The foreign policy focus on Lithuania's political parties is shifting – Taiwan is no longer mentioned in the Conservatives' election programme and reapproachment with Beijing is no longer an elephant in the room. Three scholars at the Vilnius University's Institute of International Relations and Political Science (TSPMI) take a look at the proposed foreign policy directions of the key parties in Lithuania's upcoming October election.
The views expressed in this article are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect those of LRT.
The last four years of the government have been marked by more intense and turbulent foreign policy debates than usual. The old practice of consensus-based foreign policy seemed to have ended. At the same time, the constitutional and institutional gaps in coordination, many caused by politicians’ dislikes and grievances, became painfully apparent.
As the general elections approach, most Lithuanian political parties have already presented their election programmes. Foreign policy is also a major focus, alongside other areas of public policy. Against the backdrop of current international events – war in Ukraine, the conflict between Israel and Hamas, and the intrigue of the US presidential elections – foreign policy is becoming (or at least should become) an increasingly important part of the country’s daily life. The party programmes show what can be expected when government changes. Moreover, they show how parties perceive the importance of foreign policy and reflect their views on its positive and negative aspects.
There are 15 party lists in this year’s Seimas elections. Six parties presented detailed foreign policy visions: the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party (LSDP), the Lithuanian Green Party (LŽP), the Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union (LVŽS), The Homeland Union–Lithuanian Christian Democrats (TS–LKD), Liberals’ Movement (LS), and the Freedom party (LP). Therefore, much of the analysis will come from juxtaposing the ideas of these six parties.
Five parties have devoted only some space to foreign policy: the Lithuanian Regions Party (RP), Freedom and Justice (LTP), the Union of Democrats “For Lithuania” (“Vardan Lietuvos”/DSVL), the party “Nemuno Aušra” and the Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania–Christian Families Alliance (LLRA–KŠS).
We found short positions (a sentence or two) of three parties – the National Alliance (NS), the Lithuanian People’s Party (LLP) and the Peace Coalition – in the election booklet provided by the Central Electoral Commission. Foreign policy for the People and Justice Union (Centrists, Nationalists) does not seem to exist.
We considered several objectives when reading the parties’ foreign policy programmes. First, how was the foreign policy of the last four years assessed? Second, how is the foreign policy vision for the next four years described? Third, what are the differences between the parties on foreign policy, and what is the consensus? And finally, where do opinions (or at least emphases) differ?
Foreign policy assessments and adjectives
We have not received a direct answer to the first question – on the assessment of the foreign policy of the current coalition. None of the parties took the trouble to say directly what they thought had gone right or wrong or why it had happened. Even the TS–LKD, currently leading the ruling majority, has avoided this. Only certain hints suggest some criticism of the coalition’s policy, with some parties promising a non–divisive foreign policy and others a uniting foreign policy, as if to say that the opposite has been true during this term.
Only the Liberals’ Movement has openly acknowledged the institutional tensions between the Presidency and the Foreign Ministry. They have pledged to make changes, for example, in appointing a European Commissioner, which caused friction between two institutions, and to work together more effectively. Even on the sensitive China/Taiwan issue, all parties have shown a high degree of caution and moderation despite the underlying differences of opinion, which before had been expressed more expressively.
Half of the parties have attempted to describe their future foreign policy:
– Open, transparent and uniting (LSDP)
– Active and insightful (TS–LKD)
– Progressive (The Greens)
– Wise and responsible (RP)
– Wise and active (Freedom and Justice)
– Serving Lithuania (Nemuno Aušra)
– Concerned for security and welfare (LP)
– Pragmatic and value-based (DSVL)
– Based on values yet pragmatic (LS)
While the list of foreign policy descriptions is comprehensive, it is also notably repetitive and, as is often in such cases, a bit bland. The words “active”, “wise”, and “pragmatic” appear twice. Seemingly, the parties may not be willing to fight for these terms, especially given their potential disagreements on the meaning of “wisdom”, “pragmatism”, and “action”.
Consensus in foreign policy
There is a consensus on developing and strengthening relations with the US, the importance of EU and NATO membership as security guarantors, supporting Ukraine, and the threats from Russia and Belarus. The frequent references to support for democracy and democratic values resonate with the basic principles of the transatlantic orientation and echo the theses repeated by US President Joe Biden's administration.
On the other hand, support for Ukraine and Moldova's EU membership does not lead to broader comments on Lithuania’s adaptation to changing circumstances, the possible conditions for such membership, or the change in the European Community itself.
The need to change decision–making and reform the EU is addressed by the LSDP, LP, DSVL and LS. However, the “we will support Ukraine until victory” principle in the programmes does not necessarily indicate how that victory is perceived and what is the role of Lithuania’s foreign policy in this endeavour. The Liberals’ Movement is the most specific in this respect, stating its support for the peace formula proposed by Ukraine.
The programmes of two parties (LLRA–KŠS and the Peace Coalition) are limited to claims about peace in Europe and the world. The People’s Party and the Party of the Regions also talk about peace negotiations and “global harmony”, where Lithuania’s foreign policy should be “based on cooperation” (LLP) and “constructive and pragmatic principles” (RP). Therefore, among all the party programmes, these are the ones that least condemn Russian aggression, don’t favour the transatlantic orientation of Ukraine, and the ideas of peace or reconciliation remain open to further deliberations.
Good relations with neighbours – the Baltic states, Poland and the Nordic countries – also recur as the main thrust of bilateral relations. Therefore, the same priorities remain in the regional context, without any broader consideration of how Lithuania would like to position itself here (eg, Northern Europe, Central Europe or as a “bridge” linking these regions). In the context of its neighbours, the LLRA–KŠS stands out the most, talking about improving relations with neighbouring Belarus.
Despite the specificity of the topic, as many as five parties (LŽP, LVŽS, LSDP, LP and LS) devote considerable attention to various proposals for strengthening the diplomatic corps. It can be assumed that the public controversies and debates over the appointment of ambassadors in recent years have influenced the parties’ decision to talk more broadly with the public about what the diplomatic service should look like, even if the promises to reform and rethink it are not new.
Economic diplomacy is a popular theme, and we found it in the programmes of the LSDP, Freedom and Justice, DSVL, TS–LKD, LS and LP. Concrete proposals on how it will be implemented range from the establishment of a “club of economic ambassadors at the MFA” (LS) to a “system of economic mutual assistance between democracies” (TS–LKD). LP emphasises economic issues in almost all areas as if to show a willingness to continue the work at the Ministry of Economy and Innovation.
In general, economic diplomacy is a space for creativity, which allows politicians to talk about creating welfare for the population, yet does not require a precise position or elaboration.
Diverging visions
One of the biggest criticisms of Lithuania’s current foreign policy has been directed at its decisions regarding relations with China and Taiwan.
Criticism centres on an argument that opening a Taiwanese Representative Office in Vilnius led to a breakdown of diplomatic relations with Beijing. Unsurprisingly, the programmes of all three parties currently in the ruling coalition discuss relations with China, which is approached critically or cautiously: TS–LKD worries about its “totalitarian nature", LP refers to its “economic blackmail”, and LS talks about its threats to regional security. Surprisingly, the continued active development of relations with Taiwan is promised only by two liberal parties, while the TS–LKD programme does not mention Taiwan at all.
The LSDP, while promising not to close the Taiwanese representation, also aims to normalise relations with China, pointing out that Lithuania’s interests must also be considered.
LVŽS makes a similar promise (it will develop “constructive relations” with China), although it does not elaborate further on the subject. So, despite a lot of passion spent arguing about the damage done (or not done) to Lithuania’s foreign policy due to the deterioration of relations with China, it turns out that it is no longer an issue on which it seems worth spending much electoral time.
Three parties – Social Democrats and two Liberal parties – saw the need to express their views on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, all condemning the “Hamas” terrorist attack and supporting Israel. On Palestine, their positions diverged: the LP is clearly in favour of a two-state solution and Palestinian statehood, the LSDP pledges to support the negotiation of such a solution, and the LS does not even mention the Palestinians, clearly remaining in the pro–Israel camp. The choice of all the parties to talk about this issue is undoubtedly linked to the importance of the issue to their potential voters (at least some of them), and their wish to hear the parties’ position on it.
Four parties recalled that Lithuania will hold the Presidency of the Council of the EU in 2027 – LSDP, LŽP, DSVL, and LS. However, only the Greens decided to formulate their priorities for the Presidency, with the most ambitious of the seven proposed goals being the creation of a climate–neutral economy throughout the Community by 2040.
As mentioned, the two parties introduce their intentions to combine pragmatism and values. While the Democrats are declarative, simply emphasising the economic basis of foreign policy, the Liberals’ Movement is much more specific and explicit, for example, about improving relations with Azerbaijan and deepening ties with Turkey. It is certainly pragmatic, but it is hardly values–based.
The view ahead
What can we expect from Lithuania’s foreign policy over the next four years based on what they have written?
The main driving forces – Euro–Atlantic integration, support for Ukraine, condemnation of Russian aggression, and good relations with Lithuania's neighbours (Poland, the Baltic and Nordic countries) – remain the most important axes. Thus, despite the claims of an end to consensus in foreign policy, we will still be able to speak of unity on many foreign policy issues important for Lithuania. Meanwhile, the proposals for world peace or good relations with Belarus are isolated and do not reflect the overwhelming majority of the parties.
The biggest disagreement remains the differing views on relations with China. The current opposition would be willing to change the policy of the current majority towards a “rapprochement”, even if there are no concrete ideas on how to encourage China to think differently about us. It’s essential to keep in mind that such a promise will undoubtedly be influenced by the outcome of the elections in the United States. The potential impact of the US election outcome on our relations with China highlights the importance of the global context, suggesting that even vague aspirations to normalise relations with China could fade away before serious consideration is given to what that might entail.
Although the current majority has been criticised for its self–identified values-based foreign policy, both the descriptions offered and the content of the programmes show that the vast majority of parties do use similar value categories (i. democracy, human rights, international order and the fight against those who subvert it, support for developmental cooperation, etc.) or try to link foreign policy with pragmatism.
Despite public debate and controversy, the foreign policy-making process, which domestically became toxic and damaging in recent years, has not received extensive proposals for any major changes, with one exception.
However, the foreign policy descriptions proposed by the parties – from active to wise – do not contain a strategy for what they want to achieve in the next four years. This lack of vision in the proposed foreign policy descriptions raises concerns about foreign policy strategies beyond responding to emerging challenges.
The descriptions leave a lot of space for manoeuvre and provide little commitment. This seems as more or less the aim of the foreign policy programmes of most parties, especially those planning to come to power.
The analysis was carried out implementing the project “In Search of Recognition: Lithuanian Foreign Policy 2015–2024”, funded by the Research Council of Lithuania (LMTLT), agreement No S-MIP-24-109. The article was originally published by LRT in Lithuanian.
Newsletter
Every Friday morning.
