Tragicomic situation of Armenia about occupied region of Karabakh

[Onur]

This is so funny but yet a tragic event which describes the desperate and laughable situation of Armenia;

Just a week ago, Armenian state established diplomatic relations with a country called Tuvalu. I didn't even know where this country is but it looks like Tuvalu is a Polynesian island located in the Pacific Ocean, midway between Hawaii and Australia.

Apparently, this joke state of Tuvalu took about 3 million dollars from Russia last year, in exchange of recognizing Russian occupied Georgian territories of Abkhazia&South Ossetia as an independent country.

And now, a week later of establishing Armenia-Tuvalu diplomatic relations, Tuvalu will recognize Armenian occupied (with Russia`s support) Azerbaijani territory of Karabakh.

From Armenian web sites;

Armenia, Tuvalu establish diplomatic ties
On March 16, Permanent representatives of Armenia and Tuvalu to UN Karen Nazaryan and Afelee F. Pita signed a joint statement on establishment of diplomatic relations at United Nations Headquarters in New York City.

Following the signing ceremony, a decision was taken to develop bilateral relations and foster deepening of cooperation in the framework of the UN and other organizations, RA MFA press service reported.

Tuvalu is a Polynesian island nation located in the Pacific Ocean, midway between Hawaii and Australia. Tuvalu became fully independent within the Commonwealth on October 1, 1978. On September 5, 2000, it became the 189th member of the United Nations.
http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/99280/

Tuvalu to recognize NKR independence?
"Armenia has established diplomatic relations with the state of Tuvalu of the Pacific Ocean in order to reach international recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic," writes the Hurriyet.

We remind that on March 16, UN Permanent Representatives of Armenia and Tuvalu Karen Nazaryan and Falema Pitan signed a Joint Declaration on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the Republic of Armenia and Tuvalu.

According to the author of the article, Armenia, on the one hand, is taking steps to include Armenian Genocide recognition on the political agenda of several countries ahead of April 24th, and on the other hand, to reach international recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh. The author of the article writes that Ankara is "closely following up on the strengthening of relations between Armenia and Tuvalu" because last year, Tuvalu recognized the independence of the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in exchange for Russia's $3.4 million.

"To not hurt relations with the West, Armenia, which itself doesn't recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh, can follow Russia's example and offer money to the Pacific Ocean state; otherwise, what is the meaning of establishing relations with a country that is located at a 15,000 kilometer distance from Yerevan?" notes the author of the article. According to the author, what's also interesting is the fact that a day after that, on March 17, RA Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan left for Georgia "to clarify the situation with his Georgian counterpart".

The author also doesn't exclude that Russia is aware of this step. Russia is "discontent with NATO placing anti-missile systems in the territory of Turkey and Ankara's position on Syria".

March 24, 2012
http://www.a1plus.am/en/politics/2012/03/24/tuvalu


But where is the recognition of the so-called "Armenian genocide"? Tuvalu government asked for 3 million dollars more for recognizing the genocide and Armenian state don't have enough money to convince these Aborigines?

[The Lawspeaker]

But where is the recognition of the so-called "Armenian genocide"? Tuvalu government asked for 3 million dollars more for recognizing the genocide and Armenian state don't have enough money to convince these Aborigines? I can't help but chuckle about the cheeky sods. It's not a matter of principle for them at all. It's a matter of money and they would probably sell whatever principles they might have for 3 million dollars. The Turks should play this game too: and give Tuvalu 5 million to break relations with Armenia and not recognise the Armenian Genocide therefore forcing Armenia to make a better offer. :P

That would be the way for Tuvalu to get rich. Politics and diplomatic relations: politicians would even sell their own mothers lol.

[Mosov]

No one is going to recognise NKR now since there are negotiations going on. Even Armenia doesn't recognise for this reason. However, recognition will come if NKR is attacked by Azerbaijan or through successful negotiation process.

So Onur what you think of Northern Cyprus?

[Queen B]

What is tragicomic is that there is a post in NEWS, which starts with personal opinion, and a personalized title.

[Albion]

But where is the recognition of the so-called "Armenian genocide"? Tuvalu government asked for 3 million dollars more for recognizing the genocide and Armenian state don't have enough money to convince these Aborigines?

Tuvalu is pathetic, but Armenia probably thought they should recognise it by principle instead of having to be bribed.


I can't help but chuckle about the cheeky sods. It's not a matter of principle for them at all. It's a matter of money and they would probably sell whatever principles they might have for 3 million dollars. The Turks should play this game too: and give Tuvalu 5 million to break relations with Armenia and not recognise the Armenian Genocide therefore forcing Armenia to make a better offer.

Yeah, lets's just rewrite the wrongs of history with money... :rolleyes2:


That would be the way for Tuvalu to get rich. Politics and diplomatic relations: politicians would even sell their own mothers lol.

Tuvalu and many of the Pacific Island states are ridiculously hopeless. They should federate into larger nations - Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia.
Tuvalu, Kiribati and Nauru are perhaps the worst countries in the region.

They'd probably have done better to stay under British / Australian or New Zealand protection. If the Cook Islands run out of money New Zealand just gives them some more.
The islands of the Pacific aren't suitable for European civilisation which they keep trying to emulate (like Africa). They need to become self-supporting in food and import technology to generate renewable energy and capture rainwater.

[Padre Organtino]

Soviet and Russian armies actually helped Azeris at the initial stage of the Karabakh conflict. Loss of that war by Azerbaidjan has little to do with Russia.
Once again Onur is just engaging in lame panturkist propaganda.

[PBachman]

I can't help but chuckle about the cheeky sods. It's not a matter of principle for them at all. It's a matter of money and they would probably sell whatever principles they might have for 3 million dollars. The Turks should play this game too: and give Tuvalu 5 million to break relations with Armenia and not recognise the Armenian Genocide therefore forcing Armenia to make a better offer. :P

That would be the way for Tuvalu to get rich. Politics and diplomatic relations: politicians would even sell their own mothers lol.

Since Turkey is the best nation in the world and you idolize Turks so much, would you accept Turkey into the EU? Why not give citizenship to the many Turks in Netherlands for that matter? Finally, please google Sibel Edmonds. You may learn something.

[The Lawspeaker]

Since Turkey is the best nation in the world and you idolize Turks so much, would you accept Turkey into the EU? Why not give citizenship to the many Turks in Netherlands for that matter? Finally, please google Sibel Edmonds. You may learn something.
Wrong. I don't care for neither. I just pointed out that it was all a money game and there are no principles involved. Armenia is using money to bribe people so others should do the same. Maybe it will teach them a lesson. :wink

[PBachman]

Wrong. I don't care for neither. I just pointed out that it was all a money game and there are no principles involved. Armenia is using money to bribe people so others should do the same. Maybe it will teach them a lesson. :wink

Are you serious? Again, google Sibel Edmonds. You keep talking out of your ass. It is the exact opposite. You have everyone being bribed by Turkey and Azerbaijan. Just this past summer Azerbaijan was caught bribing boxing officials.

[The Lawspeaker]

Are you serious? Again, google Sibel Edmonds. You keep talking out of your ass. It is the exact opposite. You have everyone being bribed by Turkey and Azerbaijan. Just this past summer Azerbaijan was caught bribing boxing officials.
Who cares about a whistle-blower that just wants some attention ?

[Mosov]

Wrong. I don't care for neither. I just pointed out that it was all a money game and there are no principles involved. Armenia is using money to bribe people so others should do the same. Maybe it will teach them a lesson. :wink

First off, as I said, no one is going to recognise Karabakh with the negotiations going on. Even Armenia doesn't recognise it for this reason. Second, if we are going to talk about states "bribing", I suggest you take a look at this:


Where the big spenders are

Interests in the United Arab Emirates, primarily Dubai, spent the most money on lobbying and public relations campaigns. (Iraq’s spending also includes the Kurdistan Regional Government.)

Country Amount Spent
United Arab Emirates $10,914,002
United Kingdom $6,105,200
Japan $4,231,656
Iraq $3,708,368
Turkey $3,524,632
Morocco $3,337,392
Saudi Arabia $3,308,285
South Korea $2,941,004
Netherlands $2,694,604
Equatorial Guinea $2,408,168

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/defense-contractors-join-turkish-lobbying-effort-in-pursuit-of-/

[The Lawspeaker]

First off, as I said, no one is going to recognise Karabakh with the negotiations going on. Even Armenia doesn't recognise it for this reason. Second, if we are going to talk about states "bribing", I suggest you take a look at this:



http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/defense-contractors-join-turkish-lobbying-effort-in-pursuit-of-/
Even still. Lobbying itself is wrong. And you know very well that I mean that so I would be just as much as against British or Dutch lobbying (and I kind of wish that I knew what Dutch companies were lobbying in the U.S.. because we haven't got much of an arms industry).

[The Lawspeaker]

Even still. Lobbying itself is wrong. And you know very well that I mean that so I would be just as much as against British or Dutch lobbying (and I kind of wish that I knew what Dutch companies were lobbying in the U.S.. because we haven't got much of an arms industry).

Found it: Netherlands Board of Tourism & Conventions $ 2,196,269

Ah: what I thought. The national tourist organisation (http://www.nbtc.nl/en/Homepage/About-NBTC/Who-we-are.htm). Now that's a whole different ball game which has nothing to do with lobbying to influence foreign and domestic politics. I can rest assured now. Kind off. I still think it's wrong.

But what about the other 500.000 ?

[Mosov]

Even still. Lobbying itself is wrong. And you know very well that I mean that so I would be just as much as against British or Dutch lobbying (and I kind of wish that I knew what Dutch companies were lobbying in the U.S.. because we haven't got much of an arms industry).

I know, but you seem to only mention cases of Armenian Lobbying, when Turkish lobbying is done at a much higher level with much more money, that comes from Turkish Government. Armenian Lobbying is done at a more grass roots level, with fundraising, and so forth.


Found it: Netherlands Board of Tourism & Conventions $ 2,196,269

Ah: what I thought. The national tourist organisation (http://www.nbtc.nl/en/Homepage/About-NBTC/Who-we-are.htm). Now that's a whole different ball game which has nothing to do with lobbying to influence foreign and domestic politics. I can rest assured now. Kind off. I still think it's wrong.

But what about the other 500.000 ?

Well, the issue is that Turkey is spending lobbying on the secure defence contracts, influence policy in the region(e.g. cyprus, kurds), and of course fund politicians against recognising Armenian Genocide.

[The Lawspeaker]

I know, but you seem to only mention cases of Armenian Lobbying, when Turkish lobbying is done at a much higher level with much more money, that comes from Turkish Government. Armenian Lobbying is done at a more grass roots level, with fundraising, and so forth.
Yes but that doesn't change the fact that it is both equally as disrupting for the workings of internal politics. Whether it comes from a government or from a "grassroots movement" - it's exactly the same principle: foreign money being used to subvert another government.




Well, the issue is that Turkey is spending lobbying on the secure defence contracts, influence policy in the region(e.g. cyprus, kurds), and of course fund politicians against recognising Armenian Genocide.
While Armenia is doing the same against Turkey so it's a case of:

http://jcnot4me.com/images/pot_calls_kettle_black.bmp

And that goes for the Turks as much as for the Armenians.

[Mosov]

Yes but that doesn't change the fact that it is both equally as disrupting for the workings of internal politics. Whether it comes from a government or from a "grassroots movement" - it's exactly the same principle: foreign money being used to subvert another government.


Well it's not subverting, Armenian Grassroots can't subvert American Government, especially given the resources that Turkey uses to influence the US government. You also should understand that lobbying by a foreign government is different from activism by citizens of that country.


While Armenia is doing the same against Turkey so it's a case of:

http://jcnot4me.com/images/pot_calls_kettle_black.bmp

And that goes for the Turks as much as for the Armenians.


But at different levels. Armenian Government is not bribing or funding politicians, that activism comes from citizens of Armenian descent. While Turkish government actively funds politicians in that country.

[The Lawspeaker]

Well it's not subverting, Armenian Grassroots can't subvert American Government, especially given the resources that Turkey uses to influence the US government. You also should understand that lobbying by a foreign government is different from activism by citizens of that country.
It isn't different if it is done for the sake of a foreign country. Then it is exactly the same. If a Dutchman from two German parents would start lobbying for Germany then I would consider him to be a traitor because he seeks to influence Dutch politics and foreign and/or domestic affairs for the sake of helping out Germany. It's just a very simple principle and I wouldn't care whether he works for a kind of association of Germans in the Netherlands or for the German government. It is exactly the same thing.




But at different levels. Armenian Government is not bribing or funding politicians, that activism comes from citizens of Armenian descent. While Turkish government actively funds politicians in that country.
So in the case of Turkey it comes from the Turkish government and in the case of Armenia from Hyphenated Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American). I personally don't see the difference here: it is both exactly the same thing.

[Mosov]

It isn't different if it is done for the sake of a foreign country. Then it is exactly the same. If a Dutchman from two German parents would start lobbying for Germany then I would consider him to be a traitor because he seeks to influence Dutch politics and foreign and/or domestic affairs for the sake of helping out Germany. It's just a very simple principle.

You have it in many large/influential countries, especially US. Just research Cuban interest groups, Greek interest groups, and so forth. Grassroots activism is not just done by Armenians, but a wide range of ethnic groups. In my view, having citizens of the country do activism is less worse than having foreign government be directly involved.


So in the case of Turkey it comes from the Turkish government and in the case of Armenia from Hyphenated Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American). I personally don't see the difference here: it is both exactly the same thing.

It's not the same thing. In one case you have the Turkish Government directly funding such lobbying efforts at very high levels and the other hand its US citizens of Armenian descent fundraising in order to have some influence.

[Hess]

1) I'm pretty sure that "Tragicomic" can't be used as an adjective the way OP did in the thread title.

2) I like how we're all pretending that this "story" is in the least bit relevant to European Preservation :lol:

[The Lawspeaker]

You have it in many large/influential countries, especially US. Just research Cuban interest groups, Greek interest groups, and so forth. Grassroots activism is not just done by Armenians, but a wide range of ethnic groups. In my view, having citizens of the country do activism is less worse than having foreign government be directly involved.
That's in your view. In my eyes they are just as bad because they are involved in using their adopted country as a vessel to help the old one. If anything you could compare it to someone becoming a citizen of a town and then using the city's treasury to send money to help his old city. Do you realise that if they would do that during wartime (in the unlikely event that there would be a state of war between the United States and let's say Greece, Cuba or Armenia) then that would be seen as treason.

Make no mistake here: having dual loyalties means having no loyalties to the new country.

Let's just turn the question around for a moment: suppose that Canada killed, make it 1.5 million Americans back in 1915 and now the Canadian government is actively lobbying in Armenia and so are American Armenians living in Armenia ?

How would you, being Armenian, think about those Americans ?




It's not the same thing. In one case you have the Turkish Government directly funding such lobbying efforts at very high levels and the other hand its US citizens of Armenian descent fundraising in order to have some influence.
No Mosov. I don't care how you twist it: it's exactly the same thing.

[Mosov]

That's in your view. In my eyes they are just as bad because they are involved in using their adopted country as a vessel to help the old one. If anything you could compare it to someone becoming a citizen of a town and then using the city's treasury to send money to help his old city. Do you realise that if they would do that during wartime (in the unlikely event that there would be a state of war between the United States and let's say Greece, Cuba or Armenia) then that would be seen as treason.

Make no mistake here: having dual loyalties means having no loyalties to the new country.


I can't speak for their loyalties, but all I can say this practice is done by various groups and it's been done throughout history. I understand your principles against it, but don't make it as if though Armenians are the only people that do such activism. While, Turkish government accounts for most of the lobbying efforts, there are also Turkish grass roots efforts.


No Mosov. I don't care how you twist it: it's exactly the same thing.

The cause is different. Having a foreign government pay money to politicians is different from having a citizens of that country petition the government. In the end, you have a similar result, but the cause is different. For example, the Armenian Grassroots agenda is not parallel to the Armenian Government policies.

[The Lawspeaker]

I can't speak for their loyalties, but all I can say this practice is done by various groups and it's been done throughout history. I understand your principles against it, but don't make it as if though Armenians are the only people that do such activism. While, Turkish government accounts for most of the lobbying efforts, there are also Turkish grass roots efforts.
I just condemned Turkish lobbying too did I ? I have very strong principles against it and I will actually repeat the question:


Let's just turn the question around for a moment: suppose that Canada killed, make it 1.5 million, Americans back in 1915 and now the Canadian government is actively lobbying in Armenia and so are American Armenians living in Armenia ?

How would you, being Armenian, think about those Americans ?




The cause is different. Having a foreign government pay money to politicians is different from having a citizens of that country petition the government. In the end, you have a similar result, but the cause is different. For example, the Armenian Grassroots agenda is not parallel to the Armenian Government policies.
Whether the cause is different or not is irrelevant. Completely irrelevant. What matters here is that they do the same thing the Turks do: lobbying. Trying to influence foreign and domestic policies of another country and is the central tenet of the debate.

[Mosov]

I just condemned Turkish lobbying too did I ? I have very strong principles against it and I will actually repeat the question:


Let's just turn the question around for a moment: suppose that Canada killed, make it 1.5 million Americans back in 1915 and now the Canadian government is actively lobbying in Armenia and so are American Armenians living in Armenia ?

How would you, being Armenian, think about those Americans ?

Banning foreign lobbying would probably help Armenians more than hurt, because of the heavy amount of Turkish lobbying that is done for pro-Turkish issues.


Whether the cause is different or not is irrelevant. Completely irrelevant. What matters here is that they do the same thing the Turks do: lobbying. Trying to influence foreign and domestic policies of another country and is the central tenet of the debate.

You can ban foreign lobbying by foreign governments. It's harder to prevent citizens from petitioning lawmakers on issues that is dear to them.

[The Lawspeaker]

Banning foreign lobbying would probably help Armenians more than hurt, because of the heavy amount of Turkish lobbying that is done for pro-Turkish issues.
Then why do the Armenians keep doing it ?




You can ban foreign lobbying by foreign governments. It's harder to prevent citizens from petitioning lawmakers on issues that is dear to them.
If Armenians in the Netherlands would be involved in this I would be in favour of stripping them of their citizenship (as they have clearly acquired it under false pretences) and throwing them out of the country. The same goes for British, Germans, Irish, Turks, Papua.

All that needs to be done is a change in the law.

But you didn't answer the question so I will ask it again:

Let's just turn the question around for a moment: suppose that Canada killed, make it 1.5 million Americans back in 1915 and now the Canadian government is actively lobbying in Armenia and so are American Armenians living in Armenia ?

[Mosov]

Then why do the Armenians keep doing it ?


So Armenians stop lobbying and let Turkish lobbying take control? Why in the world would we do that?


If Armenians in the Netherlands would be involved in this I would be in favour of stripping them of their citizenship (as they have clearly acquired it under false pretences) and throwing them out of the country. The same goes for British, Germans, Irish, Turks, Papua.

All that needs to be done is a change in the law.

But you didn't answer the question so I will ask it again:

Let's just turn the question around for a moment: suppose that Canada killed, make it 1.5 million Americans back in 1915 and now the Canadian government is actively lobbying in Armenia and so are American Armenians living in Armenia ?

I would favour banning foreign lobbying in Armenia.

[The Lawspeaker]

So Armenians stop lobbying and let Turkish lobbying take control? Why in the world would we do that?

http://www.faa.gov/education/educator_resources/educators_corner/grades_7_8/four_forces_of_flight/media/upward_arrow.gif



I would favour banning foreign lobbying in Armenia.
That's weird because you support Armenian lobbying abroad.

[Mosov]

http://www.faa.gov/education/educator_resources/educators_corner/grades_7_8/four_forces_of_flight/media/upward_arrow.gif

That's weird because you support Armenian lobbying abroad.

If in a country lobbying is legal I do support it, because predictably there will be Turkish lobbying coming from the other side. If we don't lobby for example, and in that country lobbying is legal, then the Turkish lobby will influence policies to a much greater pro-Turkish bias. Why should I want that?

Of course, it depends on what you are banning. If you ban foreign government from lobbying, that doesn't mean you have banned citizens of that country from petitioning their law makers.

[The Lawspeaker]

If in a country lobbying is legal I do support it, because predictably there will be Turkish lobbying coming from the other side. If we don't lobby for example, and in that country lobbying is legal, then the Turkish lobby will influence policies to a much greater pro-Turkish bias. Why should I want that?
You need to be consistent in your viewpoints here because if in a country lobbying would be illegal then the Turks themselves couldn't do it either.


IOf course, it depends on what you are banning. If you ban foreign government from lobbying, that doesn't mean you have banned citizens of that country from petitioning their law makers.
It should be banned for people with "acquired citizenship" to petition their lawmakers to change laws in favour of the country they have left behind. It shows that they are not loyal to their new country but are merely using it as a vessel.

You just said this:

I would favour banning foreign lobbying in Armenia.

When I asked you this:

Let's just turn the question around for a moment: suppose that Canada killed, make it 1.5 million Americans back in 1915 and now the Canadian government is actively lobbying in Armenia and so are American Armenians living in Armenia ?

[Mosov]

You need to be consistent in your viewpoints here because if in a country lobbying would be illegal then the Turks themselves couldn't do it either.

Well, we should clarify what kind of lobbying would be made illegal. If it's lobbying by foreign governments made illegal, than Armenian activists really wouldn't be affected. If you are banning the right for citizens to petition their lawmakers than that's a whole different story.


It should be banned for people with "acquired citizenship" to petition their lawmakers to change laws in favour of the country they have left behind. It shows that they are not loyal to their new country but are merely using it as a vessel.

You just said this:

I would favour banning foreign lobbying in Armenia.

When I asked you this:

Let's just turn the question around for a moment: suppose that Canada killed, make it 1.5 million Americans back in 1915 and now the Canadian government is actively lobbying in Armenia and so are American Armenians living in Armenia ?




Most of the Armenian activists that petition lawmakers in US for example are usually 2nd or 3rd generation American. Yes I would favour banning foreign government lobbying in Armenia. I don't see how a 2nd generation Armenian in Armenia petitioning his lawmaker on a certain issue would qualify as "foreign lobbying".

[The Lawspeaker]

Well, we should clarify what kind of lobbying would be made illegal. If it's lobbying by foreign governments made illegal, than Armenian activists really wouldn't be affected. If you are banning the right for citizens to petition their lawmakers than that's a whole different story.
Of course they would be allowed to petition lawmakers on American issues.




Most of the Armenian activists that petition lawmakers in US for example are usually 2nd or 3rd generation American. Yes I would favour banning foreign government lobbying in Armenia. I don't see how a 2nd generation Armenian in Armenia petitioning his lawmaker on a certain issue would qualify as "foreign lobbying".
If it is lobbying in favour of a foreign matter not pertinent to, let's use your example, the United States then that should be considered foreign lobbying as well.

Make no mistake: I have no problem with a bunch of Armenian Americans coming together and lobbying Washington to finally build a new motorway around Newark, NJ but when they would lobby Washington and asking them to build a motorway near Yerevan then that should be classed as foreign lobbying.

Unless there would be some planned suburb in America called Yerevan.

[Mosov]

Of course they would be allowed to petition lawmakers on American issues.

So should citizens have no right to petition their government when it comes to the government's foreign policy?



If it is lobbying in favour of a foreign matter not pertinent to, let's use your example, the United States then that should be considered foreign lobbying as well.

Make no mistake: I have no problem with a bunch of Armenian Americans coming together and lobbying Washington to finally build a new motorway around Newark, NJ but when they would lobby Washington and asking them to build a motorway near Yerevan then that should be classed as foreign lobbying.

Unless there would be some planned suburb in America called Yerevan.

I always thought of foreign lobbying as lobbying done on behalf of a foreign government/entity. Let me ask you this. Should those Armenian Americans not be allowed to lobby on America's foreign policy which pertains to Armenia, but be allowed to lobby on America's foreign policy to Zimbabwe issues?

I see it as a bit inconsistent to allow petitioning of law makers on domestic issues but not let anyone petition the government's/lawmakers position on foreign issues.

[The Lawspeaker]

So should citizens have no right to petition their government when it comes to the government's foreign policy?
Not when it comes to immigrants or sons of immigrants aiding the country they left behind. Take for instance the Turkish, Jewish and Armenian lobbies here or in the United States. Their ideas do not favour America but only the country they left behind. That is why I am so strict in that respect because then you end up with the situation we have today.




I always thought of foreign lobbying as lobbying done on behalf of a foreign government/entity. Let me ask you this. Should those Armenian Americans not be allowed to lobby on America's foreign policy which pertains to Armenia, but be allowed to lobby on America's foreign policy to Zimbabwe issues?
If it has nothing to do with Armenians in Zimbabwe f.i. You wouldn't take offence to Dutch Armenians influencing your government to take a tough stance against.. let's say Germany ?

What does Armenia have to do with a fight between Germany and the Netherlands ? So why should America be lobbied into involving itself in a Turkish-Armenian clash ? It's not her problem and Dutch making a struggle between Dutch and Germans Armenia's problem would be the problem. They would be a factor of liability and I couldn't blame you if you saw them that way.


I see it as a bit inconsistent to allow petitioning of law makers on domestic issues but not let anyone petition the government's/lawmakers position on foreign issues.
Maybe there is a good reason for it, Mosov. I just gave you examples of what could happen: the Turkish lobby here in Europe.

[Mosov]

Not when it comes to immigrants or sons of immigrants aiding the country they left behind. Take for instance the Turkish, Jewish and Armenian lobbies here or in the United States. Their ideas do not favour America but only the country they left behind. That is why I am so strict in that respect because then you end up with the situation we have today.

It's a grey area legally. It's easy to ban foreign lobbying but how do you restrict natural born citizens from petitioning on certain issues that may reflect their heritage? I understand what you are saying, just legally I don't see how you can restrict it or justify it.


If it has nothing to do with Armenians in Zimbabwe f.i. You wouldn't take offence to Dutch Armenians influencing your government to take a tough stance against.. let's say Germany ?


The reason I brought that up is because essential what you are doing is restricting what a person can petition for based on their ethnic background.


Maybe there is a good reason for it, Mosov. I just gave you examples of what could happen: the Turkish lobby here in Europe

I wouldn't want any government to go unchecked when it comes to their foreign policy. Citizens should have the right to voice their concerns/petition on foreign policies of their government.

It's like this. You either get rid of the right to petition of your government on foreign issues and lose an important element of democracy or your allow it, but get the by-product of ethnic interest groups.

[The Lawspeaker]

It's a grey area legally. It's easy to ban foreign lobbying but how do you restrict natural born citizens from petitioning on certain issues that may reflect their heritage? I understand what you are saying, just legally I don't see how you can restrict it or justify it.
Then that is where the laws should be changed. I personally think that it should be part of a pledge of allegiance: that it is not allowed to use their citizenship to influence the foreign policy of their new country in favour of their old country. And that's probably a citizenship issue: we should be much stricter when it comes to jus sanguinis. A child born from two non-Dutch citizens is already not necessarily Dutch. I think that should be linked to ethnicity too - just to protect our democracy (because we have so many immigrants these days).




The reason I brought that up is because essential what you are doing is restricting what a person can petition for based on their ethnic background.
And as f.i the Turkish lobby has shown us it is, unfortunately, necessary if we are to protect our democracy. And I know that that is where the irony lies: in order to protect democracy it has to be mutilated.




I wouldn't want any government to go unchecked when it comes to their foreign policy. Citizens should have the right to voice their concerns/petition on foreign policies of their government.
Not when migrant interest groups would bring their old tribal feuds (sorry for the harsh term but..) to their new"fatherland". Although I would understand it a bit better if they would lobby the government to stay out of that issue whatever the cost.. but even that would be a grey area.


It's like this. You either get rid of the right to petition of your government on foreign issues and lose an important element of democracy or your allow it, but get the by-product of ethnic interest groups.
Basically: the immigration issue in a nutshell and the reason why immigrants should not allowed to be citizens. Sad but true.

[Mosov]

Then that is where the laws should be changed. I personally think that it should be part of a pledge of allegiance: that it is not allowed to use their citizenship to influence the foreign policy of their new country in favour of their old country. And that's probably a citizenship issue: we should be much stricter when it comes to jus sanguinis. A child born from two non-Dutch citizens is already not necessarily Dutch. I think that should be linked to ethnicity too - just to protect our democracy (because we have so many immigrants these days).

I think in countries like Austria and Switzerland you have to be born to an Austrian or Swiss citizen to have their citizenship. I think Jus soli is only practical in immigrant countries like the US. Naturalisation should be less about the amount of years you spend in the country, but more about you as a person in terms of mindset, cultural assimilation, allegiance, etc. It's a complicated debate, and varies from country to country, and very tough to ensure that all your citizens have broken every tie with whatever country/ethnicity they or their ancestors were connected to.



And as f.i the Turkish lobby has shown us it is, unfortunately, necessary if we are to protect our democracy. And I know that that is where the irony lies: in order to protect democracy it has to be mutilated.

It is indeed ironic. But I guess Machiavellian in a way.


Not when migrant interest groups would bring their old tribal feuds (sorry for the harsh term but..) to their new"fatherland". Although I would understand it a bit better if they would lobby the government to stay out of that issue whatever the cost.. but even that would be a grey area.

Basically: the immigration issue in a nutshell and the reason why immigrants should not allowed to be citizens. Sad but true.

In the end, it's just hard to test one's allegiance or inner feelings about their identity/country. You may even have the children of those immigrants being very much attached to their parents' country. I think the easy thing to do is ban foreign lobbying. As for the ethnic interest lobbying, that's a whole different animal to tackle that intersects with the citizenship debate and a lot more.

[Hess]

I'm going to side with Civis here.

Foreigners who are Citizens of one country Lobbying for their home country is inappropriate.