Treaty Obligations

An opportunity to better Polish-Lithuanian relations arrived after the restoration of sovereignty of both these states following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Both states mutually supported each other within the international sphere thanks to mutual aspirations, such as joining NATO and the European Union. These aspirations created more positive conditions for future cooperation. The problem that remained, however, was the unfavourable treatment of the Polish minority in Lithuania. This situation was to become less of a problem ever since Lithuanian politicians asserted to make favourable changes through the signing of the Treaty, as to dispel and doubts about their intentions and to regulate the status of national minorities on both sides of the border. It truly was an idyllic atmosphere when the President Wałęsa and the President Brazaukas signed the Treaty between the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Lithuania on Friendly Relations and Good-Neighborly Cooperation during a meeting in Vilnius in 1994.

Unfortunately, the Treaty has remained lifeless in the case of the Polish minority in Lithuania. But before analyzing the records, it is significant to include a few facts within this discussion. Poles have been living in Lithuania for over seven hundred years and are an autochthonic minority. Due to post-war border changes, ethnically Polish regions became separated from their motherland. Despite the German occupation, massacres, expulsions and a half-century long Sovietisation as well as repatriation, the Polish community in Lithuania survived. Traditionally, the largest group of Poles lives in Vilnius Region. Throughout the Vilnius district, Poles make up 60% of the population and 20% in the capital itself, while in the district of Šalčininkai up to 80% of the general population is Polish. These figures should provide special treatment to the Poles in Lithuania. This is why Art. 13 of the Treaty says that both Parties are obliged to respect international principles and standards concerning the protection of national minorities' rights, in particular these inscribed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in International treaties on human rights, in the relevant OSCE documents, as well as in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Moreover, people belonging to the Polish national minority, who are of Polish origin or admit to Polish nationality, culture or traditions and recognize the Polish language as their mother tongue, have individual right or together with other members of their group enjoy the right to freely express, preserve and develop their national, cultural, linguistic and religious identity without any discrimination.The phrase 'without any discrimination' is crucial in this context. Nevertheless for interpretation purposes, it is specified in two subsequent articles of the Treaty that minorities have the right to the free use of their minority language in their private or public lives, as well as the right to their names and surnames in the sound of the language of national minority. To dot the Treaty's 'i' is to set the record straight by stating that both Poland and Lithuania should refrain from any actions that could lead to the assimilation of members of national minorities against their will and according to international standards refrain from any actions that could lead to the national changes in the areas inhabited by national minorities. What are we left with, then? Poland has complied with the Treaty's obligations for its part. For example, in local elections in the Suwałki region (municipality of Puńsk)—a region dominated by the Lithuanian minority—voters are not obligated to vote for someone to represent their minority. This need does not exist because Polish politicians running for office do not create competition for Lithuanian candidates in any artificial manner in the municipality. The Central Electoral Commission accepted the winning list of candidates without elections. Additionally, thirty "Lithuanised" village names were introduced in the municipality of Puńsk. Lithuania has not fulfilled similar obligations.

Contrary to agreements

From the very beginning, Lithuania has been obstructing the Treaty's potential and has been acting in bad faith by continuously ignoring its outlined agreement. This practice has deliberately violated other conventions and treaties which have also been signed and ratified by Lithuania. Despite the principles of the agreements Lithuania introduced the Law on State Language providing naming only in the Lithuanian language. The situation is bizarre because until recently there was the Law on National Minorities that was providing bilingualism. Unfortunately, after being in force for nineteen years, the Law has not been prolonged in 2010 (sic!). Therefore, in this context the Lithuanian case is unprecedented - a member state having such a high number of national minorities liquidated the legal protection provided for them. It is an obvious legal recourse inconsistent with OSCE and Venice Commission's recommendations. And what is most important, it is contrary to the spirit of international law. The Treaty of Lisbon also puts a great emphasis on the protection of cultural and linguistic heritage, promoting linguistic diversity as a fundamental principle of the European Union. Rights are granted for the EU citizens in the articles 21 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which mean that an attempt to diminish the exclusivity of the language is a restriction and violation of the fundamental EU values. The notion of linguistic diversity in the EU law covers not only official languages but as well 'semi-governmental', regional and languages that are not officially recognized in a member state. This is an important definition in the context of heinous and official demolishing of multilingualism in Lithuania.

Similarly, Lithuania ignores the provisions of the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which was signed and ratified by Lithuanian authorities. Contrary to good principles and international moral standards, failing to implement such rights in the legal system for the benefit of minorities is disrespectful by Lithuania. The Convention explicitly states that in the areas traditionally inhabited by substantial numbers of persons belonging to national minorities, local names, street names and other topographical indications intended for the public will be placed also in the minority language. Moreover, the Convention also provides a possibility to use the minority language in relations between the inhabitants and the administrative authorities. There is one more crucial convention Lithuania does not want to hear about. It is the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Lithuania belongs to infamous group of a few countries with a large number of national minorities that have not ratified the Charter. In July 2013, the firm stance was taken by the European Parliament to solve this case. In a special resolution on linguistic diversity the Parliament urged the countries that have not done so to sign and ratify the Charter. It has also called to condemn all practices that discriminate other communities due to language and identity. However, Lithuania remains silent.

Open discrimination

There are lots of examples illustrating the politics discriminatory towards the Polish national minority. An overestimated electoral threshold for national minorities was established in 1996. Boundaries of electoral constituencies were repeatedly changed before elections in order to act against Polish national minority in spite of the fact that it is in contradiction with the guidelines of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. The guidelines forbid any changes in electoral law one year before the elections and recommend the protection of electoral constituencies inhabited by national minorities. However, Lithuanian authorities have introduced an extremely disadvantageous for Poles division of constituencies including large areas inhabited by Poles to the constituencies with Lithuanian majority. Lithuania implies the policy of assimilating minorities in an unprecedented manner in contemporary Europe. Lithuania alters the national composition of areas inhabited by the Polish national minority in violation with the Convention and the Treaty. It is obvious when observing the process of returning land collectivised during the Soviet times. Much of the land belonging to the local (predominantly Polish) population is being handed over to people of Lithuanian nationality in the Vilnius area. In order to do that, a land transfer procedure is being applied whereby claimants may apply for land in an entirely different location, e.g. just near Vilnius. As a result, this leads to a gradual change in the demographic structure and ownership in the Vilnius region.

Education is another important issue. Hampering the provision and development of Polish education, through the recent introduction of legal and administrative regulations that are leading to its abolition, takes place in Lithuania. In those areas where Poles represent the majority of the population, the Lithuanian authorities have established an additional, alternative and privileged national education system, with classes taught only in Lithuanian. The Lithuanian authorities are ignoring the outright opposition of parents and representatives of the Polish population and are pushing through education reforms that will result in the closure of a large number of Polish schools and a drastic reduction in Polish-language teaching in those that remain. Also, Lithuanian authorities make it impossible to enter ones' forenames and surnames in the national minorities' languages or in an original form. State Language Inspection has been imposing fines on individuals, businessmen and self-government servants for the use of bilingual informational plates and street-name plates in the areas where Poles constitute the vast majority of residents. At the request of the Lithuanian Government representative, the Vilnius Regional Court has imposed a horrendous fine of 43 400 LTL (12 569 EUR) on the Director of the Administration of the Šalčininkai district self-government Boleslav Daškevič for the use of Polish informational plates which were placed on private buildings. This is not the first case of ousting the Polish culture and language from the public space of Lithuania. The Administrative court has been repeatedly imposing fines of up to 1000 LTL on the Director of the Administration of the Vilnius district self-government Liucina Kotlovska for the delay in the execution of an order to remove bilingual street names' plates from the homes of the residents of, in this case, the Vilnius district. Everything was done at the request of the Lithuanian Government representative. It is kind of a state repression and intimidation of Polish community without a doubt. It is also an attempt of financial deterioration of persons belonging to the Polish national minority and functioning as self-governmental servants. There are countless more examples. All of them are contrary to international agreements and obligations agreed upon by Lithuania. What is next, then?

Dead treaty

Contrary to initial appearances, the case of discrimination against the Polish minority in Lithuania is a violation of international law and an expression of ill-will by the state itself, especially when ratifying treaties and conventions. 'Pacta sunt servanda' translates into 'agreements should be upheld' and means that it is the norm to uphold international agreements, a norm which is confirmed in many acts of international law. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties stipulates that any agreement is binding and should be upheld in good faith, while a breach of an agreement cannot be justified by provisions of internal country laws. This is what makes Lithuania's actions inexcusable in the case of the Polish minority. In this situation, the initiative lies within the Polish state, whose duty is to protect its population abroad. As it has been outlined, Lithuania does not fulfill the intentions of previously signed contracts and agreements. Thus, Poland could in this case benefit from the statutes of international law when using permitted forms of coercion to enforce minority obligations. There are many possibilities. In this case, on the anniversary of the signing of the Polish-Lithuanian Treaty and on the basis of Article 60 of the aforementioned Vienna Convention, Poland may extinguish or suspend the operation of the Treaty in consequence of Lithuania's unkempt promises because 'a material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part (...)A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in (...) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.' This is a strong mean in diplomacy, but perhaps necessary in order to stop the systemic destruction of Polish culture in the Vilnius region and in order to defend the Poles living there. Instead of pompously opening up champagne to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the Treaty, Lithuanian authorities could use a rather cold shower to cool off the anti-Polish actions of their government.

Dr. Bogusław Rogalski, Political scientist
ECR Advisor for the international affairs at the European Parliament