Taiwan's Diane Lee Panicked By Panić

That's Panić as in Milan Panić (PAN-itch).    Wikipedia may help brush away the cobwebs:

Milan Panić or Milan Panic . . . (born 20 December 1929 in Belgrade in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) is an American multimillionaire, a Newport Beach and Pasadena, California-based business tycoon. Panić served as Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1992-1993.  [emphasis added]

Now, I'm not going to argue that it's a GOOD thing for dual citizens like Panić to serve as PRIME MINISTERS of foreign countries and still retain their American citizenships.  (Nor will I suggest, as per Dr. William Fang, that dual citizens are disloyal opportunists, either.) 

What I will say is that the case of Milan Panić illustrates the principle that accepting high political office in a foreign country is not sufficient in and of itself to strip an American of his citizenship.  Panić was a naturalized American who became prime-minister of his native Yugoslavia for about six months.   When he lost power he returned Stateside -- and returned as an American.

It's 2008, and many have probably forgotten Panić's brief but fascinating political career.  But in late 1992, the man's name was on everyone's lips.  Hard to believe that Diane Lee of Taiwan, who obtained her dual American citizenship in 1991, could have easily ignored the case.  Hard to believe -- and hard to argue that Diane Lee, Taipei city councillor and Taiwanese legislator, should have been stripped of her American citizenship . . . while the Yugoslavian who became P.M. should keep his.

Comments

[Lee-Sean]

There is also the case of Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, who I believe is a naturalized Canadian citizen who later became the first female president of Latvia

[The Foreigner]

*
*
Thanks, I wasn't aware of her career. For those interested, a brief summary can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaira_V%C4%AB%C4%B7e-Freiberga

Dr. Fang would reply I suppose, by saying that great countries don't allow dual citizenship and that Canada isn't, by his definition, a "great" country.

Of course, he never gets around to defining "greatness", so no one can really argue. Is it a combination of military and economic power? Does it have to do with population size? Square milage? Stable and enduring political institutions? Rule of law? Freedom of the press?

Or does it belong to the country with the highest number of organs harvested yearly from religious minorities?

Fang doesn't say. Though he IS quick to sniff that America is "great" in only the military sense of the word.

His whole thesis that great countries don't permit dual citizenship, while small, weak countries like Taiwan are forced to accept it falls apart when one looks at the world existing outside his theoretical bubble. Denmark and Singapore are both small countries. Unlike Taiwan however, neither allows dual citizenship. (Now, they may be great in some, or even many ways, but no one calls them Great Powers, as defined by their possession of economic, diplomatic and military clout.)

On the other side of the spectrum is the case of India. According to Fang's theory, as India rises, it should restrict dual citizenship, because "great" countries do not allow it. Yet as India rises, it is becoming more, not less accepting of dual citizenship.

It seems then, that a country's laws regarding dual citizenship is governed more by political philosophy and economic pragmatism, rather than by abstract concepts of "greatness."