The role of diaspora in forming the image of lithuania in the us daily "the new york times" in 1990

The role of diaspora in forming the image of Lithuania is well-acknowledged. However, it stays unclear how much and in what ways diaspora is important in forming the image of Lithuania. The paper starts with the question which reads as follows: what role diaspora played in “The New York Times” (hereafter NYT) in 1990? In what percentage of political publications the diaspora was mentioned? In what ways its role was manifested? In what aspects the image of Lithuania, formed by diaspora, was different or similar to the images of Lithuania, created by other actors in the NYT? The theory concerning soft power, public diplomacy and diaspora is especially useful for reseraching this topic. One should keep in mind the importance of historical context. Although Mikhail Gorbachev's Perestroika came to Lithuania relatively late, it quickly gained momentum, especially after the establishment of the Reform Movement of Lithuania, Sąjūdis, in 1988. The period is also known for arms control negotiations between the US and the Soviet Union. Gorbachev, the new leader of the Soviet Union, using the tools of public diplomacy soon became popular in the West. The US was confronted with the dilema of supporting Lithuanian independence or supporting Gorbachev. The sample of this research is all publications in NYT in 1990, in which Lithuania was mentioned at least once. The method used is content analysis. A total of 611 publications mentioning Lithuania at least once appeared in the NYT in 1990; the majority (523) of which can be classified as political. The Lithuanian diaspora is mentioned in 9-11% of the publications (523). In 1990, the interest in the events in Lithuania grew in the spring and fell in July of 1990. The reason for it was the Supreme Council‘s of the Republic of Lithuania announcement of 29 June, 1990, of the moratorium of the Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania. Elaine L.E. Ho and Fiona McConnell divide diaspora diplomacy into two modalities: (1) diplomacy through diaspora, and (2) diplomacy by diaspora, when the diaspora becomes an independent political actor. After the research, the author comes to the conclusion that the diaspora diplomacy could be seen as a scale. Rita Dapkus and other Lithuanians of the North America, who chose to carry out publicity activities in Lithuania, are the actors closest to diplomacy through diaspora. The Lithuanian Information Center (LIC), founded in New York in 1979, would be in the middle of diplomacy through diaspora and diplomacy by diaspora. In 1990, LIC played the role of a mediator between Lithuania (which declared independence) and the US. Diplomacy by diaspora was performed by diaspora members, who commented situation in Lithuania in vivid opinion pieces. The image of Lithuania formed by diaspora was constructed by interpreting the present through the past. In this image, Lithuania, which declared independence in 1990, is a continuation of the country, which disappeared from the political maps in 1940. The most similar image of Lithuania was created by conservative authors, who also emphasized that the US did not recognize Lithuanian occupation throughout the entire period of the Cold War. In other NYT publications, both Gorbachev's and Bush's policies regarding Lithuanian crisis were supported; Lithuania's gradual secession from the Soviet Union was supported as well. Therefore, Lithuania emerges as opposition not only to Gorbachev, but also to Bush