Best memorial to January 13, 1991 victims would be prosperous Lithuania

KLAIPEDA - Amid commemorations for Jan. 13, 1991, the Day of Freedom Defenders, a tribute to the fallen national heroes who were crushed by Soviet tanks while defending the Television Tower, a symbol of Lithuania’s freedom back in 1991, quintessential questions were raised as to whether contemporary Lithuania has forgotten its fallen heroes, or, worse, betrayed their ideals.

“Historians are not taking on writing the history of modern Lithuania, [starting with] the tragic January 13, 1991 events, claiming that they are still ongoing, and that the January 13 history is not over yet with the ongoing criminal investigations into them. Alas, the current authorities lack political will to bring them to an end, fearing offending Russia. Therefore, the chronicle of the January 13 tragedy may never be written,” warned the only survivor of the Medininkai massacre (Soviet OMON paratroopers killed seven Lithuanian customs agents in cold-blooded execution style at the Medininkai customs post near the Lithuanian and Belarusian border in 1991) and archbishop of the Lithuanian Evangelic Reformat Congregation, Tomas Sernas.

He is not the only one who is anxious that the true history of the 1991 tragedy is being deliberately shelved in the darkest corners of the archives. Concurring with the Medininkai massacre survivor, Kazimieras Motieka, a signatory of the Act of Independence of Lithuania, ponders that even some high echelon-politicians believe that the right time to speak of the Jan. 13, 1991 events has not yet come. He blames either a lack of historical expertise, or selfish interests for that.
“Time distorts the facts. Maybe the persons who say that the right time to tell the whole truth about the tragic events has not come yet want to have as little of those tragedy-related facts left as possible. This would be huge damage to the modern history of the state,” Motieka warns.

The first independent Lithuanian Defense Minister and signatory to the Act of Independence of Lithuania, Andrius Buskevicius, pointing to persons at the highest echelons of power, and those he does not want to name, says: “Their interests would be harmed if the full information regarding January 13, 1991 were revealed.”

“Some portray us, the signatories and the decision-makers back in the 1990s, as poor things who were stomped upon,  harmed and who were suddenly attacked by the iron bulldozer of the Soviet Union and who have managed to retain power only because of the determination of the January 13 crowds outside the Lithuanian Parliament. In my understanding, the situation was quite different then,” Butkevicius said mysteriously, without giving an explanation.
Povilas Gylys, a well-known economist and former Foreign Affairs minister of independent Lithuania, says, if not for the January 13 victims, “the entire rhetoric would be different now.”

“It is hard to speak of the tragedy in any other light than we are used to, calling it the fulcrum of our fight for freedom back in the 1990s. No doubt, it is such, and the remembrance of the 14 Lithuanians crushed by the Russian tanks will be ever alive. However, even now, and all these years, I hear some speculation coming from very high-ranking officials that it would have probably been better for Lithuania if there had been more January 13, 1991 sacrifices. In this case, supposedly, our case against Russia would be stronger in every aspect, and freedom’s merits would be more highly appreciated by the West. I would say it is a weird kind of thinking, but it does exist,” Gylys said to The Baltic Times.
The professor concurs with the only Jan. 13 massacre survivor, Sernas, saying, “We may never find out the whole truth about the tragedy, and what led to it, and what the actual role of the most prominent then-leaders was.”

In light of the discussions, a public Sprint tyrimai (Sprint researches) survey asking whether Lithuanians would prefer economic wellbeing over independence of the country, publicized just before the Jan. 13 commemorations, showed 70 percent of the respondents choosing wellbeing, which has caused an uproar in the country.
Big names in modern Lithuanian history, such as Vytautas Landsbergis and Seimas chairwoman Irena Degutiene, were quick to weigh in on the heated discussion over the consumerism of Lithuanians. “It shows a low level of consciousness of our society. The very essence of our independence should be clear to everyone.

Maybe people do not really understand what the question was about… Independence is not an abstraction. Well-being is a concrete thing, and nowadays seemingly all want only concrete things. This reflects political immaturity and, being material individuals, a primitive materialism. This way of thinking kills everything not only in Lithuania, and not only the international issues we deal with. When people start asking this kind of question – what use will I get from this or that – the whole politics turns into politics of misery. This kind of mentality is the outcome of the Soviet upbringing,” Landsbergis said to Delfi.

He said, however, that if the survey question had been put in another way, it would have turned out quite different results.
The responses to the other survey questions also drew the Lithuanian patriarch’s disappointment. Asked by Sprinter tyrimai what is more important, energy independence or low-cost fuel supplies, even if this requires energy dependence on Russia, a staggering 62.9 percent of the respondents stood for the latter.

To make Landsbergis’ wound even more rancid, when inquired whether Lithuania has to criticize the human rights situation in Belarus and Russia, risking mutual trade ties with these countries, a whopping 42 percent of Lithuanians responded that, in such cases, Lithuanian ought to keep its mouth shut and not harm economic relationships. Only 27.5 percent said Lithuania has to defend democratic values by all means and criticize the violations of human rights in other countries.

“With the answers to the first questions of the survey known, this is not surprising, as it is in line with the same mentality of consumerism. Unfortunately, it is not characteristic for Lithuania to be very critical of Moscow,” the europarliamentarian said with a frown.

Lithuania’s propensity for distancing itself from ongoing wrongdoings and maladies of our closest neighbors is also attributive to our country, Landsbergis says. He referred to the recent murder of Russian lawyer Sergej Magnicki who, possibly, revealed a massive corruption scandal in the Russian military. “When this happens in Russia, we say ‘oh, let them deal with this alone.’ But if a similar killing happened in Lithuania, would we also say that it does not concern us. Where is the limit?” Landsbergis pondered.
He reiterated that the inclination to evaluate all processes through the prism of personal well-being and interests “kills everything in Lithuania.”

Algis Caplikas, a parliamentarian and chairman of Lithuania’s Liberal and Centrist Party, says he snubs the survey. “I can come up with only one word for these kinds of surveys - a provocation before the sacred day of January 13. Had the surveyors put an emphasis on different words or formulations, we would discuss quite different results,” Caplikas maintained to The Baltic Times. He enthused: “The state of Lithuania lives, lived and will always live, no matter what.”
He says he knows some people on the political right willing to keep the entire nation “in a state of readiness for a fight” forever.

“The kind of events as January 13, 1991 can occur once in a nation’s history, and it makes no sense to want to infuse the spirit of patriotism that we stunned the world with back in 1990s again now. Then, most of the defenders of our symbols of freedom were poor, and that did not bother anyone. It would be, however, very odd to see the people ranting about patriotism 20 years later, provided their bellies gurgle from hunger, and that then-18-year-old girl and now a nearly 40-year-old woman cannot afford a nice dress,” Caplikas said.

He says “those in power” whimper a lot, not allowing ordinary people to take care of their lives the way they want. “I truly cannot grasp why the January 13 commemorative events have turned into a day of prolonged grief and sadness gripping the country. To me, the day is first of freedom and rejoicing. When we all become a bit happier, even on such a tragic day, the entire country will start doing better,” the parliamentarian said.
Swedbank chief economist Nerijus Maciulis reckons that the survey participants likely “misunderstood” the term “independence.”

“Most probably the respondents perceived the term as a criterion of economic, but not of political freedom. I think most respondents comprehended the question about Lithuanian independence in the context of being independent from the European Union, not from the post-Second World War Soviet occupation. The results should be doubted, to say the least,” the economist said.

With Lithuania’s EU accession, a part of the independence has been lost indeed, the banker stresses, naming the decommissioning of Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant and the minimal EU-set tax margins. “Since joining the European Union, Lithuanian well-being has been rising rapidly ever since. Not only EU-bound export volumes have surged, but also our residents’ incomes and social benefits. I think the survey results reflect exactly this – a preference of long-term well-being over loss of certain  rights. Partly, the results show a more global mentality of our populace – a larger integration into the EU has brought economic benefits, and has not reduced individual rights. On the contrary, it has opened up the borders allowing our citizens to travel freely,” the economist emphasized.
As for the preference of cheap Russian gas over Lithuanian energy independence, Maciulis calls the juxtaposition as “a mere expression of public shortsightedness.”

To the latter question, he says the dimension of time is very important. “I think the quarter of the respondents who said that it is more important to get freedom from Russian fuel thought of the long term. They probably realize that, having carried out strategic energy goals, having a liquid gas terminal and the Visaginas Nuclear Power Plant built, energy independence we talk a lot about will be effectively created. Besides, availability of alternative energy sources and providers will ensure a lower gas price,” Maciulis inferred.

He says those preferring lower Russian fuel costs over energy independence tend to think about today’s economic difficulties, but not about the future. “For the majority of the population, I believe the current gas and electric power prices are an extremely painful issue to make people think of a bright future, i.e. energy independence,” the economist noted.
He is also not surprised by the survey respondents’ reluctance to support democratic changes in Russia and Belarus. “Our people think that economic interests come first and the fight for democracy can wait a bit, particularly when Lithuania’s voice sounds quiet on the international arena. This also shows Lithuanians being pragmatics, as we realize that we are not able to solve the problems in those countries, but addressing them may aggravate our economic well-being,” the economist said.

Gylys agrees that “it is normal,” facing economic difficulties, to emphasize the importance of well-being over freedom. “We are not the Israelis who are being brought up as every-day defenders of their country, and where everything is built on the defense of the country. With NATO and EU memberships, Lithuanians realize we have received very significant security and freedom assurances. It is nothing out of the ordinary for us all to want to have a better economic life,” the signatory of the Act of Independence of Lithuania said.

“To get back to your question on the immortalization of the January 13 victims, the best ever-lasting monument for their sacrifice would be a politically and economically strong Lithuania capable of providing its citizens high standards of living. Regrettably, we are far from this,” Gylys stressed.

He says “there is something very wrong” with the Lithuania we have. “I believe the reason for this is a lack of true leadership in the country. Seemingly, no one knows how to strengthen the foundation of the state. There are many features of democracy, but there is a lot of anarchy as well,” Gylys pointed out.