By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A proposed amendment to Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship would expand the grounds for revoking citizenship from dual citizens who support “aggressor states” or threaten national security. This builds upon a 2023 law allowing revocation for those posing security risks or publicly supporting threatening states, and extends this to all dual citizens regardless of how they obtained citizenship. The impetus for this change stems from concerns about individuals using Lithuanian citizenship to circumvent sanctions, as exemplified by recent reports involving Russian citizens. The amendment explicitly protects individuals with only Lithuanian citizenship.
Read the original article here
Lithuanian conservatives have proposed a significant amendment to the country’s citizenship law, sparking considerable debate. The core of the proposal is to revoke Lithuanian citizenship from dual citizens who demonstrably support Russia, a nation deemed a significant threat to Lithuania’s security and international law. This action targets individuals deemed to be actively aiding a hostile foreign power, emphasizing the gravity of the situation from Lithuania’s perspective.
The proposed amendment aims to prevent individuals from undermining Lithuanian national security interests and those of its allies. It outlines a process where dual citizens could lose their Lithuanian passports if found to be supporting a foreign state threatening Lithuania or other EU member states or their allies. Furthermore, supporting or participating in actions that violate international law would also trigger this consequence. The amendment extends to barring such individuals from acquiring, restoring, retaining, or regaining Lithuanian citizenship.
The proposal’s implications are far-reaching, potentially impacting numerous dual citizens. The key challenge lies in defining “support.” The ambiguity invites considerable concern. Sending money to family in Russia, visiting relatives, expressing fondness for Russian culture, or even writing an opinion piece critical of the Putin regime but expressing affection for the Russian people – all these actions fall into a grey area. The lack of a precise definition leaves room for misinterpretations and potential for abuse.
This lack of clarity is especially pertinent considering the case of Margarita Drobiazko, the ice dancer whose actions spurred this amendment. While her continued performances in Russia after the invasion of Ukraine might be interpreted as tacit support, it’s also a matter of nuanced interpretation. Whether this constitutes “support” sufficient for stripping citizenship remains highly debatable, raising questions about the potential for arbitrary application of the law.
The proposal has drawn sharp criticism, with concerns raised about the precedent it could set. Some argue that revoking citizenship for anything short of clear and demonstrable acts of treason or sabotage is an overreach. Others worry that this approach could chill freedom of expression and limit dissent, potentially silencing those critical of both the Lithuanian government and Russia. The fear is that this amendment might be misused, used against political opponents, or deployed against individuals for minor infractions that don’t actually pose a security threat.
Concerns regarding the potential for misuse extend to the very definition of “support.” The lack of a strict legal definition opens the door to potentially subjective interpretations and potential for abuse. Critics argue that the line between expressing cultural affinity and actively supporting a hostile government is blurry and that this could lead to the unfair targeting of individuals. A broad interpretation could unjustly penalize those who merely maintain family ties or cultural connections with Russia.
Supporters of the amendment emphasize the need to counter Russian propaganda and protect Lithuania’s national security. They argue that individuals holding dual citizenship who actively support a state actively engaged in hostile actions against Lithuania should face serious consequences. The argument hinges on Russia’s leveraging of its diaspora for its political objectives, presenting a legitimate threat to national security. From this perspective, the amendment serves as a necessary deterrent and a means to counter malign influence.
The debate also highlights the complexity of dual citizenship. The Lithuanian government appears to recognize the potential conflict presented by dual loyalties in the context of an ongoing conflict. This amendment is a response to that conflict, aiming to prevent potential security risks. The proposal is presented by its proponents as a way to encourage full integration for those who wish to be Lithuanian citizens while firmly addressing the risks associated with those who maintain ties that could compromise national security.
The amendment, however, also raises concerns about the potential for an overly broad definition of support for Russia. Critics worry about the potential for chilling effects on free speech and the possibility that individuals could be penalized for expressing cultural ties or simply maintaining family relations with Russia. This highlights a delicate balance between national security concerns and the protection of individual rights. The debate underscores the complex challenges faced by countries dealing with internal dissent amidst external geopolitical conflicts.