RutgersModelUnitedNations 13 Yugoslav republics,” 43 others were denied “on the basis of the republic citizenship and birthplace of their parents.” 44 In both of these cases, people who once held a citizenship with a government were denied the renewal of their citizenship when the government encountered a major bureaucratic change, resulting in the population’s new inability to register as a citizen with a nation that once allowed them to do so. These motivations make it difficult for these nations to negotiate a solution that would be amicable to all parties concerned. In most cases, states governed by principles that create a stateless population have drawn the line based on years of oppressive, or lack of positive, action. Often times, it appears that the individuals denied citizenship would be pleased by gaining the citizenship of the nation that has oppressed them, but if these nations were willing to compromise in this way, they would likely have already done so. Needless to say, there is little room for compromise in the sovereign policies of a nation that does not recognize itself as responsible for a population living within its borders. There is little that the international community can do, as well, because any solution involving the granting of citizenship to the stateless populations would require a change of nation politics. Therefore, it is assumed that an antagonist nation would rather see a third party make accommodations for the stateless population to remove the responsibility of that population from the nation’s agenda. There is a significant difference between an NGO or international organization simply providing accommodations and a third nation granting the population citizenship, but both solutions would likely appease an antagonist state. Possible Causes All cases of subsequent statelessness are created by a nation that has decided to retroactively deny citizenship to a population that lives within their borders. While each reason for subsequent statelessness is ultimately caused by a state removing a population’s citizenship, the factor that led to this decision is the possible cause and falls 43 Amnesty International, 1. 44 Ibid, 2.
RutgersModelUnitedNations 14 into one or more of three major factors: political motivations, qualms based in ethnicity, and economic reasons rooted in nationalism. In political cases, the nation in question has had a negative experience with the population in question and has determined that the protection of that population is not the responsibility of the state. In cases based along ethnic lines, the state determined that the population is not one that is native to the nation, and has decided to remove citizenship because of a lack of historical racial connection. In economic cases, most often pertaining to migrant or immigrant workers, the state determined that affording the population continued citizenship would be a detriment to the nation itself. Political In cases of subsequent statelessness based on political reasons, the state has determined that it is in the best interest of the nation to prevent a population from participating in government due to fears of political upheaval or previous political tensions. The two best examples of this are the Biharis in Bangladesh and Russians in states that formerly comprised the USSR. In Bangladesh, the Biharis have been denied citizenship since the inception of the nation in the early 1970s. The nation of Bangladesh was previously recognized as East Pakistan, then the Bengalis, local to the lands, revolted and overthrew the government. The Biharis, a minority Muslim population that fled India years before, “came to be seen as Pakistanis who had supported the armed intervention of West Pakistan during the Bengali struggle for independence.” 45 This situation resulted in a great animosity between the new Bengali government and the Bihari population, which has resulted in the Bihari population being stateless for over three decades. 46 In addition to this, West Pakistan, now recognized as Pakistan, has continually denied the Biharis citizenship due to fears that a “mass influx of Biharis could destabilize a fragile and culturally mixed population.” 47 In this case, the fact that the Biharis supported the opposition during the 45 Ibid, 9. 46 Ibid. 47 Lynch, M. “Lives on Hold: The Human Cost of Statelessness.” 13.