Lithuania

2015: Attended the state consultations on the SSD in Geneva – led by Norway.

April 2015: Bede and Diya went to capital for a meeting and meeting -Filipa and Diya-in Geneva + meeting in NY -Diya- + engagement in NY ahead of CAAC Open Debates, given previous supportive statements and SCR 2143 support. MFA and MoE were supportive, MoD has concerns about what endorsing would imply for NATO troops present in Lithuania. HRW sent letters to president and FM + copy to FM adviser in the PM’s office (May 2015) encouraging endorsement in Oslo. Contact had been made with Lithuanian NGOs, but they were unable to join the letters on short notice. HRW reached out to Lithuanian expert at CEDAW asking her to convey the Committee’s recent position on issue of military use to the government. Renewed dialogue in capital via Gva mission.

May 2015: Bede, meeting with MoFA in capital confirmed the sticking points is the MoD. They have two concerns: (1) there are NATO troops stationed here, would the Declaration mean that Lithuania would be responsible for saying they can’t use schools either? (2) they want to be able to use abandoned schools.

July 2016: OpEd published by Bede on UNSC legacy. Outreach letter sent in advance of CAAC Open Debate.

August 2016: CAAC Open Debate: “In many conflict situations, schools remain under attack or are used for military purposes as barracks, detention facilities and weapons storage facilities. All Member States must fulfil their obligations under international humanitarian law and ensure the protection of schools. Targeting schools or using them for military purposes gravely endangers the lives of children and denies their access to education.”

March 2017: Hiba (Save) had a meeting with Jorūnė Martinaviciute, Third Secretary, Mission of Lithuania – 9 March, Geneva. Jorūnė confirmed that a briefing in capital with the Ministries of Defence, Education and Foreign Affairs took place ahead of the Oslo Conference and that she was familiar with the process leading up to Oslo. She indicated that the Ministries of Education and Foreign Affairs were supportive but it was the Ministry of Defence that needs convincing. She said that she foresees greater expert-level discussions in capital between the Ministries but her sense was that Lithuania is still a long ways from endorsing. They will likely hold out until more States endorse, in particular more members of NATO. She doesn’t foresee them being a leader on this issue within the Baltic region because it places them in a weak security position vis-à-vis Russia. She also raised the issue of non-State armed groups (specifically mentioning those that are funded by other Governments), stating that the MoD does not want to feel constrained when it comes to defensive actions. Questions for us: she asked what outreach we’ve done in Estonia and Latvia and what has been the response. She also asked if we have engaged Russia though she admitted they would likely never agree to such a Declaration. Given the deteriorating security situation in the region, she indirectly said it would be difficult to endorse. As far as what would be helpful from us: it would be useful to engage the MoD at capital level post-Argentina to share additional information on practical implementation of the Guidelines. I pointed out the examples included in the Q&A, which she said she would sent to capital with the other materials shared. It’s worth sending the Toolkit and additional examples of concrete steps taken that may come out of Argentina? I’ve agreed to follow up with her regarding her question of our engagement with the Baltic States. Regarding their participation in Argentina, she said that unfortunately this would be impossible as they no longer have an embassy in-country and it’s too far and the invite arrived on too short notice to send someone from capital. They will be interested to see the outcome report and hear more about practical implementation. Overall, she is aware of the importance of the Declaration and supportive in principle but said it’s tough to counter the arguments of the MoD though is willing to help channel information from us and encouraged us to keep up the engagement.

April 2017: Attended post-conference briefing for missions in New York.

February 2018: In advance of OPAC turns 18 event, GCPEA issued letter highlighting that Lithuania has signed OPAC, Paris, and Vancouver, but not the Declaration,and calling for endorsement.

February 2018:In advance of the End Violence Solutions Summit in Stockholm on 14-15 February, GCPEA issued letter to Lithuania, highlighting the Declaration and calling for endorsement.

July 2018: Co-sponsored resolution 2427 (2018).

August 2018: Sent an email to the mission in Geneva requesting a meeting. Received an answer but could not schedule a meeting.

May 2020: GCPEA had a call with the DPR at the Mission in New York. They are aware of Estonia’s recent endorsement and reviewing their position. The meeting was positive but non-committal.

Oct 2020: GCPEA followed up with the New York Mission and asked for an update on endorsement of the Declaration. The Deputy Permanent Representative replied that there were no further developments or decision and reiterated their commitment on protection of international humanitarian law.

June 2021: Zama and Apolline met with representative in NY. The representative asked numerous questions regarding the IHL implications of the declaration – why does it go beyond IHL, why the need for another declaration when the Geneva Conventions provide protection for schools already, what is the added value of the declaration – as well as its implementation for Non-State Armed Groups. We explained that the Guidelines seek to change behaviours and offer non-exhaustive concrete measures to protect education, which are non-binding and context-dependent. We also highlighted the work of Geneva Call. The representative argued that there might be some room for review of Lithuania’s position with regards to the SSD considering the recent change in government but that it was too early to guarantee at this point.

October 2021: Lithuania co-sponsored UNSC resolution 2601 (2021), the first thematic resolution on the protection of education in armed conflict and to mention the SSD (preamble).

December 2021: On 06/12, Nevena and Apolline met with DPR, Ms. Dangira West, and Human Rights experts, Ms. Kristina Liutikaite from the Permanent Mission of Lithuania in New York. GCPEA provided the traditional background information on the SSD, focusing on the EU endorsement level, commanded Lithuania for its co-sponsorship on UNSC resolution 2601 (2021), and provided a comprehensive de-brief on the Abuja Conference. The DPR asked about the SSD’s implementation work in Ukraine, as a European country affected by armed conflict. GCPEA explained the field-level work achieved by the coalition members, in this case, particularly focusing on the work carried out by Save Ukraine on the national action plan and trainings for the military branch. The DPR also asked about Georgia and we explained that they participated in the Eurasia consultation. The DPR was particularly interested in the state-led implementation network and the regional consultations that were held in advance of its official launch. She asked on what basis these meetings were organised and at which level of representation. We explained that it was on an ad-hoc basis and that endorsing states were required to nominate focal points from the ministries of justice, education, foreign affairs and defence. The DPR then asked about GCPEA, who we are, how we work, our coalition members, etc. The Human Rights expert explained that as the current president on UNICEF’s board, Lithuania is very committed to do its utmost to comply with human rights standards, which is why they had co-sponsored the UNSC res. 2601. The DPR said that their position had not changed and that they could not endorse, at this time, due to certain difficulties around interpretation of the SSD. However, she encouraged us to continue to check-in regularly and assured us that they always transmitted all of our information back to capital. It is obvious that there is some pressure being felt to endorse and a fear to be the last EU country not to have done so, but not enough at this point to lead to endorsement. The HR expert followed up in writing saying that they transmitted the information to their MoD about the possibility for a meeting with the ICRC experts for a legal reading of the Guidelines.

July 2022: At the UNSC CAAC debate : – Concerned about attacks on schools in context of Russian invasion

September 2022: Endorsed the Call to Action on Education in crisis situations (refers to EuA22 data) at the Transforming Education Summit

November 2022: Update on the champion states’ joint demarche with the 14 countries that co-sponsored UNSC resolution 2601 but have not yet endorsed the SSD: Joint démarche by the champions was done in capitals in Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Indonesia, Lithuania, and Lesotho, as well as through the Missions in New York with Comoros, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, and Tuvalu. On Lithuania specifically, Spain met with the DG for the UN. Positive feedback from the MFA but reluctance from MoD due to current situation in Ukraine.

January 2023: Lithuania joined the Geneva GoF on CAAC.

March 2023: During the ID with SRSG CAAC (52 HRC) Lithuania on behalf of Baltic countries
– Increasingly concerned about attacks on schools
– Norway will host an international conference on CAAC in June 2023

February 2023: Nevena met with the First Secretary at the OSCE delegation. It was a very honest conversation with the First Secretary from the OSCE delegation. She had previously worked at the Mission in New York and had heard about the SSD, and she was also at the OSCE event, so we quickly dived into her country’s position on the Declaration. She said that there was no political willingness of the MoD to change its position on the SSD. In fact, they feel like the next target of Russia’s aggression and the MoD would not do anything that could limit their military operations. She said that the MoD’s position was that the actual damage to school buildings was not the worst thing to happen as long as students were safe and able to continue their studies through other means such as online classes. She advised that endorsement was not possible in the near future and that an approach from other states would not be useful unless it’s Ukraine. She said that her MoD could be convinced possibly by the Ukrainian MoD because Ukraine is the one currently experiencing attacks from the aggressor (she also hinted at the fact that Ukraine is using schools for military purposes, and not really complying with their commitments). Nevena made the counter-argument about how Lithuania can distinguish itself from the enemy by showing commitment to avoiding using schools for military purposes and how important is preparedness during a state of emergency and how their armed forces can only benefit from using the Guidelines. Nevena also highlighted that Lithuania can demonstrate its commitment to protecting education from attack at the upcoming NATO Summit which they will host in July 2022.