Of citizens, citizenship and insurance options

“Now supposing the USA declares war on Sri Lanka. If Sarath Fonseka is elected President, we would have a situation where Fonseka could be called upon to bear arms against the country of which he is President! “
………………………………………………...

By Malinda Seneviratne

(January 25, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Tomorrow we will as a nation exercise our most fundamental democratic right, that of casting a vote to elect someone to power. The day after tomorrow we will revert to nonentities, relatively speaking. Our power will increase from now until the polls close on Tuesday. From 4 pm, January 26, 2010, it will decline until the next major election is announced.

This is the reality of ‘participatory democracy’; it is a matter of the voter enjoying the status of king-maker for a mere 30 seconds during which time he/she will decide who to vote against or who the lesser evil is. It is very rarely that we get ideal candidates who are positioned to actually capture power. Still, it is a happy moment when we exercise our franchise so let’s laugh all the way to the polling booth and smile after we’ve done our duty as citizens (even though we get little by way of reward).

I was reflecting on the diga-palala of citizens, citizenship and associated rights when I got an email from one of my readers who had three questions for me, which I am convinced are relevant questions for the rest of the voter as well.

"Would you like your President to travel to America every 6 months to keep his American Citizenship intact?"

"Would you like your President to be a citizen of the same country as the new LTTE leader Rudrakumaran lives?"

"Would you like your President to be only a Sri Lankan citizen or also an American citizen?"

The reference was of course to Sarath Fonseka. Now Fonseka is not a citizen of the United States of America, but only a Green Card holder, and reading this email I remembered Manik De Silva, editor of the Sunday Island once raising the question of dual-citizens holding key posts in the Government, referring to Palitha Kohona and Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. It is not easy to dismiss saying ‘harmless’ or ‘not relevant’ because a good man today can become ‘bad’ tomorrow (ref: Pied Piper of Hamlin). This was before it was known that Sarath Fonseka was a Green Card holder. When the Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary and the Army Commander are all one-foot-here-one-there individuals it is a serious matter and one which the Opposition failed to alert the public to.

In a crucial period of the war it was perhaps easy to ignore such things given manifest skills and the clear commitment of these individuals to the overall policy thrust of the political leadership. The argument can also be made that if during a crisis-moment they came through then they’ve proved their loyalties, that the answer is not to punish but to reward.

The difference in this instance is we are not talking about a key official appointed to carry out a specific task but a Presidential Candidate. We are being asked to vote for an individual who has for reasons best known to him wishes to be a citizen of another country. Since I am a voter, I checked out (as I believe others should too) what was meant by the term ‘Green Card Holder’ and also the prerogatives of being awarded citizenship in the USA.

A ‘Green Card’ in the sense the term is used in the United States of America, is a special visa status and one that is associated with the term ‘Permanent Residency’. ‘Permanent Residency’ refers to a person's visa status; a person is allowed to reside indefinitely within the U.S. despite not having citizenship as they have agreed to abide by certain provisions of the U.S. with the intent of obtaining citizenship (my emphasis). It is clear then that the moment Sarath Fonseka (or anyone else) applies for a Green Card, he (or she) is acknowledging intent to become a citizen of the United States of America. Hence the validity of the question, ‘Would you vote for someone who wants to become a citizen of another country?’

What does citizenship in the USA imply? I checked the ‘Oath of Allegiance’:

‘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. (Emphasis mine)’.- "Oath of Allegiance," 8 C.F.R. Part 337 (2008)

The United States of America is clearly not a country for atheists but that’s not my business. What is important is that Fonseka by applying for a Green Card has essentially expressed intent to renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to Sri Lanka and has expressed intent to bear arms on behalf of the United States if required to do so.

Now supposing the USA declares war on Sri Lanka. If Sarath Fonseka is elected President, we would have a situation where Fonseka could be called upon to bear arms against the country of which he is President!

Fonseka, the moment he declared he would contest could have put the question and doubts out of the way by simply handing relinquishing his ‘Permanent Resident’ status. He did not. We don’t know why. Perhaps that is his insurance options should he lose. Failing to decide which country he wants to be citizen of, though, indicates a serious, disappointing and worrisome absence of commitment to Sri Lanka and Sri Lankans.

He could do this today of course, but he will not be fooling anyone. I am disappointed that he did not make a decision on which soil he wishes to stand on. When a would-be-leader is not sure where he stands, he is setting a bad example for all the citizens he plans to lead. One cannot build a nation like that. Kohona, Gotabhaya and other officials can serve and leave, but we cannot have a President who has to go to another country every so many months to keep his ‘other’ citizenship prospects intact.

So let me answer the questions that my friend asked me:

"Would you like your President to travel to America every 6 months to keep his American Citizenship intact?" NO!

"Would you like your President to be a citizen of the same country as the new LTTE leader Rudrakumaran lives?" NO!

"Would you like your President to be only a Sri Lankan citizen or also an American citizen?" NO!

How would you answer these questions? I am curious.

(Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer who can be reached at malinsene@gmail.com )

............................................

Response by Thrishantha Nanayakkara

What my Malinda didn't mention was that the presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka is still a US green card holder and not a citizen. Therefore that oath does not apply to him. As a greencard holder, he has the option to prolong to take that oath to be a US citizen.

Gotabaya Rajapakse, a US citizen has already proved by example that the oath Malinda mentioned is not a real hindrance to serve Sri Lanka faithfully. Even Palitha Kohona, our former foreign secretary is an Australian citizen. According to Malinda, there should have been a direct conflict of interest. Therefore, people should not take these petty things to decide their important decision to vote on 26th.

With best regards,
Thrishantha Nanayakkara