The Lithuanian presidency began. The president Dalia Grybauskaitė introduced the priorities of this presidency during the European Parliament plenary session in Strasbourg. Among them, there was nothing that the EU has not done before. The suggestions to gather annually to discuss climate issues or to commemorate the European citizen year were too small to solve the problems across the Union. 'The European Union has to open to citizens. We have to show a good example' – said the President. This is true but this was said by the President of a country that declines to provide its ethnic minorities with full rights that they should have. These words sounded rather untrustworthy. The lack of concrete suggestions – this is the first impression after hearing the President's opinion about the upcoming half a year.
On the other hand, the speech by the member of the European Parliament, Valdemar Tomaševski, was worth attention. He talked on the behalf of the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists – one of five biggest parties in the European Parliament. The leader of Electoral Action of Poles (EAPL) in Lithuania made some concrete suggestions that could be the directions of Lithuanian presidency.
'Europe of equal opportunities' – Europe that would change unequal and lower subsidies for farmers from new members of the EU.
'European solidarity' in the matters of energy security that will determine whether the EU will unanimously decide how to ensure energy independence and security. This incorporates all the possible actions necessary to prevent the construction of Astravyets nuclear plant which is being constructed only 40 km from the capital of Lithuania. This poor investment threatens the EU and its citizens.
'The promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity' that would ensure that ethnic minorities have rights that are protected.
'Europe of values' that is created on the basis of universal Christian values.
Also, 'Europe of homelands' that would allow to preserve cultural and linguistic identities of the region.
These are the questions that were addressed by Valdemar Tomaševski.
These are the things that are important to the EU at the time of economic and moral crisis.
The discussions showed what position the leader of EAPL earned at the European Parliament. He was the first one of Lithuanians to speak during the plenary session along with the most time to voice his views on the behalf of one of the biggest parties in the Parliament. This objectively emphasizes the influence of EAPL in the European political arena.
The speech by Lithuanian conservatives' leader Vytautas Landsbergis, on the other hand, sounded extremely differently, i.e. negatively. The politician verbally attacked Polish member of the Parliament Mirosław Piotrowski because he encouraged Lithuanian government to stop discriminating against Polish ethnic minorities. Piotrowski encouraged Lithuania to abide to the laws of the EU by allowing the use the mother tongue in its institutions, and personal names in their original form in documents together with the names of the streets and localities. Professor also condemned the devastation of historic monuments in cemeteries in Lithuania.
When replying, Vytautas Landsbergis accused professor Piotrowki of lying and called the Poles of Lithuania nationalists. His speech was marked by negative emotions and directed against the Poles living in Vilnius region. How can one be a nationalist if he only demands for the respect for ethnic minority rights? Maybe the nationalist is one who fights these rights, i.e. Vytautas Landsbergis himself? It is rather strange who 'the patriarch of the state' does not notice the violations of the Polish rights in Lithuania. Does he want to say that the Poles of Vilnius region are allowed to freely use bilingual informational tables for the names of streets and localities? Does he want to persuade that Poles working in the municipalities of Vilnius and Šalčininkai regions are not persecuted and are not punished for bilingual notes? Was it allowed to write names in the documents in polish? Did he ever hear about the devastations of Mother and Son grave in the Rasos cemetery? I believe that Vytautas Landsbergis only pretends to be naïve. But what if this is true, and then who is cynically manipulating the facts: M. Piotrowski or V. Landsbergis? Who is lying hardily? The answer is banal and simple so let's just lower the curtain of silence above the speech of V. Landsbergis in respect, of course, for his gray hair.
Dr. Bogusław Rogalski,
political scientist, AECR advisor for international affairs at the European Parliament
