Bridges with Asia: Asian Americans in the United States

Bridges with Asia: Asian Americans in the United States
Asian Perspectives on Asian Americans

May 2–4, 1996

Plenary Session introduced by
	J. D. Hokoyama ₁ President and Executive Director, L.E.A.P.

Moderator
	Robert B. Oxnam ₂ Senior Advisor, Bessemer Trust Company, N.A., and President Emeritus, Asia Society

Presentations
	Benjamin Lee ₃ Anthropology Department, Rice University, Houston, TX and Director, Center for Transcultural Studies, Chicago
	H. E. Maleeha Lodhi ₄ Pakistani Ambassador to the United States
	H. E. Nitya Pibulsonggram ₅ Thai Ambassador to the United States

Panelists covered a broad range of topics on how Asians view Asian Americans, such as:

perceptions of Asian Americans in Asia,
homeland media coverage of Asian Americans,
role of homeland government in addressing Asian American issues,
the economic effect of Asian Americans on their homeland economies, and
effect of U.S. and Asian political relations on Asian Americans.

Maleeha Lodhi and Nitya Pibulsonggram agreed that citizens of Pakistan and Thailand have extremely positive feelings toward their fellow countrymen in the United States. They, however, still view their American counterparts as expatriates rather than fully participating members of another society. Benjamin Lee asserted that Chinese viewed overseas Chinese in no set way. In light of their increased movement around the globe, Chinese had begun to reconfigure the categories of overseas Chinese. In discussing homeland media coverage of Asian Americans, Lodhi noted that Pakistani papers generally covered Pakistani Americans only when they engaged in activities related to homeland issues. Pibulsonggram stated that the Thai media, in general, primarily covers the social activities of Thai Americans. Lodhi and Pibulsonggram concurred that homeland governments need to be much more involved in addressing the needs of their people in America. Lee, on the other hand, noted that the Chinese government seemed to address their overseas communities only when they were involved in efforts to promote the homeland. Finally, the three could not agree on the extent to which Asian Americans have affected their homeland economies or the degree of impact that Asia–U.S. relations have on Asian Americans.

According to moderator Robert Oxnam, broader dialogue is needed between Asian Americans and other ethnic communities as well as between Asian Americans and Asians. Panelists covered a broad spectrum of topics, ranging from Asian perceptions and media coverage of Asian Americans to the roles of Asian governments in addressing their needs.

Most panelists suggested that Asians have an overall favorable impression of Asian Americans. Nitya Pibulsonggram said that the Thai, for the most part, look favorably on Thai Americans. Certainly, the Thai maintain an emotional link with their compatriots in the United States, whom they refer to as “Thai in America.” Thai Americans, moreover, maintain a Robin Hood image among homelanders because of the large sums of money that they send back to their relatives.

Maleeha Lodhi also expressed a positive opinion. Like the Thai, Pakistanis do not use the term “Pakistani Americans.” Instead, they use the term “overseas Pakistanis” to describe these expatriates whose condition is overseen by the Pakistani government. On the negative side, there is a slight brain drain problem; overseas Pakistanis do not seem to send large remittances to the homeland, and they are undercounted by official U.S. sources. According to these sources 100,000 Pakistanis reside in the U.S., but the Pakistani ambassador feels that the actual figure is closer to 400,000. (Pibulsonggram related that though the United States has documented 91,200 Thai in America, there are actually many more.)

Benjamin Lee spoke from a slightly different perspective.

The Chinese, he revealed, are in the process of generating new categories for the overseas population. They are a result of the increasingly transnational nature of Chinese expatriates as well as the heightened mobility of overseas Chinese—some no longer live in a single area but in several. These people maintain an identity beyond state boundaries and are perceived to be on the leading edge of cosmopolitanism. The term “overseas” is thus beginning to lose its meaning as these individuals live and travel both abroad and in the homeland.

Lee also wanted to point out, however, that such developments are not limited to Chinese Americans but overseas Chinese all over the world.

Media representations are another means of gauging Asian perceptions of Asian Americans. Lodhi finds that the media in Pakistan is increasing its coverage of the political roles of Asian Americans in relation to their home. The recent Pakistani American effort to lobby the passage of the Simon bill was covered extensively by homeland media. Pakistani Americans, Lodhi contended, initiate such movements during times of U.S.–Pakistan tension. On a less positive note, the U.S. mainstream media does engage in some discriminatory coverage of Pakistani Americans, primarily because many are Muslim.

Pibulsonggram said that Thai media does cover Thai Americans but only in relation to specific issues. While the current immigration debate has been ignored by the Thai media, other aspects of life such as social activities of Thai Americans, have received ample attention. Issues regarding Thai Americans and justice in the United States are also covered, as are efforts to empower Thai Americans.

Panelists also discussed the role that Asian governments should play in redressing the grievances of Asian Americans. Pibulsonggram apologetically stated that he only recently completed his first act as ambassador for Thai Americans by giving a keynote speech for an Asian American organization in Chicago and is not very familiar with the community. He did, however, make a commitment to focus on the needs of the Thai community in the United States.

Lodhi maintained that the Pakistani government places a priority on addressing the needs of Pakistani communities in America. She spends much of her time dealing with community issues, especially with regard to the Simon bill lobbying effort. In fact, the time she spends on community issues is increasing.

Benjamin Lee claimed that the Chinese government responds only to certain types of nationalistic needs. One is the drive to establish a market economy with a Chinese orientation. Chinese are, for the most part, interested in addressing Chinese American grievances, but most support comes form nongovernmental organizations.

Much of the recent concern of Asian nations for their people overseas have undoubtedly arisen from the intensified connection between Asian and American business interests. The panelists speculated as to why Asian Americans have such economic importance to Asian nations. Lee suggested that overseas Chinese play a crucial role in regulating the use of venture capital. Because of the lack of legal codes in China, overseas venture capital has become increasingly corrupt. Overseas Chinese could provide a sound vehicle by which to regulate this capital. Pakistani Americans do not have a very valuable business role in Pakistan because foreign investment is still nominal. Lodhi, though, did provide an example in which a Pakistani American programmer wrote valuable software to assist in the institution of government regulations; he even moved back to Pakistan to provide full-time help. Pibulsonggram, like Lee, sees overseas Asians as good bridges between the homeland and the United States. In fact, several councils devoted to U.S.–Thai interaction have been established in the United States.

Panelists examined the effects of U.S.–Asian relations on Asian Americans. They also attempted also to project any possible future tensions. Lee noted that Chinese fears of a pan-Islamic revolt near the border in southwestern China could somehow affect Chinese Americans. While Lodhi agreed that U.S.-“home” relations had a great effect on Pakistani Americans, she felt that these international issues hardly impact day-to-day lives. But when U.S.–Pakistani tensions do arise, Pakistani Americans are quick to participate in the discourse in order to relieve the strain. Lodhi, moreover, pointed out that Pakistani Americans are unique among Asian Americans in that they tend to center more around Muslim issues than Asian-American issues. The conflict in Bosnia, because of its Muslim element, was of great concern to Pakistani Americans, although there were no Asians involved. Finally, Pibulsonggram disclosed that some negative effects of U.S.–Thai relations have centered around refugee and drug issues. In general, however, Thai Americans have been supportive of the Thai government.

The panelists conclusively demonstrated that the Asian perception of Asian Americans has begun to change. This shift has been forced by the changing relationship between the Asian and U.S. economies and is only a small part of a larger process of the globalization of the economy. As a result, Asian Americans have necessarily reshaped their profiles not only in America but around the world as well. Accordingly, Asians have re-evaluated their perceptions of Asian Americans.

Discussion

Pibulsonggram discussed the status of Southeast Asian refugees in Thailand in some detail. He commented on the possibility of visits to Thai refugee camps by Southeast Asian refugees living in the United States who wish to help their people. Some Hmong in Thailand are designated as refugees who cannot immigrate anywhere usually because of health problems. Because these special category Hmong place a great burden on the Thai government, charitable monks are charged with their cases. The government is attempting to repatriate them to Laos, an effort in which the U.S. government has been helpful. The Thai government is seeking permission for other Hmong refugees to emigrate to the United States under the Smith Amendment.

Pibulsonggram and Lodhi addressed a question on whether their expatriates were more concerned with homeland issues or those related to their American communities. Lodhi thinks that Pakistani Americans tended to address their homeland and international issues more. Pibulsonggram feels that it is not the case with Thai Americans. He did recognize, however, that they still maintain a strong link to homeland issues.

Another topic that Lodhi addressed was the potential for unification among South Asian Americans. A questioner proposed that second- and third-generation South Asian Americans were indeed unifying to overcome homeland politics, a comment with which Lodhi was in total disagreement. She asserted that until the rift between South Asian countries heals, South Asian Americans would not be able to unify.

Endnotes

Note 1: J. D. Hokoyama is currently serving as President and Executive Director of Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics (LEAP), Inc. He has been actively involved in the Asian Pacific community through his professional and volunteer work. A former Peace Corps volunteer who served in Ethiopia, Mr. Hokoyama taught English at various high schools before leaving teaching to join the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL). As the chief administrator of the JACL, he played a critical role in helping to establish the JACL’s redress campaign. Subsequent to leaving the JACL in 1981, Mr. Hokoyama served as the first director of the office of Asian Pacific American Student Services at USC, and then as Executive VP for Fund Development and Public Affairs at Keiro Services in Los Angeles, until January 1988, when he assumed his current position with LEAP. He is on the board of numerous organizations, including the Volunteer Consulting Group (New York) and Leadership Southern California. Back.

Note 2: Robert B. Oxnam, President Emeritus of the Asia Society, is a Senior Adviser to Bessemer Partners & Co. and Senior Research Fellow at Columbia University, where he is involved in a project to examine US-Asia relations in the post-cold war world. Major publications include Dragon and Eagle (University of Chicago Press, 1975), co-edited with Michel Oksenberg; The China Challenge: American Policies in East Asia (The Academy of Political Science, 1991) and the novels Cinnabar (St. Martin’s Press, 1990) and Ming (St. Martin’s Press, 1995). Dr. Oxnam is a director of the Clemente Global Growth Fund, Inc., the First Philippine Fund, Inc., and Bessemer Holdings Asia and a trustee of Yale-China Association and the Committee on Scholarly Communication with China. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, National Committee on US-China Relations, and the US National Committee for Pacific Economic Relations and an advisor to the East-West Center. Back.

Note 3: Benjamin Lee is Professor of Anthropology at Rice University and Director of the Center for Transcultural Studies. His areas of research include linguistic and philosophical anthropology, with a special focus on problems of globalization and public culture. Through the Center for Transcultural Studies, he is the executive editor for two book series, Public Worlds and Public Planet Books, and an international research and publication project involving colleagues from mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, India, Japan, and the United States. His next book, Talking Heads: Language, Meta-Language, and Subjectivity, will be published by Duke University Press. Back.

Note 4: H. E. Maleeha Lodhi is Ambassador of Pakistan to the United States. Following a career in academia Dr. Lodhi was the first woman in Asia to be the editor of the daily newspapers, The News and The Muslim two of Pakistan’s major English daily newspapers. Two books of her writings have been published: Pakistan’s Encounter with Democracy and The External Dimension. In 1994 she was selected by Time magazine as one of the hundred global pacesetters/young leaders who would help define the next century. Back.

Note 5: H. E. Nitya Pibulsonggram, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the United States, served as Permanent Representative of Thailand to the United Nations from 1988 until his recent appointment as Ambassador. A career diplomat, Ambassador Pibulsonggram was from 1969-72 a member of the Thai delegation to the South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO); he then headed the Thai Foreign Ministry’s Political Department’s Southeast Asian Division from 1975-76 and was the Director-General of the Department of International Organizations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand from 1983-87. His first foreign posting was to the Permanent Mission of Thailand to the United Nations as Deputy Permanent Representative in 1976. Ambassador Pibulsonggram completed his higher education in the United States at Dartmouth College and Brown University. Back.