From the Editor
This issue of Lithuanian Foreign Policy Review is dedicated to transatlantic relations, especially the relations of the U.S. with its allies in Europe. Lithuania together with other Central and Eastern European countries is following with concern the “reset” of U.S.–Russia relations. There is still no clear understanding how the new dynamism in the bilateral relations between the U.S. and Russia will change the security situation in Eastern Europe. Some fear that the softened U.S. tone to Russia means that the U.S. has reduced its attention to Ukraine and Georgia, which not a long time ago were named as eventual NATO member states. Two years have passed since the NATO Summit in Bucharest in 2008 and the West hardly mentions the possibility of Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. For the sake of the “reset” of relations with Russia, Russian aggression in Georgia and illegal dislocation of its army in the South Ossetia and Abkhazia are increasingly rarely discussed.
The “reset” policy of the U.S. towards Russia goes hand in hand with the “reset” of NATO’s attitude towards Russia. It coincided with the appointment of the new NATO Secretary General and the drafting of the new NATO strategic concept. The new NATO strategic concept should reflect the shifting security interests of the West and especially the U.S., both globally and specifically, as in case with relations with Russia.
This issue of Lithuanian Foreign Policy Review is a perfect occasion to look at fundamental changes in transatlantic relations after the inauguration of Barack Obama as the President of the USA in 2009.
The issue is opened by the article NATO and the EU in the North: What is at Stake in Current Strategy Development? by famous security expert and scholar Alyson. J.K. Bailes. The article elegantly discusses the dispersion of the European security issues and acknowledges that the Nordic and Baltic States have specific security interests. It states that even though NATO continues to be the sole guarantor of “hard” security in Europe, the EU makes a greater contribution to the strengthening of security by new means. Such contribution is even more possible with the new solidarity clause established by the Lisbon Treaty. Alyson Bayles notes that if the Nordic and Baltic States were more united in formulating their interests, they could have a greater impact on the EU security policy than in NATO’s discussions about strategic issues. According to the author, the EU using financial measures and a “non-zero-sum” diplomacy could take and deal with Russia-related security issues of the Nordic and Baltic States more seriously.
The main challenges and dilemmas currently faced by NATO are discussed in the article Redefining the Euro-Atlantic Security Agenda: What is the Role for the New NATO Strategic Concept? by Martynas Zapolskis. This article is an excellent review revealing the interests and issues that occur when adopting the new NATO strategic concept. According to the author, the new NATO strategic concept will be an important document reflecting the nature of transatlantic relations when dealing with security issues in the 21st century.
One of the factors enabling to have a better understanding of the U.S. attitude to a possible NATO development and the importance of relations with Russia is the U.S. policy toward Georgia. How have Georgia–U.S. relations as well as rhetoric changed since Obama’s inauguration? This issue is analysed in the article Washington’s Changed Tone and Georgia’s NATO Hopes by Maia Edilashvili. The author argues that Georgia’s determination to join NATO has not changed even though the current situation is totally different compared to 2008. However, according to most of the Georgian experts, the U.S. still offers its political and security support to Georgia. It is just that Barack Obama’s working methods are different from those of George W. Bush.
Another specific and very important actor in transatlantic relations is Turkey. The importance of this country in ensuring security both in the region and in the world is rapidly increasing. For a long time Turkey was an important support to the U.S. in the Middle East. Unsolved security issues in Iraq, the tension between Washington and Baghdad still require attempts to make Turkey an active partner in the strengthening of security. Turkey’s security interests are analysed by Şeyda Hanbay in her article Understanding Turkey’s Security Discourse. The article presents Turkey’s official position to foreign and security policy, which stresses responsible participation in transatlantic relations, NATO membership and attempts to strengthen security in Europe.
This time the Opinions section is as broad and thoughtful as never before. The authors’ positions to transatlantic relations presented in this section are also very different.
In her Opinion The Next Steps in U.S.-–Lithuania Relations the U.S. Ambassador to Lithuania Anne E. Derse emphasises the key priorities in bilateral U.S.–Lithuania relations. The Ambassador notes that the U.S. is not going to reduce or change its obligations to Lithuania or any other Central and Eastern European country, therefore the new policy of the U.S. President’s administration to Russia should not threaten Lithuanians. The agenda of U.S.–Lithuania relations is very broad, and the USA highly welcomes Lithuania’s attempts to increase its security and welfare.
The Opinion The Reluctant Ally by Janusz Bugajski in contrast stresses that the U.S. attitude to Europe and U.S. allies has changed. According to him, during the presidency of George W. Bush “the U.S. was confident, Europe undecided and Russia inefficient”. Now, the author says, the U.S. is reluctant, Europe still undecided and Russia reenergised. The fact that Barack Obama from time to time has to assure U.S. allies that they are not forgotten is a sign that Eastern Europe is worried about future NATO policy. According to Janusz Bugajski, contrary to the official Washington’s position, “in practice the Obama administration concluded that it would not vigorously challenge Moscow in its immediate neighbourhood”. This is the scenario Lithuania, a former active supporter of NATO membership of Ukraine and Georgia, is afraid of.
Jovita Pranevičiūtė also discusses the changing balance of power and interests in the European security policy. Her Opinion Strategic Powers in Europe: Who is In and Who is Out? supports Janusz Bugajski and doubts that U.S. official assurances that Europe will remain the centre of its attention are true. Pranevičiūtė says that U.S.–Europe relations got cold after the inauguration of Barack Obama, even though Europeans wanted to see Obama as a new president of the USA. The author maintains that the reduced U.S. attention to Europe will make European countries look for closer collaboration with Russia. It may increase Russia’s impact on the EU policy.
It his Opinion The Lithuanian–American Association: Why do We Need the U.S.? Raimundas Lopata is still an optimist. According to him, strategic relations between Lithuania and the U.S. will be maintained and strengthened. One of the evidence is the Lithuanian–American Association established in 2009. The Association aims at strengthening bilateral economic, social, cultural and educational relations and becoming a place for political discussions of bilateral and transatlantic relations as well as of international security issues.
One of the instruments to revitalise relations between the U.S. and its allies in Europe is intensive cooperation in the soft power institutions. Lithuania may be a reliable partner not only in traditional security issues but also in promoting the development of democracy in the world. The subject is discussed by Žygimantas Pavilionis in his Opinion The Community of Democracies – a New Instrument of Transatlantic Efforts to Enhance Democracy Building?
Editor Tomas Janeliūnas