WGA 2020 | Latvia

Introduction

Question:
Briefly reflect about when and why a WGA has/hasn’t been introduced in your country. In what ways does a WGA in your country reflect the country’s specificities (e.g. in relation to its institutional and constitutional set-up)?

Latvia Expert

Maris Andzans

Visiting Fulbright Scholar, Foreign Policy Institute, SAIS, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC

Maris Andzans is currently a Visiting Fulbright Scholar at the Foreign Policy Institute of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC. He is a Research Fellow at the Latvian Institute of International Affairs and an Assistant Professor at Riga Stradins University. Maris has a decade of experience in the public administration of Latvia, where he served in various positions related to the coordination of EU and NATO issues, security of transport and communications, civil-military cooperation, aviation, electronic communications and postal issues. He has also chaired the National Cyber Security Council of Latvia and the Dangerous Goods Movement Consultative Council of Latvia. Maris holds a PhD in Political Science from Riga Stradins University.

Latvia
Report
PDF

A whole-of-government approach (WGA) to dealing with external conflicts and crises has not been defined as a specific objective in Latvia. Though there accordingly is not any specifically defined WGA in place, and neither such nor similar terms are used in legislation and policy planning documents, it is implicitly but clearly present in policy planning and implementation. Engagement of all relevant institutions has been a common practice roughly since Latvia regained its independence in 1991 and commenced re-establishment of its diplomatic corps, armed forces and other institutions.

Latvia’s current approach to dealing with external conflicts and crises is primarily determined by four factors: the size of its public administration (and the country itself), resources devoted to external engagements, level of political priority, and its membership in international organisations. Given the small size of Latvia, its relatively compact public administration, its limited resources devoted to external crises and conflicts, and the lack of consistent and meaningful political initiatives to foster a more active role, Latvia has compact crisis-management mechanisms and it has not hit above its weight in dealing with external crises and conflicts. This, however, does not impede its fairly good whole-of-government operation in practice.

As Latvia has been a member of both the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for over 15 years, its approach and engagement abroad primarily fits within the mechanisms, approaches and priorities of those two organisations.

Latvia Report