| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Afghanistan-Pak-India | |
| Four Afghan ministers renounce foreign citizenship | |
| 2005-10-30 | |
KABUL - Four Afghan cabinet ministers have given up their foreign citizenship, an official said on Saturday, in the face of possible opposition from the future parliament. Afghanistanâs new constitution, passed in January 2004, does not allow ministers to hold dual citizenship. The four who gave up their foreign citizenship are Economy Minister Mir Mohammad Amin Farhang, public works minister Suhrab Ali "Surfin'" Safari, Mohammad Azam Dadfar, minister for refugees repatriation and Communications Minister Amirzai Sangin. âThey have voluntarily scrapped their second citizenships,â chief presidential spokesman Mohammad Karim Rahimi told Reuters.
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #20 I'm far less concerned about dual citizenship Austrians than I am Mexicans, especially as both Mexico and the U. S. allow them to vote. When Mexicans start electing Mexicans to the House of Representatives it'll be too late. Then we'll have our Quebec. They have to choose; one or the other. Not both. |
| Posted by: Slaviper Ulineque8390 2005-10-30 17:48 |
| #19 Dual citizenship is a terrible thing. It's a tempest in a teapot. BTW, the governator still hasn't renounced his Austrian citizenship, afaik. I don't see a constitutional crisis brewing over this. Interestingly, Austria doesn't allow dual citizenships. Arnie pulled some strings to retain his Austrian citizenship. Which makes me wonder...... /not really |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-10-30 17:19 |
| #18 As I recall, California's governor has dual-citizenship. If it's not a problem in the US, why should it be a problem in Afghanistan? Who says it's not a problem in the U. S.? If he doesn't renounce his loyalty to foreign princes and potentates, he can't be an American. That's what it's all about, the supremacy of the individual and adherence to the idea that power derives from the people, not some other sovereign to whom the individual owes a vestigal alliegence. Dual citizenship is a terrible thing. |
| Posted by: Ebbolurong Chereth5007 2005-10-30 16:32 |
| #17 I see your point. I was caught trying to apply western rules to Afghanistan. My argument is largely irrelevant anyway. The effect I had in mind can be achieved through other means, so long as they don't ban dual-citizenship for ordinary citizens. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-10-30 15:10 |
| #16 Can't lay that one on the Guv's citizenship tho. |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-10-30 15:06 |
| #15 No one in the United States believes we are in danger of having Schwartenegger working only on behalf of ethnic Austrians. No. We in California just have politicians who work only on behalf of our southern neighbor. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-10-30 15:04 |
| #14 Precisely because the stakes are so high in Afghanistan. No one in the United States believes we are in danger of having Schwartenegger working only on behalf of ethnic Austrians. But that is PRECISELY the claim made on my own group blog when pictures were posted of the new Afghan military academy -- and the concern is an understandable one. The DEFAULT mode right now in Afghanistan is that people identify primarily with their tribe. The danger is real, hence the Constitutional clause that demands that those who would have the legitimization of national office for wielding power be willing to put their eggs in that national basket alone. |
| Posted by: rkb 2005-10-30 14:28 |
| #13 rkb, I respectfully disagree. Everybody wants to see some sort of return on investment for their sacrifices. At this point Afghanistan happens to be in the unenviable position that even the smallest of successes cannot be guaranteed. It seems a bit unnecessarily harsh, for the moment, to have this requirement, though I understand the other side of the argument. As I recall, California's governor has dual-citizenship. If it's not a problem in the US, why should it be a problem in Afghanistan? |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-10-30 14:18 |
| #12 Ship wins a drink at the O-club on me. Nice catch. :D |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-10-30 13:43 |
| #11 Part of the problem is that Afghanistan as a separate country (rather than a region in this or that empire) dates only to the last part of the 19th century and was based on political considerations between the empires rather than cohesion among its people, economy, geography or history. The newly elected government is trying to create a national identity and to do that they must above all create a ruling class that identifies with the country and not with tribe, region or religion. In the US, that process was based in good part on the Military Academy (West Point), founded in 1802 and whose cadets / officer graduates were really the first national leaders to be associated with the country first and not their state of origin (for our foreign readers: state as in Virginia, Pennsylvania etc.). West Point was also one of the first schools in the world to offer degrees in engineering, specifically civil engineering. It was primarily West Point grads who designed and oversaw the building of roads, bridges, railroads and dams as the frontier was pushed back westward. It's hard for us today to really appreciate how new a thing it was for an educated class to a) identify with the nation as a whole, first and foremost and b) have such an intimate role in its growth while at the same time not seizing / wielding political power in their own right. The National Military Academy in Afghanistan was just founded this Spring. It will take time to have a similar effect on Afghanistan as USMA had for the young United States, but the country has many of the opportunities and challenges we did 200 years ago, including the lack of basic infrastructure. And they're doing it under the pressures of a globalized economy and instantaneous press coverage - not to mention the ease of traffic in arms. Yes - it is a commitment and sacrifice for senior government officials to renounce a 2nd citizenship, especially if it was won via naturalization in a place like the US. But without leaders willing to make personal sacrifices on behalf of Afghanistan, they will not achieve what they want and need to achieve in order to transform their country. |
| Posted by: rkb 2005-10-30 13:39 |
| #10 However divided loyalties are not good. I've never really thought about this until my job put me in contact with a lot of recent, and not so recent immigrants. I've met many types. Among them are: 1) Immigrants who escaped a crappy life and are determined to make a better life for themselves and their future generations. Typically for these people the country of origin is relegated to the annals of history and their loyalty is not in doubt. 2) Immigrants who leech off their adopted home (and I don't necessarily mean financially) enjoying its freedoms and protections, coming close but never quite breaking any of its laws, but who for one reason or another, continue to crap on the flag on a daily basis. Notice that you don't need to be an immigrant to fit this category. Those that fall under #2 I would consider undesirable. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-10-30 13:37 |
| #9 Do you just love complexity, or what? There's nothing particularly complex about it. Your points 1) and 2) still apply. My point is, dual-citizenship can be used as leverage, and post 9/11, it is (the Arar case comes to mind). If your sole motivation behind your argument is to force loyalty, you're going to have a problem. You can take the immigrant out of his country of birth, but can you take the country of birth out of the immigrant? An oath or piece of paper may not change anything. You had better shutdown immigration completely if you want a 100% guarantee on loyalty. Otherwise, there will always be lingering questions (even if the immigrant has the best of intentions). That said, there's perhaps a big difference between immigrants in the US and Canada. There's a lot more hyphenation in Canada, whereas everyone is American in the US. But maybe that's overstated. Maybe the situations are far more similar than it seems...especially post 9/11. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-10-30 13:15 |
| #8 Time to break the RB name Hudna. Suhrab Ali "Surfin'" Safari, YES! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-10-30 10:12 |
| #7 Good arguments on both sides.However divided loyalties are not good.It is like a cheater saying"My wife is married,I'm not". |
| Posted by: raptor 2005-10-30 06:37 |
| #6 Pfeh. I disagree, of course. The Afghan situation, where a democracy is being created where there was none before, is one mother-loving rarity. Regards the Ministers, I take it that makes sense to you? Now I ask, if it makes sense for a Minister, why is it any different for anyone else? Why have multiple sets of rules? Do you just love complexity, or what? You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer or bureaucrat, would you? All the machinations are pointless gyrations that create complexity, and niches for assholes to breed and screw with the system, where none is needed. If some twit breaks the law: 1) If it's yours, then punish accordingly. 2) If it's somebody else's, then ship it out. Compare my posts and yours. Simplicity versus nuanced complexity. Oh well, such is life and to each his own. BTW, the US Govt agrees with me. Obviously, Qanada agrees with you. Who knew? |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-30 03:18 |
| #5 If they're not up to reciprocating loyalty for the rights granted, and willing to make a go of it, stay out, they're not needed. They could be needed if they have the right education or experience. An Afghani with an economics degree from say, Harvard, specializing in development economics, could be a great minister of the economy. But asking to give up American citizenship, could prove too big a price to pay. And that's a loss for Afghanistan. It would be a good idea to encourage Afghanis from other parts of the (western) world to participate in the politics of Afghanistan, at least initially. They could bring with them good ideas, and ideas that have been proven to work elsewhere. If you are a naturalized citizen, then your country of origin means nothing Easy to say, in practice it's altogether a different story. Sometimes you can renounce your previous citizenship, sometimes you can't. Your country of origin may consider you its citizen, no matter how many times you say you've renounced the citizenship. So you're bound by the rules of both countries. Not a problem, if you never intend to visit your country of origin ever again (which some governments advise you not to do anyway). I've said this before, dual citizenship can be a useful tool in itself. It means one of those two citizenships can be taken away when needed. If you want to get rid of an undesirable and he has a second citizenship, great, send him packing to his country of origin. It could also be used as a bargaining chip. Whereas if the guy only has one citizenship, you're stuck with him because most countries have laws that say you can't make a person stateless. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather kick someone out who is a constant shit disturber. Otherwise you get stuck providing welfare like in some of the examples we've seen before. In addition, the shit disturber needn't break any laws to get himself booted out. In some cases all it takes is to show that the person lied on his application. "Have you ever been affiliated in any way with a terrorist organization?" For lying to this question, what's the maximum penalty he can get? Whereas getting kicked out is a permanent thing. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-10-30 01:40 |
| #4 sounds like Mizz Hillary could take a lesson or two, was it Illinois or Arkansas? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-10-30 01:45 |
| #3 Sigh. We've been here before. My take is simple. If you are granted citizenship in a country, by birth or naturalization, then you are a citizen of that country. Period. No other. If you are a naturalized citizen, then your country of origin means nothing, IMHO, as you have pledged yourself to the new country - and they have reciprocated for that pledge by granting you rights - including representation and travel rights as evidenced by the passport. Nobody MADE you emigrate from your previous home - it was your choice. Choice made. Can't make such a pledge? Can't reciprocate the generosity of your new home? Then stay wherever you are. Choice made. End of story. Regards the Ministers of a country, good grief, of course they must choose Afghani citizenship - they have an obligation to the State, now. And they must work with all their might to make it a success. The same goes for every other Afghani who chooses to live there. If they're not up to reciprocating loyalty for the rights granted, and willing to make a go of it, stay out, they're not needed. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-30 01:35 |
| #2 Ok, I'll run with it... Banning dual citizenship is not a good idea for Afghanistan, at least not initially. You've got a lot of good, professional Afghanis, all over the western world, who have (hopefully) seen the light, and who might have had something to offer this fledgling democracy (in the political arena). You will probably not entice these people to return to Afghanistan, if they also have to give up their current citizenship, which probably took a lot of time and sacrifice to obtain. But then again, maybe that's the point. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-10-30 01:16 |
| #1 Lol. Doesn't this deserve a F**kin Duh, Doc? And yes, I'm ready for another round on dual citizenship as one of the stupidest ideas ever, lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-30 00:35 |