Vytautas Plečkaitis: “Many people of the younger generation do not really know what happened in Lithuania thirty years ago” | Culture

Historian, diplomat, politician, 1988-1990. V. Plečkaitis, a member of the Sąjūdis Seimas and a signatory of the March 11 Act, presents facts, observations, and thoughts about the first years of restored Lithuania’s independence, behind the scenes of politics and diplomacy, in a new book. Along with the author’s memoirs, publicist articles published in the media of that time are published here.

We offer readers an interview with the author of the book “Unfinished diary of the signatory, 1992-2001. Behind the scenes of politics and diplomacy” by Vytautas Plečkaitis. The author was interviewed by Loreta Jastramskienė.

– The first book of your diaries “We needed freedom” covered the years 1988-1991. You also published a second one – “Unfinished Diary of a Signatory, 1992-2001. Behind the scenes of politics and diplomacy”. What is the most important stimulus for this creation?

– I had free time, I was thinking about what ended in the first part. And what’s next? I took the diary that I wrote at that time, and I added it with documentary and journalism of that time. This book has become like a continuation of what was. Why was it needed?

Reading various literature, I notice that many people of the younger generation do not really know what happened in Lithuania thirty years ago. Their knowledge is often superficial, tendentious. I think that there is a great lack of diaries and memoirs from the period of the restoration of independence. They could broaden the understanding of those times. Because the more opinions, the more views and reasoning, the better. Each of us who lived at that time knows that period from our bell tower. The more bells there are, the more objective the picture.

A complete picture cannot be formed from documents and statements of authorities alone. And after all, the foundations of the Lithuanian state were laid at that time. This book modestly contributes to the wider knowledge of that time. Some readers will find new knowledge in it, others – different points of view, some will find too much criticism, some too little.

– While studying at Kalvarija High School, you distributed anti-Soviet slogans, so in 1966 you were arrested by the KGB, expelled from school. 1968-72 while studying at Vilnius University at the Faculty of History, you were again expelled from the university for anti-Soviet activities. You weren’t blogging at the time?

– No, I did not write at that time. It didn’t even occur to me. And life experience was scarce. Because I distributed the first retractions when I was fifteen or sixteen years old. Experience, understanding of life and why it is the way it is, what the occupation means, what Lithuanians should do – all this matured later. When they kicked me out, I went to night school, worked in construction. I was opposed to the Soviet government, convinced that what we were doing was right, that Lithuanians had the right to an independent state. And when I expressed myself as a critic of that system at the university, I argued with the professors during the seminars.

That time coincided with the burning of Roman Kalanta. I think that then a campaign was started against people who were critical and followed the ideas of Romo Kalanta. I was considered several times and in May 1972 I was expelled from the fourth year. After returning from the army, I tried to re-enter the Faculty of History, but the dean did not allow me to finish my major. The Security Committee already knew that I was intolerant of the Soviet system. They did not count what I had graduated, so I took the exams for the same specialty twice – in 1968 and 1976. I graduated from university in absentia.

I started writing blogs only after being elected to the Supreme Council. Life was fast-paced, fast-changing, there was no time to concentrate, so the notes appeared later. I thought it might come in handy someday.

– A sense of security should be innate to a person. When you were young, weren’t you afraid of the KGB’s methods of operation, when nothing could be left of a person?

– The KGB persecutions were extremely tense, strong after the occupation, and in the 1960s, during Brezhnev’s time, this happened when someone raised the tricolor, or had a conflict with the leadership because of their views, opposed the dogmas of the order. You only understand everything when you get there. Sits in varanokus, takes them, does not say where or what, takes fingerprints. We were minors, so the cases were opened, but we were not deported to the camps, because that period had already passed.

In the towns and districts, the resistance was quickly suppressed, and people were found who participated in the distribution of revocations. They searched for us, contacted the school management, the secretary of the party organization, and they pointed out who could be such troublemakers here. I didn’t have any fear of disseminating appeals, I thought, that system is such that I don’t want to live in it, whatever happens, happens. It is better to leave a good mark, it seemed that Lithuania and its people needed it.

When I worked in construction and went to night school, I was controlled. Security officers came in civilian clothes – Lithuanian military men, mostly lawyers. They had their own bosses, they had to report, we were constantly invited, or they stopped by the workplace, asking co-workers how he was, what he was doing. When in 1968 I came up with the idea of ​​enrolling in higher education, it didn’t specifically bother me.

It was as if he decided to see how I would behave there. I was a restless soul, searching, critical, so I encountered the repressive machine at the university as well. The curator was an active Soviet figure, and there was at least one complainant in the course who informed the relevant structures, which is why I was expelled.

– Do you know who the course complainer is?

– More or less. At least one admitted to doing so during the trainee meetings. In a narrow circle, with beer. Some were arrested, recruited, so they had to report on their classmates. A certain trace of uncertainty, mistrust, and perhaps unchristian conduct existed then, and still remains.

– You chose the words of the Polish writer Czesław Miłosz as the epigraph of the book: “He who has no independence has nothing.” How close is this author to you?

– I like Česlav Miloš very much. I have read almost all of his works, which have been translated into Lithuanian. A large-scale personality, very connected to Lithuania. His books help you get a sense of who was there during the period. Although Poles lived more freely, anti-communists could leave the country without coercion.

Miloš gave a lot as a thinker, his books allowed us to get to know the current society as well. A great personality, like John Paul II for Catholics, Miloš remained for many a great nucleus of intelligence, which had an impact not only on Poland, but also on the surrounding lands, and, of course, on Lithuania. Not everyone liked him, but that’s how real authorities should be. They do not seek to please or please, but go their own way.

– In your new book, you discuss why the Supreme Council announced early elections. What do you think now – was it a political mistake or a way out of a lack of communication and inability to predict the future of political events?

– I wouldn’t say it was a mistake. The split was ripe. The movement, which had a majority in the Supreme Council, was not homogeneous. Two and a half years later, differences appeared regarding the attitude towards the future of the state, democratic matters, in general, how society should develop, which ideas are attractive, which are unacceptable. There were also personal matters, when not all the people of Sąjūdis agreed with the radical policy of the President of the Supreme Council on some issues. From the right wing came the idea that it is better to call a new election and get a majority.

It is a democratic approach, when the majority is lost in parliament, it needs to be reconfirmed. The case when Vytautas Landsbergis and his entourage thought that it was necessary to check whether the parliament was legitimate. They began to sit separately, did not find a language with each other, even hatred arose. From today’s perspective, it is understandable, the parliament fulfilled its mission, established independence, adopted the Constitution, this is the greatest merit. The foundations of statehood were laid, which are still supported today.

It was believed that Landsberg and his supporters would get a majority. And in fact, there was a huge defeat and it created the conditions for the former communist party to come to power – it got a majority. Maybe it was inevitable, many people were disappointed with the reforms and were not ready for them. But we managed to resolve all this peacefully by dissolving the parliament and calling new elections.

– Diary entries are laconic, but even one of their sentences sometimes becomes important. When there are no further explanations at the end of the point, there is a lot of room for fantasy and imagination, what lies there? For example, in 2000 November 6 entry: “I talked with Vytenius for about two hours, he offered me to join his team and said that Algimantas Čekuolis offered to work for him in the field of propaganda and hoped to get an ambassador position.” Why didn’t he get it?

– I don’t know why they didn’t get this. He probably wanted too much, and Andriukaitis did not have enough powers to appoint an ambassador. But it shows a certain attitude of Čekuolis and how politics takes place, which the public does not see. Behind the scenes of politics, how certain decisions mature and the like. As things stand now, the law is in effect, so normally an ambassador would not be appointed.

At that time there was a lack of people, so sometimes the minister and his entourage would send their acquaintances who might be competent. There were times when something depended on individual people, the president, the minister, you had to get their approval to become an ambassador. Because the state was just being formed, such things were inevitable. Use those diplomats who were in Moscow? They had completed their studies in Moscow and had become part of the Soviet diplomatic system, and sought to remain part of the independent Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania. Some of them managed to successfully integrate into the newly created structures of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania. Unfortunately not for everyone.

– Your articles are published in the book. One of them, printed in the newspaper Klaipėda, begins by quoting the Bible, the letter of the apostle Paul to the Galatians: “Indeed, brothers, you are called to freedom!” For the sake of this freedom only, do not follow the flesh, but strive to serve one another in love. After all, the whole law is contained in one sentence: Love your neighbor as yourself. But if you chew and eat one another, see that you are not devoured by one another!” Did something similar happen in the Supreme Council?

– Maybe not so sharp. But in reality there was a lot of anger, insults, although less than now. There was not so much audacity back then. Now there is a lot of appeasement of globalist tendencies, but is it believed? It seems to me that earlier there was more tolerance and politeness, respect for authority. When I see ministers being appointed who have completed their bachelor’s degrees, it seems strange. After all, there is a professorship, scientists with names known in international activities, they know incomparably more. I notice that exaggerated insolence and arrogance when the ignorant display power by attacking each other.

– You wrote and published an excellent book in 2013, “The Switzerland We Don’t Know”. Should it be understood that the diaries of that time will no longer exist?

– It is an acquaintance for a person who has not been to Switzerland, which he imagined in beautiful or insufficient colors. When you work in that country for four years, you understand the character and mentality of its inhabitants, which is completely different from ours. Despite the fact that all the cantons in this country are different, they hold democratic elections and have high democratic representative rights, although there are oddities in some respects – for example, women’s rights.

– In the diary in 1992 March 5 you wrote that what was relevant two thousand years ago has not changed. And this only confirms the idea that “people do not fundamentally change. Only living conditions change. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.” After 32 years, do you think the same?

– It’s basically the same. It might sound rude, but sometimes a person is half an animal. How civilized is a person, but not everyone is civilized. Wars show that. Culture needs to be nurtured, this is lacking. At that time, it was hammered into the heads that the world was getting better, towards a bright tomorrow. And really? Crime figures, completely illegal, unjust wars, kidnappings, extermination of people, be it in Israel or Ukraine – how to justify it? I don’t know. Humanity is sometimes completely absent. Therefore, it sometimes seems that humanity, which has changed so much in the world, has remained unchanged.

The Science and Encyclopedia Publishing Center of the Lithuanian National Martynas Mažvydas Library invites you to a meeting with Vytautas Plečkaitis and his book “Unfinished Signator’s Diary, 1992-2001. Behind the scenes of politics and diplomacy” presentation on Thursday, August 29, at 6 p.m. In the National Library, Statehood Space (II century). Entrance is free.