But this is not true. Ambassador of Lithuania to Poland, Loreta Zakarevičienė attends and organizes a lot of meetings. She takes part in meetings in universities and in the Embassy of Lithuania in Warsaw, her activity is remarkably intense. L. Zakarevičienė often disapprovingly speaks about the Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania (EAPL) and its leader Valdemar Tomaševski. Prime Minister Butkevičius, instead of feeling sorry for his diplomats, should rather ask himself, whether the reason for alleged disregarding is not in them. Whether by chance they are not abusing the hospitality and are not disturbing good diplomatic manners in the country of residing? I do not know, what situation is prevailing in the institution in Russia, but the activity of the Lithuanian Embassy in Warsaw is at least puzzling. It is worth recalling one event that came to my mind after the statement of the Prime Minister of Lithuania.
Diplomacy is the last sphere of the public life, where behaviour should be applied with great gentleness of speech. We cannot reconcile the diplomacy and fault-form. Diplomacy is certain contents and form. Contents appoint the art of the diplomacy; and the form is a diplomatic craft. This principle should be well-known in every embassy, and if it is not like that, it means that dilettante is practising it or the diplomacy is art of the provocation. I don't know what is worse.
Some time ago during the meeting in Lithuanian Embassy in Warsaw attended by Polish political scientists, historians and former diplomats, ambassador Zakarevičienė presented analytical study case entitled "Relations between Lithuania and Poland: getting stuck in the department of bilateral relationships or the futile strategic partnership?" Amongst many authors it was possible to find the name of Živilė Dambrauskaitė or Tomas Janeliūnas, and all was signed by the Lithuanian Centre of Studies of Eastern Europe. Apart from many controversial theses concerning history, the report contained "artificial pearls" which had to compel Polish diplomats to think. In order to avoid suspecting of the subjective text interpretation, I will quote a few puzzling fragments in the original translation.
"It is noticeable nowadays that relationships between Poles and Lithuanians become worse (...). But Lithuanian efforts to explain the reasons why strategic partners express dissatisfaction often use only primitive same (often exaggerated, distorted, superficial) arguments which were uttered by Polish Foreign Minister and his supporters politicians and representatives of the Lithuanian Poles (p.13). "
" B. Komorowski does not have a strong base (in his surroundings) in Civic Platform. Such base would allow opposing the charismatic tandem of D. Tusk and R. Sikorski (...). Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs R. Sikorski has unlimited freedom in forming the national foreign policy; foreign policy itself becomes personified and closely linked with the personality of R. Sikorski and his personal opinion (p. 21). The issue of the personality of R. Sikorski can be tempered by finding friends for Lithuania amongst Polish politicians, particularly in the person of J. Buzek (p. 33)."
"The biggest problem is the fact that Lithuanian Poles are represented by a political force, that is not loyal to Lithuania (...). Therefore it would be better if another competitive organization was formed amongst Lithuanian Poles that could win greater confidence on the part of Lithuania (...) and that could change the current force created by V. Tomaševski (p. 33) ."
The world received a false message from presented quotations that there are two guilty for not best Polish-Lithuanian relations, i.e. R. Sikorski and V. Tomaševski. It is a classic example of black PR. Except that it is spread not through the frustrated political scientist, but through a diplomatic post. A document, via the Embassy of Lithuania and the personal participation of ambassador Zakarevičiene, was passed on to all academes in Poland. Is it the lack of the professionalism or the intentional provocation? Such incidents in the diplomacy are remembered for long. The Embassy is not a newsstand, it is there to represent its country with dignity, not to deal with distributing the questionable report criticizing the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland and defaming his countrymen in Lithuania. It will not certainly help to warm double-sided relations. If standards in Lithuanian diplomacy look like this, the Prime Minister Butkevičius should not be surprised that his envoys are ignored in this or another country. But what can we expect from ambassadress who for years has been receiving education from Vytautas Landsbergis, the politician who before the local elections in Lithuania called for a historic victory over Poles?
Dr. Bogusław Rogalski, political scientist
ECR Advisor for International Affairs in the European Parliament
