Rasa Ardys-Juđka, Editor
Perspectives
We have just witnessed the resignation of Lithuania’s second Prime Minister Rolandas Paksas and, now the third Prime Minister’s, Andrius Kubilius’, oath into office during Valdas Adamkus's term in office. Lithuanian dailies screamed Williams International took unfair advantage of Lithuania. They also pronounced the results of the latest polls showing Americans were not to be trusted. What really are the ramifications of the contract signed between Lithuania and Williams? And why did a sure thing turn out to be a supposedly “ugly American” incident. Or is this what “others” would like us to believe?
When Valdas Adamkus was elected in 1998, Lithuania's people were relieved that a Soviet compatriot wasn't in the office; one who knew the ways of democracy now held the reins. But with the change came ways of thinking and action totally foreign to the new government. Instead of isolationist thinking -- "we know all, we can do all" -- came global, cooperative measures opening Lithuania up to public adoration, commentary, and criticism.
Already in late October, Stratfor.com (an internet-based international news carrier) had started reporting about the events which were unfolding in Lithuania. They had pointed out that "the crux of the dispute is the degree to which Lithuania should sacrifice its economic stability and its relationship with Russia in the hope of gaining admittance into Western economic and defense structures." One issue of great concern for people who want to control their future.
Three viewpoints on this business transaction clash. The translation becomes more political, rather than economic. For the Lithuanian government, the Williams contract is proof that they prefer the West and its offerings: NATO to Russia's unstable and hostile demands, and a self-sufficient energy source.
For Williams International, it's a business contract with investment in future results of what the refinery can and will produce. It is also an opportunity to help Lithuania become "independent" of Russia's hold on Lithuania's energy sources. Williams can be that key toward self-sufficiency and self-direction.
For Russia and its crumbling economy, the refinery deal is a political issue. In the past, cutting off or continuing oil supply was contingent not on the exchange of monies, but on whether Lithuania submitted to certain governmental changes and/or additions a là the Russian/Soviet way.
It would be wise to be wary of the doomsayers and polltakers. They still harbor sentimental feelings for the “old days” of the Red Guard. It is the Lithuanian people who realize that for change to take place, they must be willing to invest in themselves and their future. They are the true barometers of what Lithuania really wants, and Russia is incapable of getting that for them.