Institute for War and Peace Reporting
Oct 13 2004

ARMENIA: DUAL CITIZENSHIP DEBATE

Is a proposed relaxation of citizenship laws a benefit or a danger
for Armenia?

By Tigran Avetisian in Yerevan

With parliament soon likely to remove the clause from the Armenian
constitution banning dual citizenship, people here are debating
what its introduction would mean for the country and the millions of
Armenians worldwide.

The introduction of dual citizenship could potentially lead to a
radical change in the relationship between the Armenian state and the
millions of Armenians who live outside it, from Georgia and Russia
to the USA and Uruguay.

On different calculations, the official population of Armenia is no
more than three million, while between seven and ten million Armenians
live elsewhere in the world.

The issue of what sort of status diaspora Armenians should be given
has divided the country since it regained independence in 1991. The
constitution of 1995 explicitly outlawed the idea of dual citizenship
but the administration of Robert Kocharian, president since 1998,
is much warmer towards the concept.

Supporters of dual citizenship argue that its introduction would
enable the Armenian diaspora to render assistance more effectively,
increase foreign investment into the country and in bring expatriate
Armenians psychologically closer to their historical motherland.

Madlen Minasian, US citizen and director of communications for the
Kafeschian charity, said that dual citizenship would inspire many
diaspora Armenians like herself, who want to pay back a “debt to
the motherland”.

Minasian is not worried about the technical details of the arrangement,
saying “As for military service it is a fairly broad concept. This
issue should be sorted out by the authorities. People can pay their
debt to the homeland by working in the social or other spheres.

“The main thing in passing a law on dual citizenship is the inspiration
factor. Thanks to this, the majority of our compatriots living abroad
will make a contribution to developing the motherland.”

The nationalist Dashnaktsutiun party, which is a member of the
coalition presently in power in Armenia, is the strongest advocate
of the plan.

Dashnaktsutiun is one of the traditional Armenian parties, which was
established at the end of the nineteenth century outside Armenia and
remained active in the diaspora throughout the period of Soviet rule.

It was only able to start functioning again in 1991.

“The lifting of the prohibition on dual citizenship remains one of the
most important issues today in the draft of constitutional changes,”
Armen Rustamian, one of the leaders of Dashnaktsutiun, told IWPR.

Opponents of the idea say that it is fraught with unforeseen
consequences and could surrender sovereignty to people in other states.
Stepan Grigorian, spokesperson for Armat, a political science research
centre founded by former officials in the Ter-Petrosian administration,
warned, “Dual citizenship cannot be partial or half-and-half, as the
present government insists. This makes no sense. Citizenship means
having the right to vote and being elected and the danger of this, is

that as a result, the government of Armenia could be influenced
from abroad.”

Grigorian argued that by allowing dual citizenship, Armenia could
endanger some parts of the Armenian diaspora, “In Georgia, for example,
Armenians would come to be seen as a fifth column, as a potential
factor of instability.”

The analyst also pointed out that dual citizenship was only possible
where a bilateral agreement could be struck with another country. But

this can be problematic.

For example, Russia, which has probably the largest Armenian population
outside Armenia, allows dual citizenship, but President Vladimir
Putin suspended its effect in 2001.

“This is a very typical example,” said Grigorian, “Russia and
Turkmenistan have an agreement on dual citizenship, but it was quickly
suspended when problems arose in areas such as military service,
and the disclosure of and punishment for criminal offences.”

Tigran Torosian, pro-government deputy speaker of parliament, is
one of the strongest supporters of the plans and says that Armenians
should not be intimidated by them.

“Of course, this does not mean that an individual with dual citizenship
should have all the same rights as a citizen living in the Republic
of Armenia, particularly regarding the right to vote and the right
to be elected,” he said. Precise definitions should be codified by
additional changes to the constitution or by law, he added.

Political scientist, Vardan Pogosian, the deputy chair of the National
Democratic Party, proposes a flexible arrangement that sets residence
in Armenia as the primary criterion for receiving citizenship.

“Let the Armenian diaspora receive dual citizenship, but with regard
to political rights, those who do not permanently reside in Armenia
should be differentiated from those who do. For those who do decide
to live here and make Armenia their home, it would be simply immoral
to deprive them of their right to vote and be elected,” he said.

Pogosian said that this would have to be tightly controlled, “A
large number of Armenians live abroad. And if around 10 million
foreign Armenians were to receive full Armenian citizenship, then
this would mean that special restrictions would need to be imposed
during government elections. Eligibility to vote on the competence
of the government would apply only to residents of Armenia.”

Legal expert Hrair Tovmasian said he doubted that diaspora Armenian
businessmen would see their status change much under a change of law,
as they felt well protected already in Armenia and the authorities
tried to keep up good relations with them.

The exception, he said, is the right of property ownership, which
does not extend to foreigners.

Analyst Stepan Grigorian finally pointed out that dual citizenship is
a two-way process and will not work without reciprocal steps from other
countries. In the Armenian case this could lead to renewed emigration,
he warned.

“Even to suggest that we sign a dual citizenship agreement with some
country, it must be understood that it should not be asymmetrical,”
Grigorian said. “So, if a French citizen can become an Armenian
citizen as well, then an Armenian citizen should be able to become
a French citizen. Well, what do you think, in which direction would
the flow of people start to go then?’

Tigran Avetisian is a journalist with Aravot newspaper in Yerevan