A. Rusi. European Energy Security
Prof. Alpo Rusi, a visiting professor at Vytautas Magnus UniversityE
European Energy Security – Is the EU too weak to compete with the Energy Companies and to contain Russian geopolitical pressure based on energy interdependence? Nord Stream 2 is a case in point.
My intention is to introduce a couple of viewpoints on European energy security mainly in light of Russia’s new confrontational approach towards Ukraine and the West. As stated in the introduction of the theme of this panel ”it is not surprising that the debate about energy security in the European Union is pushed forward” in order ”to find reliable sources of alternative supplies for limiting of energy blackmail”. My question is also whether the EU is too weak to compete with the Energy companies and too weak to contain Russian geopolitical pressure based on energy interdependence? Additionally, Nord Stream 2 is a case in point.
Europe is not anymore divided as during the Cold War but there already exists an identifiable political and military dividing line between Europe and the Eurasian states controlled by the Russian federation. The economic structures of the post-Soviet economy made it difficult, even impossible to integrate Russia into the European institutions. The question was not about the lack of political will but about history and geopolitics. Schock therapies or other quick methods failed to reform post-Soviet Russian economy. Nationalism replaced communist ideologue as a unifying force and a vertical power system regionalization.
Furthermore, Russia has an interest to push its sphere of influence westwards.”To end up the breaking of Russia”. Contrary to other BRIC countries, Russia displays a propensity to use force to achieve its strategic objectives. The neighboring states of Russia are targets of an advanced hybrid war including direct military threats. Instabilities have reached The Baltic Sea Region but much less in case the Nato enlargement would not have covered the Baltic states.
One of the key tactics to promote Russian geopolitical interest is energy interdependence. Since the vertical Putin system was established during his first term as President, natural gas, even more than oil, became perhaps the most powerful tool of foreign policy. Oil trades freely, gas requires fixed pipelines. The network of pipelines, dating to the Soviet era, gave Russia clout and, with rising energy prices, Putin understood early 2000, that it constitutes the core of Russia’s power. Ukraine, through which most of gas passed, had to be firmly nestled in Russia’s geopolitical embrace.
In the early summer 2005 Gazprom took over with a direct involvement of Putin a major private oil company Sibneft with the cash of 13 billion dollars from the funds of the state’s coffers. Putin controlled the company by picking loyal friends to run it at all levels. Gazprom became one of the largest corporations in the world and a powerful arm of Russian foreign policy from Asia to Europe. By strengthening Gazprom, Putin aimed at strengthening Russia’s geopolitical reach to regain after the collapse of the Soviet sphere of influence.
The construction of the longest underwater natural gas pipeline, Nord Stream 1, was launched already 1997 when Gazprom and the Finnish Neste (later on Fortum) formed a joint company North Transgas, later Nord Stream for the construction of a gas pipeline from Russia to Northern Germany across the Baltic Sea. The project was strongly facilitated by Chancellor Gerhard Schröder who had approved one billion loan to Gazprom two weeks before the elections in September 2005, but it took until November 2009, before the Swedish and Finnish authorities gave a permit to lay the pipeline from Viborg to Greifsfald of 1,222 kilometers in their exclusive economic zones. A consortium made up of Russian Gazprom and energy companies E.ON, BASF/Wintershall, OMV, ENGIE and Royal Dutch Shell was created for the Nord Stream 2 project, slated to expand the existing Nord Stream pipeline with current capacity of 55 billion cubic meters.
Nord Stream 1 that was operational in the autumn 2011, and the parallel pipeline the following year had two immediate goals: (1) to bypass the old Soviet pipeline network through Ukraine, Belarus and Poland, and (2) to increase Europe’s dependency on Russia. The project was called by Polish defense minister ”the energy version of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”. For many others is was only a major business deal. In Finland it was even considered that it will strengthen stability in the Baltic Sea because both Germany and Russia were committed to stability for the sake of the pipeline. In 2016 a high share of gas supplies going from Russia to Europe has to pass through Ukraine. Nord Stream 2 is scheduled to be constructed by the end of 2019 which is the same year as the contract between Russia and Ukraine expires.
The war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008 was seen by many as an intense geopolitical contest over the flow of Caspian Sea energy to markets in Europe. The former Prime Minister of Finland, Paavo Lipponenannounced a few days after the war in Georgia that he had signed a contract to become a consultant for Nord Stream in order to ”build bridges between the EU and Russia” and because the issue was comic ties, not politics although the Baltic states expressed strong worries about its security policy repercussions.
First a few words about the ongoing energy revolution and about the geopolitical transition in the international system. With reference to the analysis of Professor Peter Lund of Aalto University, we experience an energy revolution at the moment. Old energy sources, like gas and oil, are loosing ground to new energy sources like solar energy and windpower. Russia’s oil and gas reserves are depleted by 2080. The driving force for this revolution is the threat of climate change, but also technology and opportunities it is offering for new jobs.
Lund estimates that by 2050 more than 50% of the energy sources needed are coming from solar energy and windpower. It is needed, however, approximately 50 trillion for investments to achieve these goals. Lund is paying tribute to the US, China,Switzerland, Denmark and Germany for their ambitious strategies to replace the old energy sources with the renewable and clean energy sources. In case professor Lund has predicted the future by and far correctly, the energy revolution may take place parallel with a major geopolitical transition too.
The European security system is fragile but the international order as well The conflict between Russia and the West, but also increasingly there exists a conflict between China and the West with geopolitical dimensions. It has been emphasized that the interconnected infrastructure of the global economy provides the battleground for so called connectivity wars and economic interdependence has been ”weaponized” accordingly, the supply cuts of gas by Russia and the increase of tensions in the South China Sea as examples of ”the connectivity wars”.
Could the EU limit the energy dependency on Russia , that is the most important external supplier of energy to the EU (30% of gas and oil import to the EU) and to develop a united energy community and energy foreign policy for the EU members states? For example Finland gets about 50% of its energy from Russian sources and out of which almost 100% of gas and 85% of raw oil and 12 % of electricity. No gas will come to Lithuania from Russia anymore and Lettland and Estonia follow the suit. This is a major achievement because in 2000 Lithuania was 100% dependent on Russian oil and gas and Lithuania had to use more Russian energy sources again due to the closing of Ignalia nuclear reactor between 2004 to 2009. The getting of rid of the Soviet era electricity transit network BRELL, will take at least one decade to be completed, but bio mass and LNG (liquefied natural gas)-terminal in Klaipeida are examples of the transition taking place in energy sector in Lithuania but also in Lettland an Estonia.
One of the most ambitious projects of the EU Commission is the Energy Union proposed by Donald Tusk when he was Prime Minister of Poland in 2015. The reason for this initiative was, not necessarily climate change but Russia’s cuts of gas supplies to Europe, once in 2006 and again in 2009. The annexation of Crimea by Russia made the establishment of the Energy Union for energy security a much more important goal.
Russia’s room for gas games is constrained by its own capacities, the gas strategies of other players, and the EU’s ability to project its regulatory power. One of the first victims of the annexation of Crimea was South Stream pipeline. Understanding the difficulties, Putin killed the project in December 2014. The sanctions hit hard the inner circle of Putin, like Gennady Timchenko, the owner of Gunvor, an oil trading company registered in Switzerland. He managed to sell all his shares just before the sanctions were introduced.
Vladimir Putin certainly believed that the price of oil would not fall so drastically as it did from the level of 147 (11.7.2008) dollars per barrel and it was believed that the days of affordable oil were over. In December 2008 the price of oil dropped to 32,40 dollars level per barrel being somewhere between 35 to 50 dollars per barrel in 2016. No surprise that Putin accused Washington for the finance crisis of 2008, but for sure he did not predict the collapse of the price when went to war in Georgia. In the US Dept of Energy predictions the price of oil has been estimated in three scenarios: (1) 200 dollars, (2) 130 dollars and (3) 50 dollars.The last one may be closer to the truth which is a catastrophic scenario for Russia.
Since the annexation of Crimea and the sanctions set up against the Russian companies, banks and individuals by the EU and the US, Russia has both intensified its aggressive foreign policy but also improved its economic relations with China and all countries that can avoid punishments by the EU and the US. Presidents Putin and XI have criticized US unilateralism, stepped up their military cooperation and signed major energy deals, like 400 billion dollars Power of Siberia Gas pipeline project. Mongolia managed to get rid of their huge debts by signing an energy contract with Russia. Russian ”oil diplomacy” still plays a role in Asia.
A case in point is the planned gas pipeline Nord Stream 2. The question is whether the plan would contradict the plans of the European Commission. The decision should be taken in the early autumn of 2016 and the construction completed by 2019.
- What kind of an impact will Nord Stream 2 have on the European energy security?
- What are the commercial, legal, and political-policy issues that could potentially prevent the pipeline from being built?
- Is Nord Stream 2 pipeline a geopolitical project that seeks to diminish Ukraine’s gas supply and its role as a transit country for Russia or is Nord Stream 2 a business plan that will help Europe meet its energy demands amidst European Union’s climate change goals?
The Nord Stream 2 has become a very divisive issue inside the EU and the transatlantic community. Within the EU solutions are being sought to prevent Nord Stream 2 from dividing the union into losers and winners. In the Baltic states it is considered as a geopolitical tool and as a bad business deal. In April the Swedish-Estonian community published a resolution in protest of Nord Stream 2 for security reasons. At least the EU has been able to say to Russia that ”comply with our laws and sell as much as you can in our market”. However, this has not solved the political problems. The US administration is skeptical of the argument that the pipeline is a commercial project, pointing out that the existing Nord Stream is not running at full capacity and it could kill LNG-strategy of the Energy Union based mainly on the US reserves.
The timing of Nord Stream 2 is certainly not good. However, energy policies are not based on short term interests. In the early 1980s chancellor Helmut Schmidt pushed a pipeline project forward with the Soviet Union against the objection of Ronald Reagan. Schmidt did not want the Soviet Union to increase its geopolitical influence in Western Europe, but both for the long term consolidation with Moscow as well as for energy security for Western Europe. Today the EU is dealing with the similar kind of problem although the diversification of energy sources are not pushing Europe to the brink of scarcity as it was the case in the 1980s. Prices of electricity may rise, but this does not lead to shortage shocks of energy as it was the case during the oil crises in the 1970s.
In Europe the business community is not unified on Nord Stream 2. One can agree that the commercial and political issues cannot be separated regarding Nord Stream 2. In German business as well as political community in particular they emphasize the need to let the markets fix and support Nord Stream 2. Especially the Social Democrats are advocating the project also for political reasons.
One of the most critical arguments has been expressed by a Swedish scholar Anders Åslund. In his view the EU Commission is too weak to check the big European energy giants and they are now colluding with Gazprom to build a completely unnecessary pipeline to beat Ukraine and get oligopoly with higher prices for European consumers. The EU is not sharing this criticism but insists to keep Ukraine as one of the key transit routes for gas in the future too.
Although oil and gas may loose their attraction in the longer term, Russia is an energy power in the field of nuclear energy and in the search of new territories for energy, like in the Arctic, as part of its geopolitical enlargement strategy. Rosatom has invested to Fennovoima, a Finnish company, to build a new nuclear reactor to Pyhäjoki. The chairman of the Green party Ville Niinistö has criticized the project as a new sign of finlandisation.
Finland will chair the Arctic Council next year and Finland would like to chair the summit for the Council members. Let us hope that this afford would stop militarization of the Arctic.
Conlusions:
1. The short-term question for Europe should not be how to break energy bonds with Russia, but how to limit the damage caused by the Russian aggressive strategy to weaponize energy interdependence. Nord Stream 2 should not be implemented in case no real political unity achieved inside the EU on the project. In particular Finland and Germany should reconsider their business first approach in supporting of Nord Stream 2 in case the Baltic states and Sweden are against.
2. Taking into consideration the ongoing energy revolution and Russia’s problems in the longer term, the EU, for the sake of its energy security, should invest still more effort in finding alternative sources of energy to make itself less dependent on Russian gas. Here again a Baltic-Nordic co-operation is needed for the control of electricity prices as for example Sweden is closing its nuclear reactors and the dependence on Russian gas diminished.
3. The Arctic should be safeguarded from geopolitical competition and for environmental reasons.
4. Energy security needs to be better integrated to an overall security strategy of the EU taking into consideration hard security (geopolitics), energy revolution as well as soft security (i.e. environmental factors). Consequently, I would like to raise the question whether there exists a conflict of interest after the annexation of Crimea by Russia that two former heads of the governments of the EU are involved as well paid experts in Nord Stream 2 project. President Vladimir Putin can be identified as the real initiator of Nord Stream pipelines also for geopolitical interests of Russia.
EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION | POLITICAL DIALOGUE & ANALYSIS
Conference of the Working Group of Young Foreign Policy Experts in Stockholm
May 26, 2016, 17:30-19:00
Stockholm, Sweden
First Hotel Norrtull
Sankt Eriksgatan 119
Public lecture of an energy security expert
Dr. Tomas Vlcek, an expert of energy security from the Czech Republic will give lectures on nuclear dimension of energy security and activities of Russian nuclear company in Central and Eastern Europe on 12-15 September, at the Faculty of Political Science and Diplomacy.
Dr Tomas Vlcek is a specialized researcher at the International Institute of Political Science and lecturer at the Energy Security Program, International Relations and Energy Security Centre at Masaryk University. He is a member of the academic association Czech Nuclear Education Network. His academic interests include the energy security of the Czech Republic and Central and Eastern Europe, especially in relation to the nuclear and electricity sectors. He wrote his Doctoral dissertation on the Druzhba pipeline and alternatives to Russian crude oil supply for the Czech and Slovak Republics.
Dr. Tomas Vlcek will give the following lectures:
12 September, 13:15, Gedimino st. 44 – 202 – “Crude Oil Infrastructure Alternatives in Central Europe”.
12 September, 15:15, Gimnazijos st. 7 – 101 – “Nuclear Energy in Central and Eastern Europe and the Operation of Rosatom State Nuclear Energy Corporation”.
13 September, 13:15, Gedimino g. 44 – 203 – “Rosatom in Central Europe – a Putin’s Hand or Effective Company?”
Facing the Storm – Two Years in the Tusk Cabinet
September 5th, 2016 (Monday) at 1:15 PM at the Faculty of Political Science and Diplomacy (Gedimino st. 44 – 202) a public lecture by the Deputy Head of the Cabinet of the President of the European Council Donald Tusk André Gillissen on the subject “Facing the Storm – Two Years in the Tusk Cabinet”. During the lecture guest will present how the Cabinet of the President of the European Council Donald Tusk operates, what challenges the Cabinet faces and how they deal with them.
The Cabinet of Donald Tusk faces unprecedented challenges for the European Union: BREXIT and leading the European Union while trying to map future of the organization accepted by all member states; migrant crisis because of the instability in the Middle East and work with heads of states to deal with it; Russia’s invasion in Ukraine, annexation of Crimea and the EU response to Russia’s actions when searching for solidarity.
Call for papers to Lithuanian Foreign Policy Review
Lithuanian Foreign Policy Review (LFPR) calls for papers. Send your manuscript to the editor at editor@lfpr.lt
LFPR is peer review journal which aims to publish research articles on foreign and security policy of small states and middle powers, especially focusing on Central Eastern European and Northern European regions. It is published twice a year in cooperation with the Faculty of Political Science and Diplomacy of Vytautas Magnus University. Financially, the journal is supported by Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, editorially, it is independent open access publication.
The Journal Publishes in both print and online version. For more information, visit the official website of the journal www.lfpr.lt.
Impressions from the first year in the Faculty
Felix Hoffman is a BA student from Germany, who is studying International politics and development at the Faculty. After being here for one year, Felix agreed to share his perspective.
What motivated you to choose this field of studies?
I have a strong general interest in politics and history. Specifically, a word “development” seemed to be interesting, since it looked more about applied politics, than theory. For me it means to look into exemplary cases, into current development politics of specific players, looking into history and thinking about the future.
What did make you interested in this particular program at PMDF?
I decided to come to Lithuania because of personal reasons in the first place and then started to look for an international program to study in. The choices for international students in politics and history weren’t too many, so I decided to choose international politics and development. I thought this program would suit my personal interests the best. Moreover, I liked the idea of learning another language, which was provided by this faculty.
What were your first impressions about studying here? Did they change over the time?
The concept of giving first and second year students a required amount of general education seemed a really great idea, quality of the side classes could be improved, though.
In the first semester I had an introductory class to Development which was really good! The lecturer had deep knowledge of her field, held very interesting conversation, always had a suiting exemplary case for any question connected to development, tried to challenge the students and their opinions and most importantly, she spoke really good English!
What do like about studying here?
There are a lot of opportunities to engage into university life besides the curriculum and you are encouraged by the university to take opportunities for internships, exchange programs, etc. As a student you definitely get not overloaded with work, yet personally I like to be pushed and challenged more often, also within the subjects!
The Moodle and the FirstClass online systems, as well as a general strong online presence, surely are big plusses for the University and studies. I also still believe that teaching general knowledge to younger students is a great idea.
How would you estimate the quality of the teaching?
Of course, it depends on the particular subject and lecturer. There are classes like my Arabic course, which I was very happy to attend, because I knew I would learn something. On the other hand, at some classes I wasn’t happy with the quality of teaching.
Which are your favourite subjects?
Arabic, History of Civilization, History of Lithuanian culture, introductory class for development, International relations and governance.
In your opinion, what could be improved in your program?
There should be more classes connected to the actual field of studies (Politics and development), in my opinion. Yet the language classes should be kept up, I believe it’s important to speak more than one or two languages in this field of studies, but maybe one more mandatory political class could be added.
Interview was taken by Anton Chernetskyi (student of the Faculty of Political science and Diplomacy).
Why to participate in Model UN?
Mock Model UN
The main event of the second day of PMDF days was a mock version of a Model UN, hosted by the United Nations Student Club. It was a fun exercise familiarizing students with how a Model UN works and enabling them to decide if they would like to participate in a real Model UN session held on May 25-26 in VDU small hall (https://www.facebook.com/events/1725060061074262/ – Facebook page of Kaunas International UN Model event).
The topic of the event was War in Syria. For 2 hours Lithuanian and international students became representatives of US, Turkey, Syria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, Israel, Iraq and Canada.
Olivia Wells is an American student at the Department of regional studies, enrolled into Bachelor’s program International politics and development studies. As a president of the United Nations Student Club Olivia kindly agreed to answer a few questions:
Why did you choose this particular topic?
Because it is really relevant, and the actual Model UN will be particularly about the refugee crisis. Today we were talking about the war, but I’ve worked with a lot of humanitarian groups, so the topic is close to me, and I plan to write my thesis on it. I think it is important to see if students from all over the world can try to find a solution to this, when our leaders are failing to.
Was it the main goal of this event?
The main goal was just to give students a taste of how it works and acquaint them with the rules, which I think, can be quite difficult, like not referring to yourself, but it’s quite fun when you get into it, and also to sort of prepare people to participate in the official one.
Was it successful, in your opinion? What would you like to improve?
To be honest, I would have liked to see more people. It is always a struggle to get people to come, and even if they come, it’s like pulling teeth to get them to actually participate. For example, I don’t know much about France, and I just jumped in, so anyone can do this. Especially politics students should have some ideas, so we haven’t really figured out how to reach out for students.
Why? How do you think? There were a lot of students on the Facebook page of the event…
Exactly! It’s mainly with Lithuanian students, to be honest. The international students are the ones that are mostly coming and more active. Even in the classroom Lithuanian students are really quiet and shy and they don’t speak up for themselves. Now, after living in this country for a while, I understand that it’s the post-soviet mentality in many ways. I mean, we did have some Lithuanians here, so slowly, slowly… But it seems that if something is not required at the university, they won’t do it. In this kind of event, if they have to do something more, like reading this paper, they won’t do it. They prefer to sit and watch. We are going to the individual classes, saying that it will help them in public speaking and it looks good on the resume. This argument would work with students in the US, but here it doesn’t have the same effect, so this is the most difficult thing about all these events.
Was faculty administration supportive?
Yes, they were really great, I cannot complain. They are great in a sense that they say “whatever we need”. The thing that is a bit weird, we’ve had problems with, is that something like a Model UN is a big deal, so you’d think in other universities normally the whole school gets behind it and promote it, and the head of the school would come and talk, and here it’s only our faculty that is really behind it. So our faculty is really great, but the school as a whole… I asked if the head of the school could come and talk at this Model UN, and the woman I was speaking with said that he probably won’t, but when I said that US ambassador is coming, she said “okay”.
Did you just want to see the reaction?
No, the ambassador is probably coming. I talked to her assistant today. Also I asked university to make a post on the FirstClass, as a pop-out, and they also said “No, you can’t do it”.
Was today a rehearsal for the official Model UN in the end of the month?
Yes. This was a good thing to get people to talk and interact. And since we are doing an official one it made sense. Okay, not a lot of people came, but now three more people signed up for the other one, so it’s really good.
Do you expect more people in the end of May?
Yes, but the thing is, I still suspect, that most people will just come to watch. We’ll have probably about 20 people, but it should be more like 30-40, that would be ideal. I guarantee you there will be more people sitting in the back, than here participating. It is hard for me to understand. Why wouldn’t you participate?
Interview by Anton Chernetskyi (student of the Faculty of Political science and Diplomacy).
Impressions from the faculty days
On 3-7 May Faculty of Political Science and Diplomacy (PMDF) organized Faculty days, which included many interesting events for both potential and current students. Since a great part of events was held in English, international students were also welcome to participate.
“Failure is good”
First day started with a warm welcome from Faculty’s vice dean Giedrius Česnakas to the high-school students, right before the torch was picked up by associate professor Jaq Greenspon. His friendly manner and American accent immediately allowed students to feel the international spirit of the faculty. Mr. Greenspon was talking about living dreams and achieving goals, encouraging students to leave their comfort zone as much as possible and learn from failures. According to him, failure is important, because “if you are not failing you are not trying”. The professor shared his own experience of leaving the comfort zone, which allowed him to become a writer and move from the US to Europe. He explained his choice of VMU by the opportunity to teach in English students from all over the world: “For me that was the selling point. Being at the place where all those countries will come to me is awesome. It opens me up for learning. Every semester is new. Every semester is a challenge because I do different things.”
Answering the question about his purple hair, Jaq said: “If you come and take my class on rhetoric I will give you all the tools you need to convince your parents to let you dye you hair”.
The best illustration of Jaq’s words about the countries, coming to you, were international students, who came to talk about their motivation of choosing VMU and their experience of living in Lithuania. The big international family of the PMDF was represented by students from USA, the Emirates, France, Russia, Turkey and Bulgaria.
“I wanted to track how Lithuanian people really see Russia”
On the same day visiting lecturer from University of Paris 8 Matthieu Grandpierron held two lectures on French ways to solve crisis in the developing countries and French diplomacy. He noted on the switch from the material conflict to the ideas conflict, which is much more difficult to solve. Mr. Grandpierron compared strategies, France used for its interventions in Africa, emphasizing on the importance of media support in any kind of operations. Liberating the country by force, in his opinion, is much easier than trying to assess social issues, change political system or to make all the ethnical groups within one state to live in piece, and that’s where “liberators” usually fail. French guest also answered questions about these and other hot topics, such as terrorism, French-Russian relationship, growing radicalism etc.
One of the reasons of Matthieu Grandpierron’s visit to Lithuania was his desire to see “How Lithuanian people really see Russia: as a threat or as an opportunity”.
Although his university is linked to the French Ministry of Defense, for which Matthieu has done research, he stressed, that he doesn’t necessarily have to support its official position: “Firstly, I am a researcher. I am here as a researcher, so I don’t need to bother with the official discourses”
Mock Model UN
The main event of the second day of PMDF days was a mock version of a Model UN, hosted by the United Nations Student Club. The topic of the event was War in Syria. For 2 hours Lithuanian and international students became representatives of US, Turkey, Syria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, Israel, Iraq and Canada.
It was a fun exercise familiarizing students with how a Model UN works and enabling them to decide if they would like to participate in a real Model UN session held on May 25-26 in VDU (https://www.facebook.com/events/1725060061074262/).
The third day
The third day had probably the busiest schedule. Two public lectures were held by the lecturer of Nicolas Copernicus University in Toruń habil. dr. Antonina Kozyrska. During the first lecture she provided the audience with the insights into the complicated religious situation in Ukraine after 1991. The lecturer also talked about the situation during Euromaidan events, noting that all the churches have common position in terms of restoring of peace, national unity and territorial integrity of the country. The second lecture was devoted to the decommunization process in Ukraine, which started from 2015 and includes removal of communist monuments and renaming of public places named after communist-related themes.
On the same day another lecturer from Nicolas Copernicus University habil. dr. Dorota Michaluk held a lecture on the historical memory of the Belarusian minority in Poland, which is mostly concentrated in Bialystok region. According to her, historical memory of Belarusians minority is different from historical memory of not only Poles but also Belarusian inhabitants of Belarus, resulting in absence of close spiritual ties with the latter.
“One page of information in your CV is better than 3-4 pages of nonsense”
The day continued with the special seminar “Career Opportunities in International Organizations”, organized by the American studies club. The Head of NATO Arms Control and Coordination Section William Alberque visited PMDF already for the second time. With a degree of humor and artistry he told students about his work experience and gave them some useful tips about how to start career in an international organization.
Thus, according to Mr. Alberque, it is important to decide what you are interested in and to attend different events, such as conferences and public speeches. He also recommended to read papers on the topics, which are interesting for you, as well as writing you own ones, which look good on CV. Another important thing, according to him, is field work and internships, which usually are more valuable than degrees. Mr. Alberque emphasized on the importance of networking, making contacts and meeting people, who could recommend you in the future, as well as exploiting national connections (people, who represent your country on the international arena) “mercilessly”. He noted that it is important to show what you can do to differentiate, to think fast and learn languages, which are a big advantage (Fluent English + Russian/Russian/Chinese/Arabic). Mr. Alberque also gave students some tips on writing resume, in particular, to make it brief (“one page of information in your CV is better than 3-4 pages of nonsense”) and base it on the description of the position, you are applying for. He also advised not to forget about social media, as applicant’s accounts are always looked through.
Besides this seminar, during PMDF days the American studies club also organized the lecture of W. Alberque “NATO’s Role in Crisis Management”, as well as Movie evening+discussion about film “Zero Dark Thirty”.
One of the organizers Gerda Jakštaitė called the events successful, emphasizing on the activity and motivation of the students, as well as the “great and cozy” atmosphere, which was the aim of organizers. According to her, the main difficulty was to get appropriate venue for the events, however, “the faculty was helpful, as always, especially administrators”.
Written by Anton Chernetskyi (student of the Faculty of Political science and Diplomacy).
G. Česnakas: I think PMDF is becoming a brand
Vice dean Giedrius Česnakas went through all the stages of higher education at the Faculty of Political Science and Diplomacy from BA studies to PhD. He joined VMU in 2003, and since then a lot of improvements took place at the faculty.
Why did you choose politics in the first place?
I was really interested in history. Maybe I was a bit naïve, which is natural for young age, but I decided, if I want to do some positive changes then I have to focus on the field which is interesting for me and get to know its strengths and weaknesses, how everything works in order to make positive impact on society. I joined because of my idealistic assumptions.
What was your favorite subject as a student?
Geopolitics and international relations.
What has changed at the faculty since you were a student?
At that time we had only one department, and now we have five of them, so the faculty has grown rapidly. Back then all the students studied only Political Science and Public Administration and after two years they could choose between those fields. In contrast, nowadays students can apply for a number of undergraduate programmes in Lithuanian or English, as well as separate programmes of Public Administration or Public Communication, so the number of programmes is growing. Now we have more lecturers. Some of them, just like me, graduated from PMDF, and after expanding their knowledge abroad, returned to teach here. There are also professors from other universities, for example, from Vilnius we have such great professors as Mindaugas Jurkynas and Egdūnas Račius. We have also lecturers from other countries. At that time we didn’t have such opportunities. The quality of education has increased significantly, the possibilities are getting better, and the students are given more attention.
PMDF is relatively young, but at the same time it’s the biggest faculty at VMU. What is the major factor for such a dramatic increase?
I think the main factor was a huge interest of students in Political Science and Public Administration, especially during the period 2000-2010, but it still remains. More than that, some new programmes were introduced, like Public Communication, which in the first years attracted enormous amount of students. 200 students applying for Public Communication was a staggering number, we didn’t expect that. Another reason was introduction of new programmes in English, which allowed us to accept students from abroad for full-time studies. In fact, we have the biggest number of students studying at VMU from abroad, comparing to other faculties. The names of well-known professors, who came to teach here, also attracted students to join the faculty.
In most of universities usually Media studies belong to Social Science faculty. Why does Journalism and Media Analysis programme belong to PMDF?
Our faculty pays much attention to interdisciplinary studies. We think that students should be able to get basic knowledge in their field, as well as expand their knowledge in other fields. Maybe this contradicts with traditions at other universities, however, we don’t see this as a weakness, but as a strength, because we have more diverse community within the faculty. When academic staff gathers, we have broader, more interesting discussions and we are able to provide new ideas and insights. I assume that it would not occur if we followed the traditional path. Next year we will launch BA programme in Philosophy and Political Critique. I assume that in contemporary world to join Philosophy and Political Science is an interesting approach. We try to suggest something new. Moreover, we try to approach new things not only in our programmes, but as well in communication with our students. We are not really hierarchical institution, so this liberal approach, when we discuss topics as equals, I think, is beneficial for both students’ education and professors’ understanding of what is interesting for the young scholars.
What other novelties can we expect in the nearest future?
We are trying to introduce new programmes in Vilnius, such as the programme for diplomats, where you can focus more on the diplomatic side of the international relations. I see vast field where we can focus on increasing quality, attracting international professors, increasing diversity of teachers. I think in the future we won’t focus on the introduction of new programmes, but maybe changing them and trying to increase their quality, satisfaction of students and maybe suggest something unexpected.
What is needed to prepare specialists, who are competitive at the labor market?
Personally, I am a bit skeptical about the idea that our faculty should prepare student for particular jobs or companies. We aren’t faculty of informatics or, let’s say, applied sciences. In those fields they can prepare student to work in particular place. In my perspective, we should do our best in using the advantage of Liberal Arts approach to give students the perspective not only in Politics or Communication or Public Administration, but also in culture, history, arts. We should focus more on creating personalities, giving possibilities, encouraging them to do more outside university, to be active citizens and participate in politics, civic society or business sector. This is a key to success in our field, in my perception.
Can you say that PMDF became an attractive brand for the employers?
I think it is becoming a brand. It takes time. We are quite young, we don’t have a lot of successful stories, but we have them. Our graduates now are quite successful politicians, some of them were advisors to the prime minister, some work in different ministries and municipalities. The number of students is active in private sector. Some work at NATO, in EU institutions and think tanks, media and public communication organizations, so I think, we are on the good path.
Do events like conflict between Ukraine and Russia, refugee crisis affect study programmes in the field of politics?
I like to work in this field, because each time when you go to the lecture, you have to take time to prepare for it. It isn’t like in Math or Physics, when you know general rules and they don’t significantly change with the time. However, when you teach foreign policy or international relations, each time you have to read, to update your information, to add or exclude something. It takes a lot of time actually, compared to some other fields, but, I think, we need to be dynamic to provide the newest insights, to explain the world, because we don’t have any general laws about how politics or international relations work. We have ideas, assumptions how they work, and they are tested every day, and we must be able to catch up to the latest news. That’s why every evening after work I watch and read about what happened in the world.
What sources do you trust?
Personally I watch CNN, BBC, Lithuanian news network. After that I just find some middle ground, let’s say, because I perfectly understand that media cannot be neutral. I also read different publications by think tanks, which provide information from reflective perspectives. I compare information from different kind of sources with different ideologies and then I can construct my own thinking, and suggest it to students.
If you had a possibility to invite any professionals/opinion leaders to hold a lecture at PMDF, who would they be?
I would like to invite Christiane Amanpour from CNN, Zbigniew Brzezinski or Henry Kissinger. It would be interesting to invite Angela Merkel, because she shows strength to make decisions, she is not afraid not to succeed. I’d like also to have discussion with Bill Clinton, Stephen Walt, John McCain.
Interview was taken by Anton Chernetskyi (student of the Faculty of Political science and Diplomacy).
Conference about Lithuanian and Polish relations
Adomas Mickevicius Club of Polish Language and the Department of Political Science of Vytautas Magnus University with partners are organizing the 3rd International Scientific Conference “Dynamics of Lithuanian-Polish relations”, which will be held on 15-16thof September, 2016. The conference is dedicated to commemorate the 25thanniversary of restoration of the diplomatic relations between Lithuania and Poland. The conference examines the interdisciplinary dynamics of Polish-Lithuanian relations. The conference offers the open discussion in the field of Social sciences and humanities research.
The aim of the conference― to focus on research on cooperation between Lithuania and Poland, including the problems of security and identity, the common historical and cultural heritage, the issues of minorities in Lithuania and Poland, political, economic, and social conditions in these countries, the coinciding political, security, foreign policy interests in the European Union, the Baltic Sea region, and other regional organizations.
Topics addressed should include:
- Political, social, economic, culturalrelations between Lithuania and Poland;
- Cooperation betweenLithuania and Poland in the field of security;
- Cooperation betweenLithuania and Poland in the regional structures (EU, NATO, the Baltic Sea region);
- Ethnic identity and its development: the problems of Lithuanian and Polish identity.
Conference language –English.
Contact person: Mindaugas Norkevičius ( email: mindaugas.norkevicius@vdu.lt)
The Head of NATO Arms Control and Coordination Section will be visiting the Faculty
The Head of NATO Arms Control and Coordination Section William Alberque is going to visit Faculty of Political Science and Diplomacy on the 5th of May, 2016. William Alberque is going to take part in the conference “Contemporary political processes: challenges and possibilities” and giving public lectures as well as interacting with students.
William Alberque is an expert on arms control, international relations, and national security who has extensive knowledge and experience in the field of strategic planning and strategic communication. Before becoming the head of NATO Arms Control and Coordination Section, mr. Alberque was the director of European Security in the United States Department of Defence and the U.S. Department of State as an expert on disarmament.
| Time | Place | Event |
| 5 May 9.00 AM | VMU’s Small hall (S. Daukanto g. 28) | „NATO Adaptation on the Road to Warsaw” in the conference “Contemporary political processes: challenges and possibilities” |
| 5 May 4.00 PM | VMU’s Small hall (S. Daukanto g. 28) | Lecture “NATO‘s Role in Crisis Management” |
| 5 May 2.00 PM | VMU Vero Cafe (S. Daukanto g. 28) |
Special seminar “Career Opportunities in International Organizations” Students must register in advance. More Information is available on the “American Studies Club” Facebook page |
The events are held and lectures are given in English. The events are a part of “PMDF days”. The event are organised by the “American Studies Club”.
More Information and inquiries: Gerda Jakštaitė. Email: gerda.jakstaite@vdu.lt
