Poles in Lithuania - in Independent Lithuania

In Independent Lithuania

The situation of the Polish minority in Lithuania has caused occasional tensions in Polish-Lithuanian relations during the late 20th and early 21st centuries. When Lithuania declared its independence from the Soviet Union in 1990, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev sought help from the Polish minority. The Polish minority, still remembering the 1950s attempts to ban the Polish language, was much more supportive of the Soviet Union and afraid that the new Lithuanian government might want to reintroduce the Lithuanisation policies. A pro-Moscow anti-independence movement similar to Internationalist movements in Latvia and Estonia was formed in 1989, called the Unity. The organization was supported by many Poles of Lithuania, making it perhaps more popular with the Polish minority than with the Russophone minority of Lithuania. This might have surprised the Poles of Warsaw, then seeking a de-communization in Poland and declaring the question of Polish minority in Lithuania an internal matter of Lithuania. The pro-Moscow stance of some leading Poles of Lithuania compromised at times the activities of more Lithuania-friendly Poles. At the election to the Soviet Congress of People's Deputies, two Poles (one of them Jan Ciechanowicz) were elected to that body, both pro-Moscow.

According to surveys conducted in the spring of 1990, 47% of Poles in Lithuania supported the pro-Soviet Communist party (in contrast to 8% support among ethnic Lithuanians), while 35% supported Lithuanian independence. The regional authorities in Vilnius and Šalčininkai region, under Polish leadership, with support from Soviet authorities, argued for the establishment of an autonomous region in South Eastern Lithuania, a request that was declined by the Lithuanian government and left lasting resentment among some residents. The same Polish regional leaders later voiced support for the Soviet coup attempt of 1991 in Moscow. The Government of Poland, however, never supported the autonomist tendencies of the Polish minority in Lithuania.

Current tensions arise regarding Polish education and spelling of names. The United States Department of State stated, in a report issued in 2001, that the Polish minority had issued complaints with regard to its status in Lithuania, and that members of the Polish Parliament criticized the government of Lithuania over alleged discrimination against the Polish minority. In recent years, the Lithuanian government budgets 40,000 litas (~$15,000) for the needs of the Polish minority (out of the 7 million litas budget of the Department of National Minorities). In 2006 Polish Foreign Minister Stefan Meller asserted that Polish educational institutions in Lithuania are severely underfunded. Similar concerns were voiced in 2007 by a Polish parliamentary commission. According to a report issued by the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency in 2004, Poles in Lithuania were the second least-educated minority group in Lithuania. The branch of the University of Białystok in Vilnius educates mostly members of the Polish minority.

A report by the Council of Europe, issued in 2007, stated that on the whole, minorities were integrated quite well into the everyday life of Lithuania. The report expressed a concern with Lithuanian nationality law, which contains a right of return clause. The citizenship law was under discussion during 2007; it was deemed unconstitutional on 13 November 2006. A proposed constitutional amendment would allow the Polish minority in Lithuania to apply for Polish passports. Several members of the Lithuanian Seimas, including Gintaras Songaila and Andrius Kubilius, publicly stated that two members of the Seimas who represent Polish minority there (Waldemar Tomaszewski and Michal Mackiewicz) should resign, because they accepted the Karta Polaka.

Lithuanian constitutional law stipulates that everyone (not only Poles) who has Lithuanian citizenship and resides within the country has to Lithuanianise their name (i.e. spell it in the Lithuanian phonetics and alphabet); for example, the name Kleczkowski has to be spelled Klečkovski in official documents. On April 24, 2012 the Europarliament accepted for further consideration the petition (number 0358/2011) submitted by a Tomasz Snarski about the language rights of Polish minority, in particular about enforced Lithuanization of Polish surnames.

Representatives of the Lithuanian government demanded removal of Polish names of the streets in Maišiagala (Mejszagoła), Raudondvaris (Czerwony Dwór), Riešė (Rzesza) and Sudervė (Suderwa) as by constitutional law all names have to be in Lithuanian. Tensions have been reported between the Lithuanian Roman Catholic clergy and its Polish parishioniers in Lithuania. The Seimas voted against foreign surnames in Lithuanian passports.

The situation is further escalated by extremist groups on both sides. Lithuanian extremist nationalist organization Vilnija seeks the Lithuanisation of ethnic Poles living in the Eastern part of Lithuania. The former Polish ambassador to Lithuania, Jan Widacki, has criticised some Polish organizations in Lithuania as being far-right and nationalist. Jan Sienkiewicz has criticized Jan Widacki.

In late May 2008, the Association of Poles in Lithuania issued a letter, addressed to the government of Lithuania, complaining about anti-minority (primarily, anti-Polish) rhetoric in media, citing upcoming parliamentary elections as a motive, and asking for better treatment of the ethnic minorities. The Association has also filed a complaint with the Lithuanian prosecutor, asking for investigation of the issue.

Lithuania has not ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. 60,000 Poles have signed a petition against an education system reform. A school strike was declared and suspended.

Poles living in Vandžiogala, supported by a Lithuanian priest Oskaras Petras Volskis, protest against discrimination.

Read more about this topic:  Poles In Lithuania

Famous quotes containing the word independent:

    The ex-Presidential situation has its advantages, but with them are certain drawbacks. The correspondence is large. The meritorious demands on one are large. More independent out than in place, but still something of the bondage of the place that was willingly left. On the whole, however, I find many reasons to be content.
    Rutherford Birchard Hayes (1822–1893)