Globalization and the Development of Non-violent Defence in Lithuania: Problems and Prospects


Grazina Miniotaite



     It seems very likely that the twenty-first century will be marked by globalization and terrorism. Usually the globalization  is associated with  ‘social inequality, ecological destruction, oppression and exploitation of the Third World, the further undermining of democracy and the leveling down of wages…The possibility of international crises, with possible regression towards nationalism, protectionism and chauvinism as a result  will also continue to exist’.[1] Some observers predict that contradictions between increasing globalization and the decreasing functionality of the national state will result in chaos.  It raises question how and by what social forces a destructive direction of globalization could be changed?  How to tackle with international and domestic conflicts following globalization?


     Attempts to answer to these questions found its expression in the theoretical search of a new security agenda. The concept of civilian defence is facing the same task. With the emergence of new threats and a new content of the idea of collective and regional security the problem of the place and the role of civilian defence is changing its content, the question of the relation between military and civilian defence is raised afresh, and the problem of the social and political premises for civilian defence becomes more urgent.


     Lithuania is among a few states in Europe that introduced some elements of civilian defence into her security system. In 2001 the State Civilian Resistance Training Centre at the Ministry of Defence started its work. However, under contemporary circumstances the implementation of civilian defence in Lithuania requires deeper theoretical grounding that is associated with a development of the pragmatical and moral approaches to non-violent defence. The paper is an attempt to review the non-violent resistance experience of Lithuania and to consider the peculiarities and prospects of the development of civilian defence in the new circumstances. 


 The Concept of Civilian Defence

     "A nation that had won freedom without the force of arms should be able to keep it too without the force of arms," said Mahatma Gandhi in 1947.[2] Gandhi began his advocacy of nonviolent resistance to aggression in the thirties. In 1940 he proposed to the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress to opt for the non-military defence policy and to fully exploit the experience already accumulated. He saw in this India's mission in the world. Even though the Congress did not accept the proposal, the idea has been attracting the growing attention of scholars and the public world wide. However, in spite of the interest shown in civilian defence by scholars and some politicians, there is no country in the world where it is employed as an alternative to military defence.


Civilian defence is a system of deterrence based on citizens' power to prevent   the threats facing their fundamental rights.[3]  This is "defence by civilians (as distinct from military personnel), using civilian means of struggle (as distinct from military or paramilitary means)".[4] It is based "on the planned and prepared combination of nonviolent actions (viz. symbolic actions, denial actions and overt confrontations) by the majority of the population of a given nation or international community" against internal as well as against external forms of aggression. It is not a territorial defence, but "a defence of social values (i.e. freedom, democracy, peace etc....) and the social structure (the way society is organized in its entirety)".[5]


The central principle of civilian defence is the principle of non-cooperation with the aggressor, denying him control over social institutions. This principle is based on the notion of power as dependent upon the good will of people. In 1920 Gandhi wrote: "I believe, and everybody must grant, that no Government can exist for a single moment without the co-operation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly withdraw their cooperation in every detail, the Government will come to a standstill...” [6] Later, Hannah Arendt emphasized that real power always comes from the people gathering together in the movements; "the people lend their power and support to the government by agreeing to act according to its rules".[7] Kenneth Boulding in his analysis of power defined it as "integrative power". This is "the most fundamental form of power...the power of legitimacy, respect, loyalty, affection, love, and so on ".[8] Gene Sharp has also stressed the idea that power is based on consent. [9]   This understanding of power implies that defending a society by means of civilian defence requires its social structure to be characterized by a high level of political and social homogeneity. A strongly hierarchic society, for instance, cannot be defended by civilian defence.


The idea of civilian defence emerged in Europe after World War I, in the milieu of war veterans in the Netherlands. Initially, it was an expression of abhorrence for war, an attempt at discovering some pacifist means of defending the population, rather than a definite idea based on some theory. The idea was revived after World War II, particularly in the Cold War period. The first theoretical conference devoted to the subject was  held in Oxford in 1964. A number of important studies appeared in 1967, the most important of which was “The Strategy of Civilian Defence”. Another important book was that of Gene Sharp on “Civilian [Based] Defence”(1990).


     Liddel Hart, an authority on military strategy, has emphasized that the conquering of the enemy's territory does not necessarily mean the end of war. For there might ensue long resistance on the part of the conquered that emaciates the resources of the conqueror. In the densely populated urban Europe the resistance cannot acquire the form of guerilla warfare. It should rather acquire the form of non-violent resistance by the population. Later, the idea of an “autonomous defence“ was proposed – by brothers Nelte, one a historian, the other, a military man. In essence, it is the idea that in the face of nuclear threat a country should rely on its own defence resources, rather than on systems of collective nuclear defence. The idea became popular among the military, particularly in the smaller European states. It has been included in the defence doctrines of Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, France, and Switzerland.


In tracking historical origins of the idea it has been shown that situations of civilian resistance have been quite frequent in history:  non-violent resistance by the population has been employed against people‘s own governments, against coup d'ιtats, and against foreign occupation. Their common feature is that they were not prepared in advance, were mostly improvised and usually ruled by charismatic leaders. Mahatma Gandhi’s actions of civil disobedience have played the exceptional role in establishing the viability of the idea of civilian defence.  


Success of civil disobedience in achieving political tasks gave an impulse to the idea of civilian defence as an alternative to military defence


Civil disobedience and Civilian Defence   

     The concept of civilian defence was born by reflection on experience of   civil disobedience.   There are two rather different approaches to civil disobedience which might be called the idealist (Bedau, Rawls, also Dworkin, Walzer, Arendt, Habermas) and the pragmatic one (Sharp, Roberts, Ackermann, Kruegler).[10]  Both the approaches define a  civil disobedience almost in a similar way  as 'a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government'.[11]


The idealist approach to civil disobedience is being developed by political theory and political philosophy. On this approach the problem of civil disobedience can only exist 'within a more or less just democratic state for those citizens who recognize and accept the legitimacy of the constitution'.[12]  Civil disobedience is a normal phenomenon in mature constitutional democracy and it cannot be severed from a developed political culture. It is a specific form of the political activity of citizens aiming at influencing politics or protecting individual rights against the democratic polity. It is based on citizens' appeal to common principles of political justice or, in Kant's terms, to the regulative social ideal.


 The main problem within the idealist approach is that of justifying civil disobedience, of defining the limits within which a society can tolerate it. Civil disobedience is by definition an illegal act. How can an illegal act be allowed to influence the decisions of a legal government? Can there be a right to civil disobedience? It seems that civil disobedience 'cannot without contradiction be made into a legal or constitutional right.[13] So, it is no wonder that the main attention of the representatives of this approach concentrates on the problem of justification which is dealt with in the framework of the liberal democratic theory that exploits the ideas of self-defence of society against the state and those of moral human rights.


     On the pragmatic approach, the link of civil disobedience to the democratic society is not considered as its essential characteristic. Civil disobedience is rather a 'method of political non-cooperation', a form of nonviolent direct action. As a method, it can be used in different kinds of societies, both in internal and external conflicts: in liberation movements (Gandhi), in fighting dictatorships and in defence against external aggression. Civil disobedience is studied within the framework of the theories of social movements, collective behavior and non-violent action. The studies are concerned with the mechanisms of its effective use, with its explication as a sort of 'weapon' considered without a moral evaluation.[14] The questions of the feasibility of its use and its dynamics are dealt with in case studies. Justifying civil disobedience, the issue which is so prominent in the idealist conception, has no intrinsic role within the pragmatic approach. It is only appealed to when this seems instrumental in achieving a definite end (independence, change of government, etc.).


     The mainstream development of the concept of civilian defence is related to the pragmatic approach (Gene Sharp, Adam Roberts). On this approach, "civilian defence constitutes an alternative means of struggle, which, if an intensification of scientific research can be brought about, can replace the military forms of struggle".[15] Accordingly, this kind of investigation into civilian defence looks much like strategic studies, with the same vocabulary of weapons, threats, strategy, balance of power, deterrence, defence, etc. It is an attempt to propose a new, more effective kind of "weapons" without requiring any principal changes in the ways of thinking, and without delving into what kind of energy of people's power (both constructive and deconstructive) these "weapons" would be based on.


The Place of Civilian Defence in Security Policy of Lithuania

     A new impulse for the development of civilian defence has been provided by the peaceful victory over totalitarianism by the countries of Eastern and Central Europe. Lithuania has played a particular role in the development of the idea and the practice of civilian defence.   She was the only country that used civilian resistance in a deliberate manner, made efforts at giving it organizational structure and explicitly defined civilian resistance as a way of national defence (1990-1991). Moreover, having gained independence Lithuania did not abandon the idea, but accorded it a certain role in the official Basics of National Defence. The idea is also referred to in an official document on Lithuania‘ military strategy: “in case of an aggression Lithuania will engage in self-defence whatever the nature of the aggression and whatever the strength of the attacking forces, independently of whether any international assistance is forthcoming. The effect of deterrence is based not only on military strength, i.e. on the ability of the army to provide efficient defence, but also on the readiness of all citizens to engage in both armed and non-armed resistance.”


Lithuania was the first among the former Soviet republics to challenge Moscow’s rule. By declaring its independence in 1990 a small, unarmed nation openly defied a huge military power—and won, setting an example for others. The ability of the Lithuanian people to remain calm in a most complicated situation, to resist provocations of the foreign troops, to refrain from any acts of physical resistance so desired by the enemy  played a decisive role in turning world public opinion in favor of Lithuania’s independence. The image of resolute, defiant, yet nonviolent civilians asserting their independence in the face of ruthless Soviet brutality further undermined the remaining hold of the Soviets on the Baltics. Independence was regained with minimum loss of life, with the economy more or less intact, and with little or no destruction of the country’s resources. 


After the collapse of the coup in Moscow in 1991 Lithuania was soon enjoying its new status as an internationally recognized independent state, as was Latvia and Estonia. In a speech delivered on September 17, 1991, at the ceremony of Lithuania’s acceptance as a member of the United Nations, Lithuanian leader Vytautas Landsbergis stressed that “We rejected violence and resisted provocation, we have accumulated new political experience and we are ready to share it with others.” [16] By the end of December 1991, the Soviet Union was dissolved.


     After international recognition, Lithuania began to shape its foreign and security policies in accordance with the axiom of ‘small state theory’ that “a small state’s foreign policy must first of all deal with the potential threat posed by great powers in order to secure its own survival.”[17] Perceiving unpredictable Russia as the main potential security threat, Lithuanian policymakers abandoned former visions of serving as a bridge between East and West. Lithuania moved swiftly towards greater integration with the West. Lithuania quickly joined the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (September 1991), the World Bank and IMF (July 1992), and the Council of Europe (May 1993), among other international bodies, as steps towards Western integration. By 1995, after signing the Europe Agreement, Lithuania was on the path towards full membership in the European Union (EU).[18] Lithuania has stated clearly that it will develop its system of national security and defence in the context of common European and transatlantic arrangements.[19] It has placed membership in NATO at the centre of its security strategy. The question that arises is whether this strategy leaves any room for the experience of nonviolent civilian defence that played such a vital role in the period from March 1990 to August 1991, from the declaration of independence to the defeat of the attempted hard-line Soviet coup. The question, interestingly enough, must be answered in the affirmative. Elements of civilian-based defence continue to find expression in Lithuanian security policy. The idea of civilian defence is very much alive among Lithuanian politicians and scholars. Since 1992 the potential role of civilian-based defence in Lithuanian security policy has been the subject of intense discussion and debate. This discussion has centreed around three separate projects on the structure of a Lithuanian security system, and had led to the official incorporation of civilian-based defence components into the country’s security laws and defence structures.


     In 1992 a group of scholars mapped out a potential security plan that envisioned “organized action of nonviolent resistance” parallel to military defence in the event of a crisis.[20] Civilian-based defence would be organized and led by a specific body, the Lithuanian Council for Civilian Defence. This body would also have the responsibility of preparing the population for organized mass nonviolent resistance to potential aggression, including public education, analytical work, the accumulation of material and technical resources, among other tasks.


A second project, prepared in 1993 by a group of experts from one of Lithuania’s main political parties, the Christian Democratic Party, also sketched out a role for civilian-based defence. Entitled “The Main Principles of the Conception of Lithuanian National Security and Defence,” the project conceived that the security of the nation and state rested on the idea of “total defence.” Military resistance would be complemented by civilian “self-defence”:


In case of military defeat, foreign occupation of the state or unconstitutional seizure of the government, citizens and their independent organizations should proceed to actions of mass self-defence: nonviolent resistance, defiance, disobedience and non-cooperation with the unlawful authorities.[21]


According to “The Main Principles” plan, the system of civilian self-defence would rest on advance planning and organization, with regular public education and detailed instructions for the populace.


In December 1996, the Lithuanian Seimas (parliament) made civilian-based defence an official element of Lithuanian security policy. The official legislation, “Law on the Basics of National Security of Lithuania” represents the third and most specific attempt at incorporating Lithuanian experience with nonviolent civilian resistance into that country’s post-independence security framework.


     The Law on the Basics of National Security (henceforth, the Law; see Appendix I) sets forth the goals, principles and structures for the development of a national security system for Lithuania, incorporating elements of the two previous projects. Integration into the EU, WEU, and NATO is listed among the primary means for ensuring Lithuanian security, though defence efforts are not to be predicated on receiving international assistance. In the event of aggression, the Law states that “The defence of Lithuania shall be total and unconditional. Total defence means that Lithuania shall be defended with arms by the armed forces, that all resources of the State shall be employed in the defence effort and that each citizen and the Nation shall offer resistance by all means possible.” 


     “The defence capability of Lithuania shall be based upon: determination and resolve of the Nation to resist any aggressor, general military service as established by law, preparedness of the armed forces and active reserves, preparedness of citizens for total armed and unarmed resistance and civil defence, mutual understanding and co-operation between the armed forces and the citizenry, [and] the State’s emergency reserves.” (7:2)


     “In the event of assault or attempt to violate Lithuania’s territorial integrity or its constitutional order, the citizens and their self-activated structures shall undertake actions of civil defence—nonviolent resistance, disobedience and non-collaboration with the unlawful administration, as well as armed resistance. The acts of collaboration and liability shall be laid down by the law.” (7:4).


     The preparation for mass resistance is to be organized by state institutions. The Law envisions the establishment of a “State Civil Resistance Training Centre” and the implementation of a long-term program on “training and preparation of citizens for resistance and civil defence.” As is clear, the Law envisions civilian defence as comprising both militarily armed and nonviolent defence, that is, it foresees the combination of guerrilla warfare with nonviolent civilian resistance. Strategically, the viability of such a combination has been sharply called into question. [22]


     Lithuania has taken some practical steps towards the implementation of the civilian resistance elements of the Law. In November 2000 the government issued a decree instituting the State Civil Resistance Training Centre at the Ministry of Defence. The Centre can be seen as an expression of Lithuania’s attempt to operationalize its concept of total defence, a concept based on an appeal of solidarity between populace and state and on the combination of both militarily armed and nonviolent methods of resistance. Among the main functions and tasks of the Centre are the following:


5.1.   In peace-time:

5.1.1 Implementation of the state security policy by preparing the population for both individual and organized civil resistance;

5.1.2 Organization of the population, the youth in particular, for the defence of the country and for civil resistance in case of aggression;

5.2    In case of aggression and occupation;

5.2.1  Encouragement of resistance activities; Encouragement of nonviolent resistance;  Encouragement of disobedience;  Encouragement of non-collaboration with illegal administration;  Encouragement of armed resistance.


     In fulfilling its tasks, the State Civil Resistance Training Centre is to co-operate closely with the Defence Staff, the Ministry of Education and other institutions of education, the Civil Security Department, the branches of the Lithuanian armed forces, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Riflemen’s Union, and other public organizations. The Centre is also to work with non-governmental organizations in educating and preparing the population for civilian resistance.[23] The Centre started its work in February 2001. In its first period it will employ ten people at two office locations.


     Efforts to educate Lithuanian officials, military personnel, and civic leaders on the nature, methods, and dynamics of nonviolent civilian resistance actually predate the establishment of the State Civil Resistance Training Centre. In 1992 the educational unit of the Department of Civil Security instituted training courses on the subject. In 1995 the unit was expanded and reorganized into the Advanced Training Centre for Military Personnel (Adolfo Ramanausko kariu profesinio tobulinimosi centras). This centre included a course of instruction on nonviolent resistance that focused not only on the history of nonviolent resistance in Lithuania and other countries, but also involved a survey of the theoretical literature on nonviolence and nonviolent resistance. This centre also provided a short introductory course on nonviolent resistance and civilian defence to municipal and local authorities and other officials.[24] The State Civil Resistance Training Centre has superceded these efforts and will lead the civilian resistance educational and training functions of Lithuanian security policy.


A further important and promising effort in the development of civilian-based defence in the Baltic region is envisaged by a draft agreement between Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia on cooperation in civilian-based defence. The impetus for the treaty arose from a 1992 conference in Vilnius attended by representatives of the Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, and Swedish ministries of defence, together with international scholars. The conference on “The Relevance of Civilian-Based Defence for the Baltic States” concluded with a resolution that called for “the development of a Baltic Civilian-Based Defence Mutual Aid Treaty to state concrete ways in which international support would be supplied by signatory nations to any attacked member using civilian-based defence measures”.    


The draft treaty, developed in 1995 by former Lithuanian Minister of Defence Audrius Butkevicius and The Albert Einstein Institution, envisions that “[on] the basis of extensive preparations and training, state organs, societal institutions, and individuals [will] resist aggression through coordinated campaigns of mass non-violent non-cooperation and defiance.” Parties to the treaty would “agree to offer non-military aid and assistance to support the civilian-based defence measures of any Party whose sovereignty, constitutional system, national and cultural identity, territorial integrity, political independence, or security has been threatened. Nonmilitary aid and assistance to be offered under this Treaty will include, though is not limited to, the following types: (a) international political and diplomatic support, (b) cooperation in communications, (c) humanitarian relief, (d) logistical support, (e) provision of materiel, (f) financial assistance.” The draft agreement was translated into Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian and discussed with political and defence officials in each country. Though a number of senior Baltic officials reacted positively to the treaty, it has yet (mid-2001) to be included in official negotiations on security cooperation between the Baltic States.[25]


     The adoption of the Law on the Basics of National Security, the establishment of the State Civil Resistance Training Centre and the ideas behind the draft Baltic mutual assistance treaty provide solid ground for the further development of civilian-based defence in Lithuania. However, one should not overestimate its role. Throughout the various efforts to incorporate civilian-based defence into Lithuanian security policy, it has only been accorded a secondary, back-up role—the role of a “safety belt” in case of failure of the military’s first line of defence.


Concluding Remarks

All post-communist societies have had, to a greater or a lesser extent, an experience of applied elements of civil disobedience accumulated by the liberation movements. The use of the concept of civilian defence in the context of national defence is related to the idea of 'total defence' which, judging by the statements made and the documents adopted, is congenial to the poliError! No index entries found.tical elite of Lithuania.  


'The Basics of National Security of Lithuania', adopted in 1996 envisages an institutionalization of the ideas of civilian defence by the creation of the State Resistance Training Centre. One might say that in this case politicians have gone ahead of scholars. However, without a more profound scholarly analysis of the feasibility, under contemporary conditions, of civilian defence and civil disobedience the efficacy of such political decisions is in great doubt. 


     Even though nonviolent civilian resistance proved its efficacy during the 1990–91 crises, one must also question whether it could be as effective in today’s Lithuania. Escalating social and political tensions, the emergence of significant income inequality, the increasing mistrust of state institutions, and the consequent political indifference of the population strike at the very roots of civilian-based defence, that is, at a presumption of some sort of unity of goals between government and civil society. Of course, growing social distance could potentially be overcome or at least reduced in the face of a future security crisis, but burgeoning inequity and distrust are causes of concern for future civilian-based defence efforts.


     It is understandable that the Law on the Basics of National Security accords civilian-based defence only a supplementary role to military defence. Many types of security threats exist, and scholars and analysts have not articulated how civilian-based defence could effectively address this diversity of risk. Though theoreticians of civilian-based defence have forcefully argued that the combination of civilian and military forms of defence, particularly in the same geographic location and time frame, is extremely problematic,[26] they have failed to convince the representatives of age-old military strategy and traditions. Therefore, further adoption of civilian-based defence requires a deeper theoretical grounding, more historical research, greater strategic development, and wider public understanding and recognition of the power of collective nonviolent resistance.






No. VIII–49

Adopted December 19, 1996



Chapter 7

Fourth section


Civil Resistance


The power of civil resistance is determined by the will of the Nation and self-determination to fight for its own freedom, by each citizen’s resolve, irrespective of age and profession, to resist the assailant or invader by all possible means and to contribute to Lithuania’s defence.


     The system of citizens’ preparedness for civil resistance shall be raised to the national level. Its functioning shall be organized by the Government.

     The citizens shall be trained on a regular basis in different means of resistance and civil defence. The state shall provide them with the necessary technical means.


     Fostering of patriotism, instruction in the means of resistance and training in the skills of resistance shall be a constituent part of compulsory school education programme.


     The State shall support self-activated public organizations, which shall contribute to the preparations for civil resistance and the strengthening of defence capability.


     In the event of assault or attempt to violate Lithuania’s territorial integrity or its constitutional order, the citizens and their self-activated structures shall undertake actions of civil defence—non-violent resistance, disobedience and non-collaboration with the unlawful administration, as well as armed resistance.


     The acts of collaboration and liability thereof shall be laid down by the law.


Chapter 14

Third section


The State Civil Resistance Training Centre


The State Civil Resistance Training Centre shall be established by the Government. The purpose of the Centre shall be to train and prepare the citizens for individual and organised civil resistance and civilian defence directly and through co-ordination of the activities of other institutions.


[1]   Robert Went , Globalization: neoliberal challenge, Radical Responses, London: Pluto Press, 2000, 121

[2]  Quoted from Gene Sharp, Gandhi as a Political Strategist, with Essays on Ethics and Politics, Mass.: Porter Sargent, 1979, p. 189.

[3] Johan Niezing, Obshestvennaya oborona kak logitcheskaya alternative, Moscow, 1993, p.146.

[4] Gene Sharp,  Civilian-Based Defence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton  University Press,1990, p.6.

[5]    G.Geeraerts,  “Two approaches to civilian defence”, in G. Geeraerts (ed.), Possibilities of Civilian Defence in Western Europe. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger, 1976, p.6.


[6]  Young India, 18 August 1920; quoted in Gene Sharp, Gandhi as Political Strategist, p.44.

[7]  G. M.  Presbey ,” Hannah Arendt on nonviolence and political action”, iIn V.K. Kool (ed.), Nonviolence. Social and Psychological Issues. Lanham: University Press of America, 1993, p.249.

[8]  K. E. Boulding , “Peace, justice, and the faces of power”, In P. Wehr, H. Burgess, G. Burgess (eds), Justice without Violence. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers,  1994, p.51.

[9]  G. Sharp,  The Politics of Nonviolent Action. Boston, MA: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1973.

10. See: Ackerman, P. and Kruegler, Christopher,  Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: The Dynamics of People’s Power in the Twentieth Century, Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994;

     Hugo Bedau, Civil Disobedience, New York, 1968; R. Dworkin . Taking Rights Seriously, Cambridge, Harward University Press, 1978; Jurgen Habermas,  “Civil Disobedience: Litmus Test for the Democratic Constitutional State”, Berkley Journal of Sociology, 1985, p.30; John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Harward University Press, 1971; Adam Roberts, Civil Resistance in the East Europe and Soviet Revolutions, Cambridge; The Albert Einstein Institution, 1991; Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action: The Methods of Nonviolent Action, Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1973.


11     John Rawls, pp.364-365.


12   Ibid, p.363.

13  Cohen J.L. and Arato A.   Civil Society and Political Theory, Cambridge, Mas.:The Mit Press, 1992, p.587.


14 See Gene Sharp, Civilian Based Defence, Cambridge:Harward University Press, 1990.


15   Geeraerts, G. Two approaches to Civilian Defence, p.10.

16   Landsbergis, Laisves byla, Vilnius, 1995 p. 284.


17  Olav F. Knudsen, “Baltic States’ Foreign Policies,” Nordic Journal of International Studies, vol. 28, no. 1, March 1993, p. 48.


18   The Europe Agreement, which came into force in early 1998, is designed to integrate the Lithuanian economy with those of the EU.  Lithuania hopes to achieve full membership in 2004.


19   For more on this see Grazina Miniotaite, “Lithuania”, in Hans Mouritzen (ed.) Bordering Russia: Theory and Prospects for Europe’s Baltic Rim,  Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998, pp. 165-194.


20 Vacys Bagdonavicius (ed.), Lietuvos nacionalinis saugumas: teorija ir realijos, Vilnius: Filosofijos, sociologijos ir teises institutas, 1994, p. 143.


21  Lietuvos aidas, December 10, 1993.


22 To quote former Lithuanian Defence Minister Audrius Butkevicius, “Civilian-based defence generates its coercive power on the aggressor cumulatively through a different set of dynamics than that of violent struggle. Resistance violence could, for example, severely undermine the process of demoralizing the aggressor’s troops, or negate the objective of winning wider sympathy and support. After the state has shifted to a civilian-based mode of resistance, it would need to view the organizers of continued resistance violence as possible provocateurs serving the aggressor, for their actions would undermine the defence effort. The state must explicitly declare its defence policy during the occupation to be civilian-based defence.” See Audrius Butkevicius, “Theses on the Defence Strategy of Small States,” Cambridge, MA: The Albert Einstein Institution, 1994, photocopy, p. 26. See also Sharp, Civilian-Based Defence, p. 39.


[23]   The Centre “co-ordinates the preparation and the selection of programs offered by non-governmental organizations that contribute to the preparation of the population for civilian resistance and total defence and supports their implementation in accordance with the rulings of the Minister of Defence within the accorded budgetary resources and oversees the implementation of the programs thus supported”. (Section 7.5.7) “Nutarimas del valstybinio pilietinio pasipriesinimo rengimo centro prie Krasto apsaugos ministerijos isteigimo (20001107 Nr. 1359)” [Decree on the establishment of the State Civil Resistance Training Centre at the Ministry of Defence], Valstybes zinios, No. 98, 2000, p. 73.


[24]  The manual on civil security (1996) includes a chapter on civilian resistance. See V. Mankevicius, “Nesmurtinis pasipriesinimas”, in K. Baikstys, M. Beinoravicius, K. Burneiko, R. Kisieliunas, V. Mankevicius ir kiti. Civilines saugos pagrindai, Vilnius: Merdas, 1996, pp. 318-33.


[25] Of the three Baltic countries, only Lithuania appears to be moving forward with considering civilian-based defence at the state level. Neither “The National Defence Concept of the Republic of Latvia” (approved June 6, 1999) nor “The Security Concept of the Republic of Latvia” (approved May 1997) provide any role for civilian-based defence. “The National Security Concept of the Republic of Estonia” (approved March 6, 2001) also does not accord a role to civilian-based defence. However, the Guidelines of the National Defence Policy of Estonia”(approved May 1996, and which remain operable) list “informing the society of the methods of resistance without violence” as one of the tasks of the country’s volunteer Defence League. The Guidelines also state “If the defence policy should fail to avert aggression, the enemy will be actively and passively resisted to the full territorial extent of the state by employing all available resources.”


[26]  See, for example, Johan Niezing, Sociale verdediging als logisch alternatief. Van utopie naar optie, Antwerpen-Assen/Maastricht, 1987, ch. 3.


[27]  "Lietuvos respublikos nacionalinio saugumo pagrindu istatymas," Valstybes zinios, 1997, No. 2, pp. 2-20.