Geopolitics, Nationalism and Dual Citizenship

Geopolitics is central to STRATFOR's methodology, providing the realist framework upon which we study the world. The foundation of geopolitics in our time is the study of the nation-state, and a fundamental component of this approach is the changing relationship of the individual to the nation and the state.

Many factors affect this complex relationship, most notable among them being the increasing global trend of multiple citizenship. This latter trend is obviously linked to the question of immigration, but it also raises a deeper question, namely, what is the meaning of citizenship and therefore political identity in the 21st century?

Nation Vs State

It is difficult to make sense of the international system without first making sense of the nation-state. The latter concept, however, remains a complicated one. It can include multinational states such as Belgium, where national identity plays a significant role, and Russia or China, where it can be both significant and at times violent. And yet, in looking at the nation-state, the idea of nationhood is more complex, and perhaps more interesting, than that of statehood.

The idea of nationhood is not always clear, though. At root, a nation is a group of people who share a fate, and with that fate, an identity. Nations can be consciously created, as the United States was. Nations can also exist for hundreds or thousands of years, as seen in parts of Europe or Asia. However long a nation exists and whatever its origins, a nation is founded on what I've called elsewhere "love of one's own," a unique relationship with the community in which an individual is born or to which he chose to come. That affinity is the foundation of a nation.

If that dissolves the nation dissolves, which is something that has happened on numerous occasions in history.. Some might say that such disappearances are for the better, even if they result in massive shifts to the international system, while others continue to claim it is for the worse. It is sufficient to note here that either way would make a profound difference.

In contrast to the nation, the idea of the state is much clearer: It is the political directorate of the nation. How the leaders are selected and how they govern varies widely. The relationship of the state to the nation also varies widely. We know that not all nations have states. Some are occupied by other nation-states. Some are divided between multiple states. Some are part of an entity that governs many nations. And some are communities that have developed systems of government that do not involve states, although this is increasingly rare.

Ultimately, the relation to the nation is personal while the relation to the state is legal. I can state my relation to my nation simply: I am an American. I cannot state my relationship to my state nearly as simply. Saying I am a "United Statian" makes no sense. I have to say that I am a citizen of the United States in order to clarify my legal relationship, but that is not the same as establishing my personal affinity. A distinction does exist between nationality and citizenship. They may coincide easily, as when a person is born in a country and becomes a citizen simply through that fact, or they may develop, as when an individual is permitted to immigrate and become naturalized. Note the interesting formulation of that term, as it implies the creation of a “natural” relationship with the state.

In the United States, the following oath is administered when one is permitted to become a citizen, generally five years after being permitted to immigrate:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

The American oath of allegiance is indeed a rigorous one; other nations have much simpler and less demanding oaths. Intriguingly, many countries with less exacting ones are also countries where becoming a naturalized citizen is more difficult and less common. For the United States, a nation and a state that were consciously invented by its founders, the idea of immigration was inherent in the very idea of the nation, as was the above oath. Immigration and naturalization required a commitment of this magnitude since naturalization meant taking on not only a new state identity but also a new national identity.

The American nation thus created itself on the backs of immigrants from other nations. Unless they were prepared to "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen," the American enterprise would fall into chaos. The new immigrant could not selectively claim the benefits of full citizenship while refusing to abandon prior obligations. By insisting on this commitment, the United States therefore put itself in a position shared only with a few other immigration-based nations, and thus staked out a highly demanding position on naturalization.

The Dual Citizenship Anomaly

The tidy distinctions we’ve just made between nationhood and statehood (distinctions that I hazard to say would raise few eyebrows) do raise an immediate question, though – are they too tidy for their own good? Isn’t the overlap between these categories actually greater and more complicated than it seems, particularly in the case of naturalized citizens? Well, if the oath of allegiance is so unequivocal, for example, in the case of the United States, isn’t it odd that it -- along with many other nation-states -- permits its nationals to be citizens of other countries? It is impossible to know just how many people currently exercise this option in the US and elsewhere, but anecdotally it would appear that the practice is not uncommon. This practice then raises a fundamental (and complicating) question. Is citizenship a license to live and earn a living in a country, or is it equally or more so a set of legal and moral obligations? There are many ways legally to reside in a country without becoming a citizen. But the American oath, for example, makes it appear that the naturalized citizen (as opposed to just the legal resident) has an overriding obligation to the United States that can require substantial and onerous responsibilities within military and civilian life. The individual, in other words, might very well be able to juggle multiple obligations (and therefore identities) until they come into conflict, but the decision to embrace citizenship may indeed represent that inevitable collision point.

Blurring things further is the reality is that in many cases citizenship is seen less as a system of mutual obligations and rights than as a convenience. In the case of the dual citizenship holder, this not only creates an obvious tension between the individual and his oath-based obligations, but it also creates a deep ambiguity between his different nationalities. Yes, the concept of immigration involves the idea of movement to a new place. It involves the assumption of legal and moral obligations. But it also involves a commitment to the nation, at least as far as citizenship goes. This has nothing to do with retaining ethnicity. Rather, it has to do with a definition of what it means to love one's own. And yet, if you are a citizen of multiple nations, which nation is yours?

It is interesting to note that in addition to permitting dual citizenship (and by extension dual nationality), the United States has been equally ambiguous about permitting its citizens to serve in other countries' militaries. John Paul Jones served as an admiral in the Russian navy. American pilots flew for Britain and China prior to American entry into World War II. They did not take the citizenship oath, having been born in the United States. While you could argue that there was an implicit oath, you could also argue that they did not compromise their nationality: They remained Americans even in fighting for other countries. The immigration issue is more complex, however. In electing to become American citizens, immigrants consciously take the citizenship oath, and that explicit oath would seem to create a unique set of obligations for naturalized immigrants. At the same time, they have some “outs” available to them – outs that suggest that the distinctions between citizenship and nationality-identity are potentially fluid than they first appear.

The Pull of the Old Country

One obvious advantage of this sanctioned ambiguity is that it permits people to link their ancestral homelands with their adopted countries. Immigrants, and frequently their children and grandchildren, retain their old citizenship alongside citizenship in the country they now live in. This seems a benign practice and remains so until there is conflict or disagreement between the two countries -- or where, as in some cases, the original country demands military service as the price of retaining citizenship.

When these conflicts or disagreements arise, however, the blurring of the line between nationalities becomes a bigger potential threat for the immigrant country than it does for the country of origin. The sense of national identity (if not willingness to sacrifice for it) is often stronger in countries whose nationhood is built on centuries of shared history and fate than it is in countries that must manage waves of immigration. These countries have less room for maneuver on these matters, unless they have the fortune to be secure and need not ask much of their citizens. But in those countries that are built on immigrants and that do need to call for sacrifice, this evolution is potentially more troublesome.

Let me close by acknowledging that there are those who regard nationalism as divisive and harmful, thereby leading to conflict. I am of the view, however, that nationalism has endured because it provides individuals with a sense of place, community, history and identity. It gives individuals something beyond themselves that is small enough to be comprehensible but far greater than they are. That nationalism can become monstrous is obviously true; anything that is useful can also become harmful. But nationalism has survived and flourished for a reason.

Within this context the rise of multiple citizenship undoubtedly provides freedom. But as is frequently the case, the freedom raises the question of what an individual is committed to beyond himself. In blurring the lines between nations, it does not seem that it has reduced conflict. Quite the contrary, it raises the question of where the true loyalties of citizens lie, something unhealthy for the citizen and the nation-state.

In the United States, it is difficult to reconcile the oath of citizenship with its Supreme Court's ruling affirming the right of dual citizenship. That ambiguity over time could give rise to serious problems. And yet, this is not just an American problem, although it might be more intense and noticeable than other countries. It is a more general question, namely, what does it mean to be a citizen, both as a legal construct and as a form of identity?

Additional Reading

Further analysis and commentary by STRATFOR on some of the issues covered in today’s article:

external pageHow Myanmar Liberates Asiacall_made by Robert D. Kaplan, March 21, 2012

external pageRegional Tensions within EU Countriescall_made , July 26, 2012

external pageThe Olympics and Nationalismcall_made , July 27, 2012

Recommended Reading

Identity Politics. Mary Bernstein, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 31 2005

The Impact of the New Nationalism and Identity Politics on Cultural Policy-making in Europe and Beyond. Peter Duelund, CultureWatchEurope Think Piece, 2011.

The Challenges for European Identity. Francis Fukuyama, Global, January 2012, available from external pagehttp://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/469/call_made

Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity . Charles Taylor, Cambridge University Press, 1989

Exclusion for Democracy. Adam James Tebble, Political Theory, Vol. 34, No. 4, August 2006

external pageStandford University’s Encyclopedia of Philosophycall_made provides a selection of interesting articles on national identity.

From the ISN Digital Library

Identity and Asian Powers: What does it mean for Regional Cooperation?

Russia and Sports: Politics, Business and National Identity

Popular Culture and Regional Identity in East Asia