Device to influence policies of other nations

US benefits from dual citizenship:

By Daya Gamage

Sri Lanka enacting the Twenty First Amendment to its Constitution, among other provisions, barring her citizens from holding elective office if a person is simultaneously a citizen of another country, meaning no dual citizen could get elected to the highest position of the land, Executive President, or the national legislature, the parliament.

However, no law prohibits a Sri Lankan citizen – with dual citizenship – from holding office, other than elected, in a political party or organisation, public office with government compensation, or prevents such a dual nationality holder to engage in politics or civic duties.

In Sri Lanka, this issue is broadly concentrated to elective office but has ignored the reality that a dual citizen, without being in an elective position, is capable of influencing national agenda through his or her position within the governing body or the political party which is responsible for that governance. This influence could be from the nation this person is holding the foreign citizenship to advance that foreign country’s interests in the policy structure of the other nation.

The issue of dual citizenship emerged during the past seven-eight years in Sri Lanka revolved round a single person: Basil Rajapaksa – a dual citizen of Sri Lanka and the United States – of the governing Rajapaksa entity or his influence in the political structure and national policies associated with it. Any skepticism of American influence in Sri Lankan national issues is largely ignored in the process.

Prior to 1967, dual citizenship was not permitted in the United States. However, the U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. A U.S. citizen may naturalise in a foreign state without any risk of his or her U.S. citizenship.

The issue came in the United States after 9/11 attack on the American soil – especially among lawmakers and policymakers in Washington, D.C., whether the federal government should legislatively declare – for the first time – dual citizenry illegal. The culmination of this debate was the open session of the sub committee on Immigration and Border Security of the Committee of the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives on September 29, 2005 summoning academics and experts for testimony.

What came out of the Special Session was most interesting: and at this time when dual citizenry has been focused toward one single individual, the message emerged from the Congressional Session can be attributed to the entire Sri Lankan nation, her political formation, and the decision-making process.’

What is the message?

Accepting dual citizenship advances U.S. national interests on a global basis. Many dual citizens will remain politically active in their homelands even after they become Americans.

What was deliberated at the U.S. House Session was that through dual citizenship the United States at that moment enjoyed a direct voice in the politics of other countries. The Congress did not mean that such individuals will crudely do the bidding of the United States in those countries, but such individuals as Americans will surely work to sustain and entrench constitutional democratic systems in their countries of origin and that many U.S. interests could be served. It was further noted that having absorbed America’s political traditions in the process of becoming Americans, dual citizens will be able to put them to work back home. That serves America’s national interests in advancing the global cause of democracy, among many other things, it was noted.

Peter J. Spiro, Professor of International Law at the University of Georgia Law School who served as Director for Democracy of the staff of the National Security Council told this Congressional Session (Quote) Participating in the affairs of another country does not categorically preclude responsible participation in the affairs of this one. Dual citizens can be responsible participants in both countries of nationality. Dual citizens can also, perhaps even more clearly, remain informed participants in multiple polities.

From a national interest perspective, dual citizenship presents a tool in solidifying the global reach of our constitutional values. A naturalising alien who gives up his or her original citizenship is limited in the extent to which it is possible thereafter to influence the political processes of the homeland. But that seems counterproductive to the American national interest insofar as we may want him to exercise such influence. Naturalising aliens are likely to absorb American democratic mentalities. If they maintain dual citizenship, they will be able to put those democratic tendencies to work back home. (End Quote)

The vital pronouncement in Prof. Spiro’s testimony was “A naturalising alien who gives up his or her original citizenship is limited in the extent to which it is possible thereafter to influence the political processes of the homeland. But that seems counterproductive to the American national interest insofar as we may want him to exercise such influence”.

The dual citizenship process is well connected to America’s foreign policy, its defence approaches in foreign countries and other interests such as trade, commerce and investments.

The American policy goes beyond to further strengthen all the above through its elective bodies, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

To be clear in U.S. law, there is no prohibition against dual nationals serving as elected Members of the U.S. Congress – both the Senate and the House. The only qualifications for serving in Congress are age, being a U.S. citizen for at least nine years for the Senate, and living in the state you represent at the time of election. However, the president is constitutionally required to be natural born.

Through dual citizenship the United States benefits in many ways. Currently a (Republican Party) candidate for the US Senate in the State of Ohio Dr. Mehmut Oz is a dual citizen of the U.S. as well as Turkey. The mid-term elections are schedule for November 8 and if he is elected – it could be – in the interest of the strategic ties between the two nations.

Turkey is a key NATO Ally and critical regional partner, and the United States is committed to improving the relationship between the two countries.  It is in the U.S. interest to keep Turkey anchored to the Euro-Atlantic community.

Turkey is an important U.S. security partner.  Turkey has been a valued North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Ally since 1952.

If elected, Senator Oz could be useful to Washington to move forward spelled out by the new U.S.-Turkey Strategic Mechanism, announced in early April 2022, as a step forward.

Keeping the ‘dual citizenry’ open, the United States looks forward to enhance its economic-strategic interests abroad. After all, Sri Lanka is strategically located in the Indo-Pacific region to which the United States focused since 2006 – when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State declaring the US policy of ‘Pivot to Asia’ – to strengthen its hold.

(The writer is a retired Foreign Service National Political Specialist of the US Department of State attached to its diplomatic mission in Colombo)