On Thursday, the 5th of February, the Saeima adopted a statement reaffirming Latvia’s commitment to strengthening and deepening cooperation with the United States in the fields of security, the economy, and technology. At the same time, however, parliament rejected a draft resolution submitted by the opposition party Latvija pirmajā vietā (LPV) calling for support of US President Donald Trump as a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.
This situation reveals fundamental foreign policy communication problems with Latvia’s strategic partner, political scientist Filips Rajevskis, co-founder of the media company Mediju tilts, told BNN.
Although the parliamentary statement did not explicitly call for awarding Trump the Nobel Peace Prize, it did reference a letter signed by the Speaker of the Saeima expressing support for the US president in this matter. “Indirectly, this is a hint that Trump should receive the prize,” Rajevskis said. However, the LPV initiative failed to gain majority support, and parliament did not approve either its inclusion on the agenda of the next sitting or its referral to the Foreign Affairs or Human Rights Committees.
Rajevskis described such maneuvering as ridiculous. He noted that while the Progressives party categorically opposes the initiative, it is unclear why Speaker Daiga Mieriņa (Union of Greens and Farmers) cannot clearly state that it would not harm Latvia to stand alongside Israel’s Knesset and other parliaments in supporting the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Trump.
According to Rajevskis, LPV’s proposal does have backing in parliament.
“It would be anti-state to vote against such a decision. We don’t know whether our support for such a call would be noticed, but if we publicly and at the parliamentary level fail to support it, that certainly will be noticed and could trigger a fundamental foreign policy crisis,” he argued.
The political scientist also criticised Latvia’s communication with the US administration, stating that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has failed to achieve its objectives. “We have this communication problem with the US—we cannot reach the US administration. The maximum we have managed is that the US Congress votes to support us in the military sphere, allocates funding, and US soldiers are present here. That is good and positive, but it is not an achievement of the current foreign minister or ministry—it is historical,” Rajevskis said.
In his view, the lack of normal contact with Trump’s administration amounts to a foreign policy fiasco. “Because we fail to understand what is happening in America, there is this monkeying around over decisions regarding the Nobel Peace Prize for the US president, which makes us look ridiculous—even in our own eyes.”
Responding to BNN’s question about possible consequences,
Rajevskis said that the episode demonstrates Latvia’s foreign policy weakness.
“Our partners in Europe see that we are unable to be consistent in our foreign policy stance. We maneuver awkwardly and fail to demonstrate the maturity needed to uphold our interests and positions. That is a huge problem. If your negotiating, coalition, and strategic partners see that you are weak, they draw conclusions and take you less seriously.”
He expressed hope that the negative scenario—damaging relations with the Trump administration—will not materialise as a result of clumsy decisions. “That would be devastating for us from a security standpoint, because the United States is ultimately what we rely on,” he said.
Rajevskis also criticised media narratives suggesting that Latvia cannot rely on the United States for national security, calling them destructive. “The US has always fulfilled its commitments. The question is whether we have always fulfilled ours to NATO. Let us remember how many years we failed to allocate even one percent of GDP to defence, despite our commitments. The United States has far more reason to ask whether it can trust us than we have to question whether we can trust the United States.”
Read also: BNN IN FOCUS | Latvia is facing a payment crisis, not an energy crisis – political scientist says