants away at the border. Lithuania’s crisis containment measures must be adequate to its causes and the damage caused by critical factors. The situation at Lithuania’s border was a retaliatory operation by Belarus against Lithuania and the EU, carried out by the Belarusian regime’s services. Lithuania has consistently sought to ensure that the state’s self-defence against instrumentalised migration complies with EU law.
Vaitkus: No. Lithuanian laws and international commitments, and even more so the Lithuanian Constitution, must be respected and not violated. If we don’t like the laws, let’s change them. If the international commitments are no longer suitable, let us withdraw from these international commitments and agreements. All the more so as the EU does not have a clear policy on this issue either.
Šimonytė: I support Lithuania’s decision aimed at responding to the process of instrumentalising migration, now recognised at the EU level. A person’s right to cross a border and enter another country is not unconditional. There are clear grounds and principles for admitting people. Based on these principles, Lithuania has already established procedures for legal migration, asylum applications, and granting asylum.
Vėgėlė: My principle is that every independent state has the right to protect its territorial integrity and social cohesion from an invasion of migrants financed by unfriendly powers.
Lithuania, as a sovereign state, has every right to ensure the protection of its external borders and decide who can enter its territory. Third-country nationals attempting to cross the external border illegally pose a threat to our state’s security. However, we must distinguish between refugees seeking political asylum and irregular migrants pushed across the border by the Russian and Belarusian regimes.
Žalimas: I would support the decision to turn away migrants if it is an instrumentalised mass migration organised by a neighbouring authoritarian regime. However, it is clear that only legitimate solutions can be supported – and it is therefore crucial that the turn-back is regulated and carried out in a legitimate manner and in line with EU law, which it is our constitutional imperative to implement properly. This is possible under EU law provisions that allow derogations from the general provisions of asylum law in the interests of national security. At the same time, fundamental human rights such as the right to life and protection from torture and inhuman treatment must be respected. The new EU Pact on Migration and Asylum is an attempt to establish rules for responding to instrumentalised migration, to which the turning back of migrants will have to be adapted.
Žemaitaitis: I do back it. If the legislation in Lithuania is properly regulated, there will be no need to contradict EU law. Most migrants are economic migrants.
Newsletter
Every Friday morning.
