Russian Lawmakers Urge Denouncement of 30-Year Dual Citizenship Agreement with Tajikistan

Growing Calls for Denouncement

A significant debate is unfolding within the Russian Federation regarding the future of its dual citizenship agreement with Tajikistan. Influential Russian politicians are increasingly advocating for the denunciation of the 30-year-old pact, citing a range of perceived negative impacts on Russia. This push comes despite the agreement's long-standing role in bilateral relations and its recent extension until 2026.

The 1995 Agreement: Origins and Evolution

The dual citizenship agreement between Russia and Tajikistan was initially signed in 1995 and subsequently ratified in 1996, coming into force in 1997. It stands as a unique arrangement within the post-Soviet space, allowing citizens of one country to automatically hold citizenship in the other. The original intent of the agreement was to assist Tajikistan in its recovery following its civil war and to enable Russian-speaking populations in Tajikistan to acquire Russian citizenship while retaining their Tajik nationality.

Reasons for Russian Opposition

Leading the charge for denouncement is Mikhail Delyagin, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Economic Policy, who has formally proposed terminating the agreement. Delyagin argues that the pact has outlived its original purpose and now contributes to what he terms 'low-quality migration,' where individuals primarily seek Russian citizenship rather than labor opportunities. He contends that this trend overloads Russia's social security system, leads to an increase in crime, and poses a threat to the country's ethnic and confessional balance by potentially fostering 'parallel power structures' and increasing socio-political tensions.

Another prominent voice, Sergey Mironov, leader of the 'A Just Russia – For Truth' party, has suggested removing the possibility of dual citizenship from the Russian Constitution entirely, stating, 'It is time to choose which country you tie your fate to.' Critics also highlight that the agreement creates an unfair advantage for Tajik citizens compared to those from other post-Soviet states like Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan, with whom Russia has no similar dual citizenship treaties.

Furthermore, concerns have been raised regarding military service obligations. Under the current agreement, dual citizens can choose which country to serve in the military and pay taxes. Russian commentator Kirill Ozimko noted that 'Having a Russian passport does not obligate to serve in the Russian military,' a point gaining significance amid Russia's ongoing military activities.

Tajikistan's Perspective and Current Status

Despite the growing calls for denouncement, the agreement remains in effect. As recently as February 19, 2025, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov affirmed the agreement's importance, stating it 'continues to play a significant role in strengthening the alliance between the two countries' and is 'beneficial, equal, and serves the interests of both Russian and Tajik citizens.' The pact was also extended until 2026 in April 2024.

For Tajikistan, one of the poorest former Soviet republics, the agreement holds considerable importance. Many Tajiks seek Russian citizenship for better economic opportunities, with remittances from Russia constituting a substantial portion of Tajikistan's GDP, reaching 38 percent in 2023. The number of Tajiks acquiring Russian citizenship has seen a significant increase, with over 103,000 in 2021 and 173,000 in 2022. Russia's need for cheap labor is also cited as a pragmatic reason for maintaining the visa-free regime and potentially the dual citizenship arrangement.

Potential Implications

Should the agreement be denounced, it would have profound implications for the estimated over one million Tajiks residing in Russia and for the bilateral relationship. It could significantly alter migration patterns, economic ties, and the social fabric of both nations, forcing many dual citizens to make a choice between their two nationalities. The debate underscores the complex interplay of historical ties, economic realities, and evolving national interests in the post-Soviet landscape.