Lithuania’s Foreign Policy under Eastern Partnership Programme in 2009-2014

1. Small State Policy or Smart State Strategy?
Lithuania’s Foreign Policy under Eastern
Partnership Programme in 2009-2014
Maksimas Milta
EaP Youth Policy Academy
June 9, 2016

2. Who am I?
Education:
• Master‘s degree in Eastern European and
Russian Studies (Vilnius University‘s
Institute of International Relations and
Political Sciences)
• Bachelor‘s degree in Cultural Heritage
(European Humanities University)
Job:
• Head of Communications and Marketing at
the European Humanities University
Fields of academic interest:
• Small state studies, history of ideas, policy
of memory, Eastern European and Russian
studies

3. Puzzle, Research Question and
Aim
Master‘s thesis Small State Policy or Smart State Strategy? Lithuania’s Foreign Policy
under Eastern Partnership Programme in 2009-2014 was publicly defended at Vilnius
University‘s Institute of International Relations and Political Sciences on January 20,
2015.
Puzzle: Marginal capacities within EU decision-making process being disproportional to
the output of Lithuania’s foreign policy towards implementation of Eastern Partnership
(EaP) programme
Research question: How does engagement into implementation of EaP programme
correlate with Lithuania’s foreign policy’s shift to smart state strategy?
Aim: Assessment of Lithuania’s foreign policy vis-à-vis 6 EaP countries through a prism
of smart state strategy under the framework of EaP programme

4. Argument
Shift of Lithuania’s foreign policy towards 6 Eastern European and Southern Caucasian
countries by utilising “smart state strategy”, grounding on exercising self-interested
mediator and lobbyist roles, towards implementation of Eastern Partnership programme
in post-Lisbon treaty institutional environment, is determined by development of external
geopolitical and security settings.
Independent variable: geopolitical and security settings
Dependent variable: Lithuania’s foreign policy
Intervening variable: Eastern Partnership programme

5. Theory, Methodology, Novelty
Conceptually object of the study, i.e. Lithuania’s foreign policy, is tackled within the
triangle of (1) constructivist theory of European integration, (2) geopolitical dimension of
international relations and (3) securitisation concepts
Methodology is designed to trace the research question within three consequent chapters
related to dimensions of (1) small state studies, (2) purpose of EaP programme and (3)
detalised revision of Lithuania’s foreign policy contribution towards implementation of EaP
programme – on the basis of analysis of primary and secondary sources, and 7
conducted interviews with experts and stakeholders
Novelty grounds on the expansion of Anders Wivel’s introduced categories of “small state
policy” and “smart state strategy” towards EaP programme. Merging conceptual
framework of Europeanisation of foreign policy with analytical instruments of small states
behaviour, reviewed in the context of geopolitical determination of policy-making
contributes additional specialisation within the research of European integration

6. Structure
1. SMALL STATES’ BEHAVIOUR IN EUROPEAN UNION
1.1 Defining Small State in the European Union
1.2. Institutional Transformation of the European Union and Europeanisation
1.3. Small States’ Approaches to Influence Decision-Making in the European Union
2. PURPOSE OF THE EASTERN PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME
2.1 Legacy and Design of the Eastern Partnership Programme
2.2 Paradox of security narratives and criticism of Eastern Partnership programme
2.3 Engagement of the recipient countries with the Eastern Partnership programme
3. LITHUANIA'S ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING EASTERN PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME
3.1 From European Neighbourhood Policy to Warsaw Summit
3.2 Post-Warsaw Summit – Vilnius Summit stage
3.3 Eastern Partnership after Vilnius Summit

7. Small States in the European
Union
• Definition of the size has been historically prioritising powers possessed by states,
nor powers exercised
• Traditional small state’s approach to decision-making within European Union (EU) is
determined by vulnerability of limited absolute resources
• New institutional environment of the EU, caused by Lisbon Treaty, limited prior
capacities of smaller states in delivering influence
• Europeanisation of EU external policy imposed a shift from bargaining-led to arguing-
led approach in decision-making, thus favouring smaller states
• Proactive behaviour in exploiting own influence on European level, i.e. smart state
strategy (according to Wivel), is exercised by acting as a) lobbyist, b) self-interested
mediator or c) norm entrepreneur with a help of policy-prioritisation and limited scope
of geopolitical interests
• Smart state strategy characteristics are: a) high policy prioritisation, b) seeking
common European interest, c) mediation between larger states and coalition-building

8. Purpose of Eastern Partnership
programme
• EaP programme grounds on logics of ensuring security within eastern neighbourhood
of the EU, reflecting an orientation on narrative of “circle of friends”, originated in
post-enlargement fatigue environment and fostered by Russia’s imposed geopolitical
setting in the region (i.e. Russo-Georgian war)
• Duality of EaP programme’s design (i.e. bilateral and multilateral tracks of
cooperation) provide a wider flexibility for deepening cooperation with front-running
countries
• Progress of EaP recipient countries is determined by presence of (a) Russia’s backed
frozen conflicts, (b) domestic political settings and respective identity-led discourses,
(c) economic interdependence (i.e. trade balance) with external partners
• Revision of the EaP should be focused on ensuring political prioritisation of the
programme, preserving integrity of the programme, addressing change of security
setting in Eastern Europe after Russia’s occupation of Crimea and its contribution to
military activity in Eastern Ukraine

9. Lithuania’s role in implementing
Eastern Partnership programme (I)
• Lithuania’s rationale behind focusing its foreign policy on EaP recipient countries
grounds on the continuum of constructivist and geopolitical perspectives,
emphasising importance of social construction factors (e.g. identity, norms and
ideas), as driving force for further integration with EaP countries on one side and risk
of existential threat, imposed by Russia’s deployed settings across Eastern Europe
on the other
• Lithuania’s imposed role of “Good European” towards majority of EU policy areas has
resulted in absence of proactive behaviour during 2008-2011 stage of EaP
implementation, as a consequence of endogenous and exogenous limits and crisis of
transition from prior role of regional leader, promoted by President Adamkus
• Post-Warsaw Summit stage of EaP implementation constitutes organisational and
institutional opportunities of rotating Presidency, utilised by Lithuania for fostering
EaP implementation

10. Lithuania’s role in implementing
Eastern Partnership programme (II)
• Lithuania’s comprehensive preparation, ability to learn from Polish Presidency,
earned political recognition from European partners by prior active engagement in
socialization and networking determined and appearance of Council conclusions on
Ukraine in December 2012 determined appropriate initial conditions for utmost
political prioritisation EaP during rotating Presidency
• Success in coalition-building has been driven by ability of justifying EaP as common
European interest to various groupings of member states, therefore exploiting role of
honest broker within the Council
• Ability to reach set goals under EaP framework and expand internal outreach of EaP
among other CFSP areas was possible due to exercising facilitating role of
Presidency and consistently avoiding undermining of External Actions Service and
Commission roles, thus ensuring trustworthy relations, allowing Lithuania to exploit
resources of European institutions in reaching smooth consensus during negotiations
over unilateral expansion of trade preferences towards Ukraine and overall
negotiations on AA and DCFTA

11. Lithuania’s role in implementing
Eastern Partnership programme (III)
Geopolitical escalation in Eastern Europe, illustrated by Russia’s imposed pressure on
Armenia and Ukraine, supplemented by Crimea’s occupation and Russia’s contribution to
military resistance in Eastern Ukraine has caused a return of primarily geopolitical hard-
liner orientation of Lithuania’s foreign policy and resulted in internal demand for imposing
more hard security component of the revised EaP programme

12. Conclusions
• Emergence of EaP, as extension of ENP, provided unprecedented political initiative of the
EU vis-à-vis its neighbourhood in Eastern Europe, which bears utmost geopolitical
importance to Lithuania
• Development of geopolitical and security setting in Europe (i.e. Russia’s imposed influence
vis-à-vis 6 recipient countries) determined Lithuania’s choice for utmost prioritisation of
EaP, through exploiting organisational and institutional resources of European institutions
during its rotating Presidency and domestic expertise, supplemented by utilisation of own
smallness towards coalition-building among member states
• Fulfilment of deliverables with Georgia and Moldova, agenda-shaping of Moldova’s VLAP
serve as outcomes of Lithuania’s resources being multiplied by utilisation of European
ones
• Lithuania’s accumulated “smart state strategy” role is additionally justified by hard-liner
standing vis-à-vis Russia in 2014 being treated differently from isolation of Lithuania during
2008 post-PCA negotiations
Avenue for further research: To what extent Lithuania’s adoption of smart state strategy is
instrumental to exploit influence within policy areas beyond EaP programme

13. More details
Full research available for online
purchase via www.MoreBooks.de
starting June 15

14. Thank you for your attention – now let‘s have a discussion.
In the meantime feel free to contact me via maksimas@milta.lt