Sunday Group
Week 4:  January 26, 1997, 2pm EST

Asian Americans and American diplomacy in Asia
1.  The arms race in Asia
1a. Digression on Asian Americans as U.S. diplomats
2.  Human rights in Burma

Present:  Ramamoorthi Bhaskar, Andrew Chin, Peter Hong, Joan Kee
Moderator:  Ramamoorthi Bhaskar
Editor:  Andrew Chin

Join us next week for another stimulating discussion, moderated by our 
very own Arthur Hu.

For latest Sunday Group information, check out our web site at 
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~caase/sunday.html

Transcript
----------
Bhaskar: Question 1. Is the arms race in Asia (India v. China, India
v.  Pakistan, Japan v.  China) a matter of concern to us as
Asian-Americans? Is it important that the State Department should be
less doggedly Eurocentric?

Peter: I do think there is some room for concern.  It seems that after
the fall of the Soviet empire a new need for localized deterrence has
emerged.  Unfortunately it is in Asia...

Joan: Shouldn't everybody be concerned? Why do Asian Americans have to
be particularly concerned about a given event because they happen to be
biologically Asian?

Peter: Joan, I think it goes further than a mere biological
connection.  For instance, the top three trade partners of the state of
California happens to be in that region.

Andrew: Four of the world's biggest _countries_ are in Asia.  No
surprise.  But yes, in general, Asian-Americans might be expected to
have a more global perspective than most Americans.

Peter: I think we're living in an increasingly economy-driven world. 
The effects of an economy-crippling war would be devastating to the
world.

Andrew: Non-Asian business leaders are interested in markets, not
politics or arms races.  They're interested only to the extent that
"stability" is good for bond ratings.

Joan: Yes, but shouldn't everyone in California be concerned?

Peter: Joan, its funny you mention that, because it seems non-Asian
business leaders in America seems to be more interested than the AA
communities here.

Joan: I think that's true; taking Gardena as another example, Japanese
American business leaders seem to be preoccupied with local affairs
rather than world trade.

Andrew: It shouldn't be the case, but the reality is that
Asian-Americans do have less of a sense of social distance with respect
to Asian nationals than white Americans do.  Anyway, California's a big
state.  Most Californians are just as provincial as the rest of
Americans.

Joan: Also, a lot of Asians (I'm taking my native Korea as an example)
don't really consider Asian Americans a part of America.

Peter: Joan, yes, dongpo perhaps but not the same.

Andrew: I took the foreign service officer exam, it was a real
eye-opener.  It's going to be really hard to change the orientation of
the State Department.

Peter: Andrew, tell us more about what was in that test!

Andrew: I received very poor scores on the Foreign Service exam
because I had ideas of my own and I thought that diplomacy included
attempting to understand other countries' perspectives.
	The examiners were very unimpressed with my multicultural
approach to the "grey market" intellectual property issue.

Peter: Andrew, I guess it was more about asserting America's
position huh?
	I think it's typical actually.  The ultimate goal of diplomacy
after all is to get what "WE" want.  :)

Joan: Well, the foreign service is pretty conservative.  I had a
preliminary talk with the CIA recruiting guy at Yale and it seemed very
U.S.-centric, not to mention terribly sexist.

Peter: Perhaps the State Department questions the "Americaness" of
"Asian" Americans.

Andrew: It might also be a case of Asian Americans selecting themselves
out of the competition.  It was funny, the day I took the written
Foreign Service exam, I saw a lot of Asians at the same center.  But I
found out the TOEFL was being administered there at the same time.  My
testing room was 99% whites.

Andrew: I do think more Asian-American diplomats to Asia would help
immensely, if only in presenting a more multicultural face of America to
the world.

Joan: I disagree about sending AA diplomats to Asia.  I think a Korean
American diplomat would be pressured enormously by the Korean
government to do certain "favors" for his "people." There would be too
many expectations of that diplomat.

Andrew: If that's true, then I think such an engagement could be very
educational for the ignorant Korean government.  Because the diplomat
would not bow to such pressures.

Joan: That's not necessarily true.  It's all well and good to say let's
bring a multicultural face to Asia, but without knowing the
ramifications of a country's political inner workings, it would be
potentially disastrous.

Peter: Hmm...  I didn't want to bring this up but I do have some
distant connections with the powers that be in Korea and I agree 100%
with Joan on her assesment of sending a KA diplomat to Korea. 
Personally, I would feel sorry for such a diplomat because he/she would
be caught between a rock and a hard place.

Joan: I couldn't agree with you more.  Korean-Americans have it hard in
Korea.

Andrew: Such engagements are precisely what is necessary in order to
sensitize Asian governments to the existence and integrity of Asian
Americans as American citizens.

Peter: You're right of course.  The question is "what does it mean to
be an American citizen?"

Joan: Yes, but you can't change thousands of years (or even hundreds of
years) of solidified prejudices with en masse deployment of AA
diplomats.
	However, I would say that sending a Korean American with an
intimate knowledge of both countries would prove fruitful.

Andrew: It's worth trying; and if the KA diplomat has the full power of
the US government behind him, it's perhaps the best we can do.

Joan: I don't think it's worth it to send a KA diplomat who knows very
little about Korean politics/culture, etc.  N.  Korea may look
helpless, but I think it would exploit any instability in U.S.-Korean
relations, which might very well happen.

Andrew: Why would that be any worse than sending a white diplomat who
knows little about Korean politics and culture?

Joan: Because Korean politicians and officials don't expect a white guy
to know anything about Korea.  Whereas a Korean American would be
expected to adhere to "certain" rules.

Peter: In a funny way that would be better because the Koreans are not
expecting any more than that anyways.  But their expectation may differ
if it was a Korean face they are dealing with rather than a white one.

Joan: The white man is discretely defined as alien.  The Korean
American is in some weird identity flux between alien and "fellow
countryman."

Peter:  "Alien"? Haha! That's funny!

Joan: Just reading from the Kimpo customs signs.

Andrew: I'd say that sending a KA with perhaps no clue about Korean
culture, but a very firm and assertive sense of his/her identity and
integrity as an American citizen would be best of all.

Joan: That's an idea, but i don't know if you could find one.  Besides,
Koreans are really good about guilt tripping.  I don't think it would
be so problematic in Japan or China.

Peter: But then that wouldn't work either, because such a diplomat would
not get any "respect" from the Koreans because he/she would just be a
banana.  (Sorry for the derogatory term...)

Andrew: A KA who was sure of him/herself wouldn't care about "respect."

Peter: It's not whether the KA cares.  It would hamper his/her job
performance because it would be very hard for him/her to get any
response out of the Koreans.

Joan: Ah, the idealistic Andrew I know and wuv.  Well I agree, th

Andrew: I think a very important part of our diplomacy is selling the
idea of multiculturalism to the rest of the world.  It's just about the
only unique export we have left.

Peter: Andrew, you're right about that.  It's just about the only
respectable side left of America.

Joan: Why can't you send AA diplomats to the rest of the world?
Besides, you could always have an AA in the guise of cultural attache,
or better yet, as a military attache.

Andrew: Sure! Send 'em everywhere.  But send 'em especially to Asia,
'cause I get teed off when Chinese immigrants don't have a clue about
Chinese Americans :)

Peter: Chinese immigrants were referred to as "Astronauts" in a recent
LA Times article talking about the connection between California and
Hong Kong.

Joan: But honestly, I think an AA in a top level position in a
crisis-prone country like Korea...well the risks would outweigh the
benefits.

Joan: I would agree with you more about China, since the leverage of
"our" people would not be so strong for a fourth-generation CA as for a
second generation KA.  Fourth genration CAs would not be so snowed by
the whole you-must-be-good-to-your-Chinese-countrymen bit.

Bhaskar: Let's return to the arms question.  I'm thinking of American
intervention in the Falklands War.  To this day, I cannot account for
American intervention other than on race considerations.  I wonder
whether the US has any particular principle or rules that govern its
policies in Asia.  So is the American attitude one of just general
fussiness? Or is there a deeper principle we should worry about?
	The US intervened on the British side after several days of
loudly proclaiming neutrality.  OAS obligations were violated.  The
argument given was that Argentina was a dictatorship.

Peter: As one of the articles posted to the group suggests, I think a
lot of the arms question is due to the decline of America's position as
world super power.

Joan: The U.S. can't afford to police X regime in country Y anymore. 
For instance, the U.S. has started to cut down the number of troops
deployed in Korea.

Peter: I think it's more personal than some rules that govern
policies.  After all, a country is nothing more than a group of people
watching out for their own.

Andrew: I think economic/military strategy is central in America's
intervention decisions.

Peter: I don't know enough about American intervention in the
Falklands to comment properly but I agree with Andrew that it's usually
more of an economic/strategic issues that have more influence on policy
decisions.

Andrew: Asia's militarization serves to keep America out of
intervention in the region.  So America might have an impulse to get
involved to protect "Gulf War" type interests, but would be frustrated
by the presence of Asian superpowers.

Peter: I agree.  I think it's too idealistic to think that America will
always be there to protect it's "lesser" siblings in the Pacific Rim.

Joan: I think they only will if it's in America's economic interest.

Bhaskar: Maybe the issue is more than "America's interest" It may now
be a question of who or what we mean by America.

Peter: I agree.  I think the question of who and what we mean by
America is at the very heart of our problems.  Anyone have any strong
views?

Andrew: America has all but given up the idea of democratic
self-definition.  America is a market.

[Bhaskar had technical difficulties and left the discussion at this
point.]

Andrew: Bhaskar's second topic was about human rights in Burma. 

Peter: I can't say I have strong views about it.  The extent of my
knowledge of that country was that it was over taken by the military
back in the late 80s and that some woman got the nobel peace prize...

Joan:  Aung San Suu Kyii.

Andrew: I think American intervention has been cowed by the presence
of other superpowers in the region.  Perhaps also because of Burma's
economic insignificance.

Peter: I think you nailed it on the head.  We're back to the
economics question again.

Andrew: America is very flummoxed about human rights in Asia...  21st
century intervention may consist of ham-fisted diplomacy by Disney and
other multinationals.

Joan: Maybe.  Perhaps a reason why Aung San Suu Kyii got the Nobel
Prize was because of her Oxford degree and privileged upbringing. 
Western media just loves stories like that.

Peter: I don't know if sitting at home really qualifies you for the
Nobel Peace Prize.  Maybe I should try that more often :p

Joan: Youu bring up an interesting point.  If Aung San wasn't good
looking and smart I don't think the West would have even given her two
lines in the NYT.  I'm being vulgar in my expression, but i'm trying to
be short and sweet.

Joan: When I'm moderator I'm going to make you all read about
colonialism and art.

Peter: Joan, if you want to have a discussion of cultural viases
and influences we can have a separate discussion at a later date.  I
have a lot of things to say about that.

Joan: Honestly, I think the U.S. retains its colonial perspective when
it comes to Asia.  A 120-some year habit is hard to break.

Peter: Yes.  After all, Western culture was always more escapist in
nature.  The development of fiction as an art form in the West in
comparison to fiction being called "small (in essence insignificant)
stories" in the East attests to that fact.

Andrew: The US wasn't a big colonist in Asia.  More in the Pacific.

Joan: The Phillipines.

Andrew: I don't see much of a connection between the Phillipines and
Burma.

Joan: I'm just saying that Burma is not a big deal for the
U.S. because of America's colonialist perspective towards Asia.
	And, what about their vested interests in promoting Japanese
colonialism?  Granted, the whole 1894 treaty of Shimonoseki where
Japan got Taiwan may not have directly involved the U.S....but when
China pleaded for American help, they got nixed.

Peter: Well, American always had a bloated image of itself anyways. 
It's just another facet of the cultural machine looking for
verification of its fabrications.

Andrew: This is really just sniping.  Do you have any suggestions for
a new policy?

Joan: Of course it's just sniping.  We're AAs and AAs by definition are
whiny.  What do you propose,then? Or perhaps more to the point, how do
you plan to implement such a proposal?

Andrew: I think fashioning a global peacekeeping policy that takes a
multilateral approach that is accountable to both large and small
nations should be the goal in the next century, instead of Clinton's
current exercise in navel-gazing, a.k.a. making America "the
indispensable country" or whatever it is this week.

Peter: Is clinton saying then that American is currently a
disposable country? Like a diaper perhaps? :p

Andrew: I think Clinton is trying to come up with a Clinton Doctrine
for foreign policy that will make the history books.  It sounds very
much like he wants the US to retain preeminence as global policeman.

Joan: It's good to talk it over, but if no one listens...it's like that
"if a tree fell and no one heard it, did it really fall" dilemma.

Peter: It's like that cat in a box experiment.

Joan: Actually, i think the most immediate thing is to really start
exposing ourselves in the media, in academic journals (like Andrew), in
schools, etc.

Peter: Personally I think the role of a "nation" will diminish as
time goes on.  Perhaps I'm just a Republican anarchist in hiding.  :p

Andrew: As Bhaskar was going to point out, India has been a more
consistent global policeman in this century than America has been.

Andrew: Clinton needs the insight that other countries are
indispensable too.

Joan: Besides Western European nations, you mean?

Andrew: I think America's the only indispensable nation Clinton's
singled out.  The permanent members of the UN security council are a
starting set, but Asia is underrepresented there too.

Peter: I think America and indeed the world is coming to the
realization that non-European countries are not dispensable either.

Joan: True.  After all, you're going to have deal with half the world's
poulation some time or another.

Peter: It's more than half.  Of course the reality has always been that
no country is really dispensable.  It's just that the way it's
presented in the media has a way of making one think that way.

Joan: That's a good point.  After all, if you read Japanese papers,
you'd think that Japan was the center of the cosmos.

Peter: And if you read Korean papers it's as if Korea is the center of
the world.  Hehe.

Joan: It's not?

Peter: I need not mention the inaccurate maps on sale all over the
country that boost the size of the European "continent".

Andrew: Clinton's big problem is that anything that looks like
multilateralism is going to cost Al Gore votes in the next election. 
The xenophobic tag line about US troops under UN command has a lot of
power with the American electorate.  Domestic politics are really
getting in the way of crafting a realistic American vision of Asia's
place in the "new world order."

Joan: But as you said, econ is god.  Do you remember Prof.  Ray Fair's
model for predicting elections? He bases it on forecasted trends of
inflation/employment.  I think many Asian countries, like Japan,
already know that the U.S. is not a superpower.

Peter: I think Japan is overrated also.  Most of their financial
strength comes from stock overvaluation anyways.  And the new
generation of Japanese are not like their staunchly identity-programmed
grandparents.
	Unfortunately, I think countries in Asia really don't care about
"world order" as long as they make money and they're fat and happy and
whoever's in charge now is in charge later.

Andrew: I think most American citizens are that way too...but these
questions are inescapable at the point of a gun.

Joan: I think germany will be very interesting to watch in the next
few decades.

Andrew: I think Bhaskar also wanted to talk about this tenure case at
Columbia, but he didn't have the article ready to email to us, so he'll
do it some other time.

Joan: Well, we could always talk about the Don Nakanishi episode.  Why
is it that AA profs can't get tenure in non-science fields?

Andrew: Have we done justice to Bhaskar's questions? Probably not,
but perhaps it's time to bid one another adieu.

Joan: Bye

Peter: Ok.  It was very fun today.  Looking forward to our next
meeting.

[Arthur Hu will moderate next week, at the later time of 6pm EST/3pm 
PST.]