Diasporas place great importance on their homelands because of their long history and deep cultural association.
Writers Yossi Shain and Tamara Cofman Wittes argue that ethnic diaspora communities are "inevitable" and "endemic" features of the international system.
Shain writes: Thus, from the perspective of the diaspora, the homeland's "political and territorial fate has profound implications.
"[2] "Sufficient areas of overlap exist that homeland-diaspora ties can be quite close despite differences of emphasis in the national narrative.
There have been mass demonstrations of support or opposition by diaspora communities in response to specific policy decisions by their homeland governments.
While many formal organizations established by ethnic identity groups are apolitical, others are created explicitly for political purposes.
"[2] Shain cites the situation of Arab-Americans as an example where diaspora members are held accountable and negatively impacted by the policies of foreign ethnic kin: Diaspora leaders can be presented with a dilemma of dual loyalties when the interests of their homeland come in conflict with those of their host state.
Shain describes the Azerbaijan government's persistent frustration with the influence of the Armenian-American lobby in Washington and the lack of a viable Azerbaijani-American diaspora population to counter the Armenian's domestic presence.
[citation needed] There were segments of Iraqi-Americans who advocated strongly for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, segments of the Iranian-American population have similarly advocated for a regime change in Iran since the fall of the Shah, the Vietnamese American calls for democracy and religious freedom in Vietnam, and most prominent has been the consistent and vocal calls for ending Fidel Castro's leadership of Cuba by the Florida-based Cuban-American lobby.
Shain[2] cites the example of the military fundraising of the Eritrean and Ethiopian diaspora communities in the United States in response to the 1998-2000 Eritrean-Ethiopian War, the eventual result of which was hundreds of millions of dollars in arm purchases by their respective homelands.
Shain gives this description of the potential for diaspora-homeland conflict over potential territorial compromises: Again, while the leaders and public of the homeland may feel that their national interests trump those of the remote diaspora, the situation is complicated by the homeland's reliance on diaspora's political clout and financial assistance.
Specifically, Shain and Wittes argue that the standard "two-level game" model for international peacemaking is inadequate for conflicts complicated by politically active diaspora.
[2] Just as a threat to a homeland can mobilize a diaspora to organize, collect funds, and seek political influence, the peaceful end of a conflict, can lead to a parallel demobilization in the community.
After the transition to peace, Shain writes, "[the] high-level meetings and phone calls may recede and diasporic community leaders find that internal communal prestige and their external levers of influence both degrade as a result.