Bridges with Asia: Asian Americans in the United States

Bridges with Asia: Asian Americans in the United States:
Asian Americans and U.S.–Asia Political Relations

May 2–4, 1996

Plenary Session introduced by
	Vishakha N. Desai Vice President for Cultural Programs, Asia Society

Moderator
	Julia Chang Bloch ₁ Group Executive Vice President, Corporate Relations, BankAmerica Corporation

Presentations
	Grassroots Lobbying: An Insider’s Observations Nancy Chen ₂ Former Director, U.S. Senator Paul Simon’s Chicago Office
	Lobbying Congress: The Asian American Experience Robert M. Hathaway ₃ Professional Staff, International Relations Committee, U.S. House of Representatives
	Asian Americans at the Intersection of International and Domestic Tensions Setsuko Matsunaga Nishi ₄ Professor of Sociology, Brooklyn College and the Graduate School, City University of New York
	Asian Americans and U.S. Foreign Policy Paul Y. Watanabe ₅ Co-Director, Institute for Asian American Studies and Ph.D. Program in Public Policy, University of Massachusetts, Boston

Panelists agreed that the time is ripe for Asian Americans to participate more widely in the foreign policy decision-making process. Paul Watanabe argued that the increased number of Asian Pacific Americans, the rising economic presence of Asian and Pacific nations, and the opening of foreign policy to new directions can only increase the influence of Asian Americans. Robert Hathaway feels that the recent induction of many freshmen into Congress also affords Asian Americans the chance to impress their foreign policy concerns on Congressmen who have not yet firmed their positions on these issues. The panelists, however, disagreed on what the barriers to Asian American participation have been. Hathaway argued that Asian Americans have been apathetic and all they need is a little motivation. Nancy Chen opined that ethnic differences among Asian American groups have prevented them from unifying over particular issues. As a result, they compete with each other for government attention—a counterproductive move. Watanabe and Setsuko Matsunaga Nishi, unlike Hathaway and Chen, placed the blame not on the Asian Americans themselves but on the political, cultural, and social institutions that have historically excluded them from full participation in American society. Watanabe argued that historical discrimination against Asian Americans, such as the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, is present today and prevents full Asian American political participation. Nishi argued that these cultural and institutional biases center around two issues: Asian American “foreignness” and the continued association of Asian Americans with Asian enemies of the past.

Moderator Julia Bloch set the tone for this panel by questioning the role of Asian Americans in U.S. foreign policy. She noted that though Asian Americans are the fastest growing demographic group, very few Asian American individuals have made a proportionate impact in politics and in foreign policy. Asian Americans are in fact conspicuously absent from these areas and the uppermost echelons of the corporate world despite being the bridges that facilitate prosperous trade between the United States and Asia.

What then are the constraints for Asian Americans in the foreign policy arena? One is what Bloch calls “dual loyalty.”

Mainstream America perceives Asian Americans as incapable of maintaining objectivity when it comes to their countries of origin. Asians are charged with this much more often than are other ethnic groups. A lack of common goals among Asian American ethnic groups also prevents them from exerting a noticeable influence in foreign policy. In fact, conflicts abound while commonalities are rare.

The panelists agreed that now, more than ever, Asian Americans are becoming crucial to the international role of the United States. Paul Watanabe pointed out that several domestic and international forces are calling for Asian American involvement. Having increased four times in the last twenty years, the number of Asian Americans is growing faster than any other ethnic group in the United States. The Asian Pacific American community has also become more diverse. In addition to Chinese and Japanese, Korean, Southeast Asian and Filipino immigrants are arriving in large numbers. And many come with significant resources at their disposal, making it easier for them to gain access to foreign policymakers. Asia’s rise in economic prominence bodes well for the Asian Americans who want to bridge the economic and cultural gap between the rising powers in Asia and the United States. Finally, the end of the cold war has eliminated what Watanabe called the national security state. As a result, government has become much more accessible. Watanabe also noted that Asian Americans, more than ever, are interested in foreign policy decisions as many are beginning to feel that political issues are becoming increasingly international.

Both Nancy Chen and Robert Hathaway reiterated Watanabe’s call for Asian Americans to participate in foreign policy decisions. Hathaway asserted that it was time to do so because many newly elected members of Congress have no firm foreign policy agenda and are open minded. Asian Americans have a great opportunity to help define crucial positions. Chen gave examples drawn from her own experience. In Illinois, Chinese Americans successfully lobbied Senator Paul Simon to adopt a pro-Taiwan stance. The Formosa Association for Public Affairs, in cooperation with the Taiwanese government, mobilized several other related groups as well for this effort, making the grass-roots movement successful. Illinois Pakistanis also were able to successfully lobby Senator Simon to pass the 1996 Brown amendment guaranteeing U.S. aid in fighting terrorism and the drug trade in Pakistan. This broke the embargo that President George Bush had issued and resulted in $368 million in aid to that country.

Robert Hathaway issued perhaps the most direct indictment of apathy toward foriegn policy by Asian Americans, whom he characterized as missing in action. In his ten years in foreign relations, Hathaway has been approached only once by Asian Americans—by a Korean American group. Taiwanese Americans seem to be ardent, but he is not certain whether this springs from the Taiwanese government’s efforts or self-motivation. The only other Asian Americans who approached him have been dissidents who oppose current foreign policy as it relates to their particular country of origin. Rarely has he been approached by an Asian American who wanted to improve Asia–U.S. relations.

Chen, while noting that Asian Americans do get involved, argued that such involvement has been too factionalized and does little to unite Asian America. She fears that such individualistic foreign policy practices are ultimately divisive.

Watanabe and Setsuko Matsunaga Nishi presented a radically different explanation for this lack of involvement.

Watanabe argued that this apathy results from factors other than a lack of desire or interest—a perspective that ignores the political experiences of Asian Americans. A long history of exclusion and the daily experience of racism have strongly discouraged Asian Americans from engaging in foreign policy. Since many Americans see Asian Americans as foreigners, any overt interest in their own countries of origin is construed as disloyalty. Others argue that Asian Americans, like any other immigrant group, have to wait their turn to climb the ladder to eliminate discrimination. But Asian Americans are faced with many of the same barriers they contended with 180 years ago. Race is still used as a trump card by many politicians who wish to exclude Asian Americans from mainstream society.

Watanabe used Japanese internment as an example. While the ostensible reason for this practice was national security, in reality the federal government used prevailing irrational racial fear to acquire property owned by Japanese Americans. Any subsequent attempts by Japanese immigrants to acquire agricultural land and its produce were thwarted.

The Harry Wu phenomenon is a more recent example. In order to bash China’s human rights record, many organizations have enlisted the support of Chinese Americans as a means of attaining legitimacy for their cause. In reality, most of these organizations have never supported human rights in the past.

Like Watanabe, Nishi identified institutional and cultural discrimination as deterrents to Asian American involvement in foreign policy. Cultural biases center around two major issues: Asian American foreignness and continued associations with past wars. Identifying Asian Americans as outsiders many Americans hold them accountable for relations with Asian nations. Abhorrent acts such as anti-Asian violence are usually precipitated by such things as foreignness and holding the victims responsible for the actions of their countries of origin.

Racial discrimination also exists in the workplace. In a poll measuring U.S. worker’s perceptions of Asian American colleagues, many respondents listed several stereotypes, such as degraded language skills and speaking with accents. Nishi argued these language complaints are an expression of nativism.

Media coverage of U.S.–Asian conflicts reiterate anti-Asian stereotypes and provide a reservoir of negative information. Asian Americans are usually generically identified with any Asian country, and American losses are caused by increasing foreign intrusion. Nishi studied a large number of magazine and newspaper articles that focused on U.S.–Asian conflict and found several recurring themes. The antagonisms of World War II had not completely faded, as many journalists use the rhetoric of war to describe economic and trade conflicts. Many also link trade and economic issues to the poor human rights record attributed to much of Asia. Finally, she found that the Asia discussed by journalists is primarily Japan which has become a symbol for Asia and vice versa. The vast majority of articles on Asian Americans focus on race relations and immigration. The media has in fact constructed Asian Americans as a problem group, and thus engendered the above-mentioned reservoir of negative information.

While Hathaway, Bloch, and Chen identified contemporary circumstances as constraints to Asian American participation in foreign policy, Watanabe and Nishi located more historical determinants. Each presented intriguing and compelling cases. All feel, however, that the time is ripe for Asian Americans to play a more active political role.

Discussion

Panelists also agreed that Asian American political unity on foreign policy is impossible. But, as Nishi noted, open dialogue among Asian American ethnic groups is essential since the consequences of Asian foreign policy impact all of them. Robert Hathaway suggested that while it is absurd to expect consensus on foreign policy, differences should not impede such common initiatives as placing an overall higher priority on policy toward Asia. Watanabe, in an interesting twist, suggested that such disparate stances provide evidence of the maturation of Asian America in a democracy. White society, for example, accepts political diversity as part of the democratic process. These differences among Asian Americans, however, must not reverse the political unity forged among Asian Americans in the 1960s. Bloch took a stance somewhat similar to Hathaway’s in postulating that Asian Americans could help reorient U.S. foreign policy from the Atlantic to the Pacific regions.

Endnotes

Note 1: Julia Chang Bloch, U. S. Ambassador to Nepal from 1989 to 1993, is now Group Executive Vice President, Corporate Relations, BankAmerica Corporation, where she is responsible for the corporation’s governmental, media and internal and external communications programs. Ms. Bloch’s career in international relations has included working for the US-Japan Relations program, the Asia and Near East Bureau and the Food for Peace and Voluntary Assistance Bureau of the Agency for International Development. She is a trustee of the Asia Society. Back.

Note 2: Nancy Chen is Director of Intergovernmental Relations at the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the US Department of Justice. She was recently appointed by the Clinton Administration to this newly created position to promote greater communication and collaboration between state and local governments and the INS. Ms. Chen was Director of Senator Paul Simon’s Chicago office until March 1 of this year. In that capacity, she worked with Asian American communities locally and nationally and assisted Senator Simon in taking a lead on immigration, civil rights and equal opportunity issues affecting Asian Americans. Ms. Chen serves on the boards of the Asian American Institute of Chicago, the Illinois Advisory Committee to the US Commission on Civil Rights, the National Women’s Political Caucus of Greater Chicago and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. Ms. Chen served as the regional coordinator for the Bridges with Asia focus group in Chicago in November 1995. Back.

Note 3: Robert M. Hathaway is a staff member of the International Relations Committee of the US House of Representatives. He holds a Ph.D. in American History from the University of North Carolina and has written two books and numerous articles on US foreign policy since 1933. Back.

Note 4: Setsuko Matsunaga Nishi is Professor of Sociology at Brooklyn College and the Graduate School of the City University of New York. She was the founding president of the Asian American Federation of New York (1990-95) and is Chair of the New York State Advisory Committee to the US Commission on Civil Rights. Her long research career has produced numerous monographs and several books and has focused primarily on American race relations, including the adaptation of Japanese Americans following their wartime incarceration and the historical and contemporary attitudes toward Asian immigrants. As a social scientific specialist on race relations and US minorities, Dr. Nishi has contributed to the development of social policies and programs for many public agencies and private organizations. She received her Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Chicago and an M.A. in Sociology from Washington University (St. Louis). Back.

Note 5: Paul Y. Watanabe is Co-director of the Institute for Asian American Studies and Co-director of the Ph.D. Program in Public Policy, both at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. His principal teaching and research interests are in the areas of international relations, the foreign policy-making process, strategic and defense policy, American political behavior, ethnic group politics, public policy and Asian Americans. His publications have included chapters and articles on a variety of subjects including anti-nuclear political activism, US-Japan relations, American foreign policy, and Asian American members of Congress. He is the author of Ethnic Groups, Congress and American Foreign Policy (Greenwood Press, 1984). He serves on the boards of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition and the Asian Pacific American Agenda Coalition, among other organizations. Dr. Watanabe received his Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University. Back.