AIPRG Dual Citizenship Conference
[I should start with a disclaimer that this blog is purely my biased perspective and reflection on the Dual Citizenship conference and no one else’s. In this blog I represent no official positions of any organization or institution. If you want an unbiased perspective on the Conference, feel free to read all the papers presented at the Conference on the AIPRG website at www.armpolicyresearch.org. Otherwise, perhaps the professional reporters’ coverage of the event should provide the information you need. I am not a professional reporter, nor do I intend to present an official position or proposal. I am just sharing what was discussed with those interested the best I know how, full of varying opinions. Since this will be a very long blog, I will try to highlight sections to offer a brief overview of each subject.]
I’m sitting on the sidelines of the AIPRG Conference on Dual Citizenship, at the start of day two of what I like to call “The Diaspora Showdown.” It seems to have touched a few controversial subjects, but I’m not sure the controversies serve the purpose or goal of the conference, rather the need to express perspectives that may influence intentions, restrictions and implementation of the law. A few people have used the Dual Citizenship subject to vocalize their perspectives on other issues, mostly rooted in cultural and ideological differences.
DEFINING ARMENIAN IDENTITY – IS THAT REALLY THE ISSUE?
The subject I’m listening to right now is the issue of cultural differences of many Diasporas and varying identities. The presenter argues that people are looking at Dual Citizenship as just a legal issue, whereas there are many other social issues involved in this debate. He talks a lot about identity negotiation, suggesting that Armenians around the world have negotiated their identity and have fused with other cultures of their host-land therefore are extremely diverse. These Armenians find themselves “in between” cultures and cannot pledge loyalty to one or the other.
WHAT IS THE HOMELAND TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE?
Perhaps this also varies their view on homeland and nation as very different things. Thus, many Armenians do not accept Armenia as it exists as their homeland. This argument was also made by Richard Antaramian, who spoke yesterday as well, who represented the Diasporan Armenians who culturally do not identify with the culture that exists in Armenia today at all, rather that of Western Armenian from where their families were expelled during the genocide.
The subject of diversity among people means very little to me coming from the United States where diversity means something completely different. Where Armenia as a “nation” (Armenia and its Diaspora) is made up of Armenians who have dispersed and have “negotiated” their identity, the US is made up of people FROM different countries who have maintained their culture and exist within a nation unified by law, not culture. If it works on that level for the US, the minor differences that exist among many communities around the world should be insignificant to the implementation of a legal issue such as Dual Citizenship. It can be argued that the interest of these dual citizens and their definition of Armenia as a nation and/or republic would shape the country and thus their perspectives must be considered in order to know how their views will impact Armenia, especially when it comes to voting rights. If it is the cultural issue we are discussing, we need another conference, but I’m not sure what purpose that serves other than defining Armenian cultural identity. Perhaps the language is an issue which is important for the linguists and necessary to discuss… but not at this conference.
WHAT IS THE HOMELAND TO VARYING ARMENIANS AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO INVOLVEMENT IN THE REPUBLIC ARMENIA TODAY?
There is an obvious underlying nationalistic intension by some to allow Dual Citizenship. For diasporans who have lived outside of their “homeland” for all these years, some seem to think this serves their patriotic sensibility. I have doubts about that reasoning. Most of those people who are interested in that link to the homeland seek out special residency status and are satisfied with this much. It is those who have more long term involvement in Armenia that Dual Citizenship should be geared towards.
Another issue some argue is that most diasporans do not identify with Armenia as the borders are drawn today and therefore should not be involved and have the rights of voting, etc. Their interests are obviously off beat and may cause friction if they are granted voting rights and ability to sway the political balance. At the same time, it is argued that because of the historical dispersion of Armenians by force, there is a moral obligation for Dual Citizenship.
DEFINING THE ARMENIAN NATION
The discussion of Armenia as a Republic and as a Nation has continued to this conference from the last AIPRG conference that took place in DC. It seems like people are using these forums to define Armenia as a nation and/or Republic and create an identity or identities. But I am of the camp that this is not purely an identity issue. The Residency status fulfills identity issues. Dual Citizenship serves the purpose of people (diasporans, non Armenians, people who have much more invested in this country than sentimentality) who invest and participate in two countries… their home AND hostland. For non Armenians, there are the few who live and contribute in Armenia far more than their homeland. Then for the diasporans, there are those who have repatriated who find themselves in-between countries, thus cannot relieve their citizenship, but wish to obtain citizenship in Armenia as well in order to participate in the country of their residence more than allowed with the special residency status.
THE TRUE ARMENIAN?
The heated moment of day one fell after scheduled hours at the tail end of the last session. An argument made by Anna Ohanyan (born in Armenia, studying in Boston) that Dual Citizenship may bring more investment to Armenia, as well as skills and understanding of a democratic society. The delivery of her presentation in English apparently touched a nerve with someone claiming she is not a true Armenian and left her country and therefore her education is not welcome here… essentially. I’m paraphrasing of course, but the sentiment sounds the same.
Restrictions are the issue. There are many threats that people have raised, but these are realities that you deal with and are not reasons to avoid Dual Citizenship altogether. This is the case of any issue in any situation. People talk about Dual Citizenship as if it will be given out to any takers (for example Turks, traitors, etc.) Sadly the reality is that there is risk rooted in instability of our own infrastructure. There is corruption, there is risk. Some have also argued that Dual Citizenship is not just a law, you must create the process, the paperwork, the procedure to implementing the restrictions that Armenia is not capable of supporting. Others have argued that Armenia will only raise its level of operation when faced with the challenge. We must set the goals in order to aim for them, rather than wait until the lowest denominator is at that level. It will never be the case.
AND WHAT OF THE REPATS?
The Barskahye Commmunity in Yerevan was a big discussion since they are the largest percentage of repats in Armenia today. There’s a concern that they are not being integrated into the culture of Armenia. Where does the lack of citizenship in Armenia leave those who are in Armenia? Are they expected to just hang and create ghettos as if they were in a foreign land? That seems to be what is happening, but who’s responsibility is it to integrate repats? Perhaps Dual Citizenship serves these people the most in allowing them to have the choice to participate in everything, rather than withdraw into ghettos.
NOT AN END, BUT A MEANS
One thing that was regularly stated throughout the conference was that this should not be viewed as a solution to all our problems. What single decision ever is? The bottom line is that this needs to happen, but with restrictions and precautions in order to illiminate the risks and threats that everyone presented at this conference.
SO WHAT WAS PROPOSED?
The 3 proposals presented were quite similar, delivered by the AIPRG, ARF, and the First Deputy Minister of Justice. I wont go into details of the proposals because I don’t want to misrepresent them, but they should be available as well online. My belief is that this is necessary, but my God, there better be a strict implementation of restrictions in place.
Of course there was sooooooo much more discussed, but this is long enough for now. If you’d like to know more, feel free to comment and I’ll elaborate.
I’m sitting on the sidelines of the AIPRG Conference on Dual Citizenship, at the start of day two of what I like to call “The Diaspora Showdown.” It seems to have touched a few controversial subjects, but I’m not sure the controversies serve the purpose or goal of the conference, rather the need to express perspectives that may influence intentions, restrictions and implementation of the law. A few people have used the Dual Citizenship subject to vocalize their perspectives on other issues, mostly rooted in cultural and ideological differences.
DEFINING ARMENIAN IDENTITY – IS THAT REALLY THE ISSUE?
The subject I’m listening to right now is the issue of cultural differences of many Diasporas and varying identities. The presenter argues that people are looking at Dual Citizenship as just a legal issue, whereas there are many other social issues involved in this debate. He talks a lot about identity negotiation, suggesting that Armenians around the world have negotiated their identity and have fused with other cultures of their host-land therefore are extremely diverse. These Armenians find themselves “in between” cultures and cannot pledge loyalty to one or the other.
WHAT IS THE HOMELAND TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE?
Perhaps this also varies their view on homeland and nation as very different things. Thus, many Armenians do not accept Armenia as it exists as their homeland. This argument was also made by Richard Antaramian, who spoke yesterday as well, who represented the Diasporan Armenians who culturally do not identify with the culture that exists in Armenia today at all, rather that of Western Armenian from where their families were expelled during the genocide.
The subject of diversity among people means very little to me coming from the United States where diversity means something completely different. Where Armenia as a “nation” (Armenia and its Diaspora) is made up of Armenians who have dispersed and have “negotiated” their identity, the US is made up of people FROM different countries who have maintained their culture and exist within a nation unified by law, not culture. If it works on that level for the US, the minor differences that exist among many communities around the world should be insignificant to the implementation of a legal issue such as Dual Citizenship. It can be argued that the interest of these dual citizens and their definition of Armenia as a nation and/or republic would shape the country and thus their perspectives must be considered in order to know how their views will impact Armenia, especially when it comes to voting rights. If it is the cultural issue we are discussing, we need another conference, but I’m not sure what purpose that serves other than defining Armenian cultural identity. Perhaps the language is an issue which is important for the linguists and necessary to discuss… but not at this conference.
WHAT IS THE HOMELAND TO VARYING ARMENIANS AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO INVOLVEMENT IN THE REPUBLIC ARMENIA TODAY?
There is an obvious underlying nationalistic intension by some to allow Dual Citizenship. For diasporans who have lived outside of their “homeland” for all these years, some seem to think this serves their patriotic sensibility. I have doubts about that reasoning. Most of those people who are interested in that link to the homeland seek out special residency status and are satisfied with this much. It is those who have more long term involvement in Armenia that Dual Citizenship should be geared towards.
Another issue some argue is that most diasporans do not identify with Armenia as the borders are drawn today and therefore should not be involved and have the rights of voting, etc. Their interests are obviously off beat and may cause friction if they are granted voting rights and ability to sway the political balance. At the same time, it is argued that because of the historical dispersion of Armenians by force, there is a moral obligation for Dual Citizenship.
DEFINING THE ARMENIAN NATION
The discussion of Armenia as a Republic and as a Nation has continued to this conference from the last AIPRG conference that took place in DC. It seems like people are using these forums to define Armenia as a nation and/or Republic and create an identity or identities. But I am of the camp that this is not purely an identity issue. The Residency status fulfills identity issues. Dual Citizenship serves the purpose of people (diasporans, non Armenians, people who have much more invested in this country than sentimentality) who invest and participate in two countries… their home AND hostland. For non Armenians, there are the few who live and contribute in Armenia far more than their homeland. Then for the diasporans, there are those who have repatriated who find themselves in-between countries, thus cannot relieve their citizenship, but wish to obtain citizenship in Armenia as well in order to participate in the country of their residence more than allowed with the special residency status.
THE TRUE ARMENIAN?
The heated moment of day one fell after scheduled hours at the tail end of the last session. An argument made by Anna Ohanyan (born in Armenia, studying in Boston) that Dual Citizenship may bring more investment to Armenia, as well as skills and understanding of a democratic society. The delivery of her presentation in English apparently touched a nerve with someone claiming she is not a true Armenian and left her country and therefore her education is not welcome here… essentially. I’m paraphrasing of course, but the sentiment sounds the same.
Restrictions are the issue. There are many threats that people have raised, but these are realities that you deal with and are not reasons to avoid Dual Citizenship altogether. This is the case of any issue in any situation. People talk about Dual Citizenship as if it will be given out to any takers (for example Turks, traitors, etc.) Sadly the reality is that there is risk rooted in instability of our own infrastructure. There is corruption, there is risk. Some have also argued that Dual Citizenship is not just a law, you must create the process, the paperwork, the procedure to implementing the restrictions that Armenia is not capable of supporting. Others have argued that Armenia will only raise its level of operation when faced with the challenge. We must set the goals in order to aim for them, rather than wait until the lowest denominator is at that level. It will never be the case.
AND WHAT OF THE REPATS?
The Barskahye Commmunity in Yerevan was a big discussion since they are the largest percentage of repats in Armenia today. There’s a concern that they are not being integrated into the culture of Armenia. Where does the lack of citizenship in Armenia leave those who are in Armenia? Are they expected to just hang and create ghettos as if they were in a foreign land? That seems to be what is happening, but who’s responsibility is it to integrate repats? Perhaps Dual Citizenship serves these people the most in allowing them to have the choice to participate in everything, rather than withdraw into ghettos.
NOT AN END, BUT A MEANS
One thing that was regularly stated throughout the conference was that this should not be viewed as a solution to all our problems. What single decision ever is? The bottom line is that this needs to happen, but with restrictions and precautions in order to illiminate the risks and threats that everyone presented at this conference.
SO WHAT WAS PROPOSED?
The 3 proposals presented were quite similar, delivered by the AIPRG, ARF, and the First Deputy Minister of Justice. I wont go into details of the proposals because I don’t want to misrepresent them, but they should be available as well online. My belief is that this is necessary, but my God, there better be a strict implementation of restrictions in place.
Of course there was sooooooo much more discussed, but this is long enough for now. If you’d like to know more, feel free to comment and I’ll elaborate.
posted by Arsineh at 7:03 PM
8 Comments:
It is interesting that how Armenian Diaspora is defined.
It is wrong to say that Western Armenians are the only Diaspora, actually western Armenians might as well be a minority in the Armenian Diaspora.
I know that it is not good to divide people into groups and classes however I will follow the spirit of this blog(s) and go ahead. So in my opinion the Diaspora consists of at least 5 groups based on my experience, friendship and my own place among them.
1. Western Armenians - Armenians whose ancestors lived in Western Armenian and who never settled down in Eastern Armenian.
2. Early Eastern Armenian Diaspora - starting from the dates of Russian Empire (Turkmenchai agreement etc)and ending with the collapse of Soviet union those are: Persian Armenians, Russian Armenians, Georgian Armenian and etc.
3. Mixed Western-Eastern Armenian Diaspora - this is the Diaspora created during 70-80 when many Armenians left Armenia mainly for US due to the 'Open Doors" policy by USSR. These are Western Armenians who repatriated in 40-70 and their kids, relatives who were born in Eastern Armenia. They left because couldn’t live under Soviet rule, seek more prosperous lives or simple because they couldn’t find their place in Soviet Armenian society.
4. New eastern Armenian Diaspora - Diaspora created after the Armenian independence.
Next question is: What is the purpose of dual citizenship?
Will it bring All Armenians under one roof? I dont think it will as now there will be Armenians who have Dual citizenship and Armenians who have single citizenship.
On the other hand I think the Dual citizenship will bring more harm than benefit because it will alienate the Diaspora and create tensions simply because;
1. not that many will accept dual citizenship as there will be additional laws ( military service, tax payments etc)
2. It is all populism and PR.
3. It is illegal as the current constitution failed in the referendum and will most likely be trashed when the regime changes.
Currently there is a better system: Permanent residency. It gives all right other than voting. Well if somebody wants to vote or be elected should be ready to become a single citizen of the Republic of Armenia.
A difficult question indeed. But, wasp, I just wanted to point out that it isn't illegal. The new constitution, passed in a referendum at the end of November, allows for a citizen of Armenia to hold a second passport. This conference was about the possible law they may pass to implement dual citizenship. In fact, there were parliamentary hearings on it just today itself.
I don't think there could essentially be anything beyond the permanent residency for a double citizen. In fact, perhaps there shouldn't be. But, again, a tough call.
The other question, of Armenian identity, history, culture, language, the Armenian nation and Diaspora, etc., etc., well, I'm guessing that's a whole different issue, MUCH more difficult to define and delimit, and certainly impossible to simply base upon a single document.
Arsineh jan, i would like to comment on your posting.
One thing is absolutely clear to me:
It is the OBLIGATION of the State of Armenia to grant Armenian Citizenship to every single member of the Diaspora WITHOUT ANY PRECONDITIONS, as stated in the declaration of independence.
It is a disgrace that this hasn't already been done and that the state is still discussing (after 15 years) the purpuse and the pro and contras of granting citizenship to the Diaspora, WITHOUT THE PRECONDITION of having to give up the former citizenship.
The State of Armenia is neither entitled to forbid dual-citizenship nor examine its pro and contras before granting it to the Diaspora.
It is their OBLIGATION to grant us citizenship WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS and our RIGHT to demand and receive it.
The only reason why dual-citizenship was forbidden was to hinder the Diaspora to become citizens of Armenia.
Now due to a lot of pressure they had to lift the ban on dual-citizenship. But today they are again looking for ways to stop us from becoming FULL-FLEDGED Armenian citizens. This time it will be the obligatory military service.
They know exactly that most Diaspora men will not be willing to do that, in fact nearly all of the western countries have banned obligatory military service. But one can argue that Armenia needs a strong army, due to the hostile environment. Yes that's right, but what Armenia really needs is a PROFESSIONAL ARMY. Many Armenians are even leaving the homeland, so that their children don't have to serve in the army. And now it will become a reason for Diasporans not to apply for Armenian Citizenship.
If the State wasn't so extremely corrupt, they would have enough funds to create a professional army, so the idea is not so farfetched at all. But as one should understand, it is absolutely not in their interests.
Thank you very much.
Leo from Germania
You raise some good points, Arsineh, and we seem to agree on most of them I would say.
Read my take on the conference here.
It all boils down to this: do the laws need to be different for different citizens? That would be against article 14 of the Constitution.
For example, every single male Armenian has to serve his country at the age 18 (unless exempt for medical reasons). Do we exclude the Diasporans from this law? If yes, then how do we justify this to the parents whose sons are sent to fight for the Motherland?
Another thorny issue is the voting and being voted for, although this can have an easy solution. We would not want every Tom, Dick and Harry to excersize a power of deciding a country's fate while residing somewhere else. So one solution would be to have residency requirements such as voting taking place only on the territory of the Republic(I don't), and the voter having lived in the country for a certain period of time before voting. Unfortunately, article 30 does not specify any exemptions, so this might be illegal.
All this mess could have been avoided if the former system of not allowing dual citizenship was kept intact.
Nazarian, you're making things much more complicated than they need be. My friend with Italian citizenship was born and raised in Greece. Both countries have mandatory military service, but he served in neither (not in Italy since he was not a resident, and not in Greece because he was not a citizen). Seems like voting could easily be the same easy solution. Like you said, if you are present in Armenia, you can vote, if not, too bad. Seems simple enough to me...
Raffi, the constitution says that ALL the citizens above the age 18 have the right to vote except those incarcerated or recognized as incompetent by the court. It doesn't say anything about dual citizens.
But it ultimately depends on the constitutional court's interpretation of the law since the next article says that "the RIGHTS and OBLIGATIONS of the dual citizens are defined by legislation". It's quite vague so it's ultimately the constitutional court that will decide what is legal or not.
Was your friend a Greek citizen?
In Cyprus which has mandatory army service as well, the youth were not allowed out of the country or vote unless they proved that they had fulfilled their duty to serve. I don't know if that has changed since the EU membership because of the right to vote and freedom of travel.
Michael said,
Having aquired Lebanese citizenship through sheer coincidence that my parents were in Lebanon for a wedding in the 1920's and that there was the only census held in Lebanon favouring christians at the time, as well as French, British and Canadian ones consequently, I find these documents convenient for buisiness and travel all over the world.
Getting an Armenian passeport will be an honor for me as I will for a change have chosen this citizenship free from all other considerations.
I will also contribute the needs stipulated by LAW for aquiring an Armenian passeport.
All these countries that have accorded me their citizenship have made it clear to me that, if I happen to brake the law in any of the other countries I am also a citizen of, I cannot ask any help from the others.
It will be very simple matter to set a particular amount of time of residency in Armenia to allow one the right to vote, or be eligible for public office.
But since when humans have opted for simplicity?? if complications are better suited creating adversity and fodder for politicians...........LOLLLLLLLLLLL
Post a Comment
<< Home