Domestic contestations in Lithuania’s foreign and security policy: who calls the shots?
ENIn this chapter, we examine domestic contestations in Lithuania’s foreign and security policy during the 2014–2019 period using theoretical framework presented in Chapter 2 and combining it with ideas of Brummer, Thies, and Wehner, who are the leading experts writing on institutional actors’ roles in domestic contestations (Brummer and Thies 2014, Wehner and Thies 2014). We present three micro-cases of Lithuania’s foreign and security policy that reveal how Lithuania’s foreign and security policymakers coped with pressures emanating from domestic contestations and from international organisations (the EU, NATO, and the UN). Specifically, the three selected micro-cases we analyse are: Lithuania’s position regarding the EU refugee relocation mechanism adopted in 2015; Lithuania’s vote supporting the 2017 UN resolution on “The status of Jerusalem”; and, country’s 2015 decision to reintroduce conscription and defence budget to meet the 2014 NATO’s Wales pledge. The three selected micro-cases reveal the extent to which President Grybauskaitė succeeded in “calling the shots” by personally taking charge of country’s foreign and security policies and not only withstanding the external pressures from three different international organisations and global actors (i.e., the United States), but also often outmanoeuvring her BK-TandF-WEISS_9780367535513-211331-Chp05.indd 79 11/10/21 12:41 PM 80 Gerda Jakštaitė-Confortola and Ausra Park domestic “opponents” in numerous power plays whether those were vertical, from the public, or horizontal contestations, from other actors.We argue that no matter where the pressure was coming from or which strategy was pursued or how intense (or temperate) domestic contestations were to (re)adjust Lithuania’s foreign and security policy, ultimately, at least in Lithuania’s case during the 2014–2019 period, the role of certain individuals – specifically, the first female president and her personal preferences – were not only influential, but were also in fact paramount. As evidenced in three distinct micro-cases examined below, Grybauskaitė both as an individual and an institutional actor had set a precedent, which allowed the President and the presidency to profoundly shape country’s security and foreign policy.
