Vytauto Landsbergio pasisakymas EP Teisės reikalų komitete, Briuselyje (anglų kalba)

Vytautas Landsbergis

Teisės reikalų komitetas, Briuselis
2011-10-10

Dear Colleagues,

As we are not delivered any broader text of complaint by Mr. Uspaskich, only three lines, but the case goes entitled in a very general manner as on “Persecution of political opposition in Lithuania”, I will try to comment on some points from the letter by Sir Graham Watson as well.

But let us first take these three from the lines of Mr. Uspaskich. 1) It is allegedly “proven” that Lithuanian Government attacked in 2004-2006 the Lithuanian Labour Party. Please, know that the Labour was then, after victory in elections, a part of the Government with five ministers, including Mr. Uspaskich; therefore, the leftist Government of Mr. Brazauskas must have attacked itself. Something does not match here. 2) It was then conspiracy against the ruling partner, alongside what does insist Mr. Uspaskich, who suffered first, already in 2005, with the conclusion of the Highest Commission on Officials’ ethics about Uspaskich’s conflict of interests and misuse of power, after which he indeed resigned from the office as a minister. 3) This unfortunate fact and what followed in the judiciary about Labour’s black accounts a year later, from which Mr. Uspaskich fled to Moscow, and that now is bluntly defined as political persecution of the innocents. No comment.

Now, Sir Watson.

Being convinced that everything that Mr. Uspaskich tells him is true, our colleague from ALDE is revoicing such tales like Uspaskich was forced to resign from the Ministry of Economy for alleged ties with Russian secret service (despite the fact that this has never been mentioned in his case of the conflict of interests) and like a suspicion on spying for Russia “was based solely on the fact that he is ethnically Russian”. It looks like bedlam if some 200 thousands of Russians in Lithuania were suspected in spying solely due to their ethnicity.

Even if one of the then officials in the Foreign Office truly told the Americans that Mr. Uspaskich’s runaway was engineered by them because of Uspaskich’s ties with Russia’s Foreign Intelligence, it would be in line with common practices when spies were sent out silently, avoiding open scandal. A more interesting moment here is that after the arrest warrant followed him to Moscow and the suspect was really arrested by special troops of the Russian interior, the Foreign Intelligence intervened immediately the same day: don’t touch this guy, and fried him. Nevertheless, Mr. Uspaskich reminds this now as a tale, how those bloody Lithuanians attempted to kidnap him in Moscow. And Mr. Watson again believes that this is “the true story as told by Uspaskich himself”.

One point from the WikiLeaks literature on Uspaskich is really worth investigating. There are words, if true, of ex-President and Prime Minister A. Brazauskas said at the Vilnius University, as quoted by a person from the US Embassy: “High-powered people gave the order to expel him – Mr. Uspaskich – from Lithuania”.

Who could be those mighty people, higher than he in power and giving orders to Brazauskas what must be done? And where? Of course, not in Lithuania according to his understanding, but in Moscow. Such orders were still important for old Communists. Unfortunately, there is no chance to ask late A. Brazauskas about anything, not only about this political puzzle. Smaller figures could tell us ever more tales. Also about the fraud in Labour’s finances – for what Mr. Uspaskich was indeed responsible as an authoritarian leader of his Party, despite all efforts now to replace burden on smaller persons, - let the Lithuanians court work.

To extend the roof of immunity preventing the course of law enforcement, while somebody’s lies look moving and convincing, would be a huge mistake compromising the entire European Parliament.