The effect of the Chinese diaspora in the U.S. foreign policy

Introduction

The importance of diaspora politics has grown in the modern field of international relations, which is marked by the smoothness of transnational exchanges and global contacts. Diasporas have become powerful forces in reshaping the geopolitical landscape outside of national borders. Their international political engagement affects both the diplomatic ties of their home countries and the internal affairs of their ancestral regions. The deliberate involvement of diaspora populations in lobbying campaigns to match policies of the host country with those of their home countries highlights the complex interplay between identity, loyalty, and international advocacy that characterizes politics in the diaspora. Diasporas' capacity to operate in and influence the field of international relations depends on a number of factors, such as their organizational strength and motivation, host land’s regime and institutions, and diversity of interests [28, p. 452]. These traits play a critical role in deciding how well diasporas mobilize support and advocate issues that align with their shared goals, which in turn influences foreign policy decisions in both their host and home nations.

The American impression of China has been enhanced by the overseas Chinese community's substantial contributions in a number of areas, including politics, education, and business. The diaspora's impact on bilateral relations is evident from their involvement in lobbying efforts to change American policies to suit Beijing's interests [16, p. 807]. In addition, the Chinese government has made a conscious effort to deepen its relations to diaspora populations by putting policies like the "Overseas Chinese Affairs" policy into action. The goal of this strategy is to mobilize the diaspora in favor of China's foreign policy goals, which include promoting investments in China, strengthening China's diplomatic positions internationally, and expanding the influence of Chinese language and culture worldwide. It's crucial to emphasize, though, that there are strong systems in place in the US to keep an eye on and control attempts by foreign governments to sway domestic policy through diaspora politics. These systems make sure that although the diaspora can foster economic and cultural contacts, any attempts to influence US foreign policy are closely examined by US institutions in order to protect US interests. This study presents a framework that allows to assess the possible influence of the Chinese Diaspora on US foreign policy, taking into consideration the safeguards in place within the US democratic system.

1. Theoretical Framework

Constructivism and liberalism, as applied by Yossi Shain and Aharon Barth, can be particularly helpful in researching the impact of the Chinese Diaspora in the U.S. The authors explore the role of diasporas in international relations, offering a comprehensive analysis within the theoretical frameworks of both theories. Shain and Barth argue that diasporas, as identity-driven non-state actors, significantly influence international affairs and homeland foreign policies.

Constructivism

Constructivism views states as social actors, not solely as rational actors seeking utility maximization. It emphasizes the role of identity in shaping state behavior and policies. Diasporas are deeply involved in the process of identity construction, both of their own group and of their homeland's national identity. To understand international behavior or foreign policy decision making (the dependent variable), one must look beyond the interests (the intervening variable), and focus on identity and the way it is molded (the independent variable) [28, p. 458]. Alexander Wendt defines the national identity variable as "a consciousness and memory of the Self as a separate locus of thought and activity [32, p. 224-227]." However, as Roxanne Doty points out, "the people" – "who constitute the inside of nations and to whom national identities are attached" – have the identity, not the nation itself [9, p. 125]. Identity is constantly shaped through a variety of processes. These include ecological processes (the interactions between individuals and their surroundings); social processes (the relationships among the individuals themselves); and internal processes (the inherent traits of the individuals). Particularly within the realms of social and internal processes, such as the phenomena of diffusion and the distinction between in- group and out-group, identity construction happens via discursive practices. These practices aim to establish specific meanings that facilitate distinguishing between what is internal and external to a group of people [9, p. 127]. Given that national identity is both a resource (the power to set policy) and a variable, it makes sense that various groups value it differently. People who lack a resource tend to cherish it more. In this instance, those living within the people but outside the state – diasporas – typically place a higher value on national identification than those living inside the state. In contrast to insiders, whose national identity is a daily experience, diasporic distinctiveness is typically more elusive and flexible. Thus, diasporas work to build national identity primarily for their own benefit – mainly to ensure and maintain an identity that supports and enhances their sense of self – rather than primarily in order to obtain power over (material) interests. [28, p. 459]. This explains strong ties between modern Overseas Chinese and their homeland.

Liberalism

Liberalism challenges the notion of states as the primary actors in international relations, instead highlighting the role of individuals and private groups. According to this approach, the state is seen as a representative of various domestic coalitions and is influenced by the strength of relationships between political institutions and societal groups. For Chinese diasporas in the US, this implies that their influence on US foreign policy towards China can potentially be significant, particularly if they form a strong, organized community that actively engages in the US political process. Given the broader context of the Chinese diaspora's involvement in U.S. society, including political, educational, and business spheres, and the Chinese government's efforts to engage its diaspora for national interests, it's clear that legislation like FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act) could have significant implications for the diaspora's activities. For instance, initiatives aimed at influencing U.S. policy or public opinion in favor of China would be subject to scrutiny under FARA, potentially limiting the diaspora's ability to act openly on behalf of Chinese interests without proper registration and disclosure. The focus on openness and the possible legal consequences for non-compliance may discourage people and groups in the diaspora from taking part in actions that can be interpreted as representing the Chinese government. This regulatory system protects against covert foreign influence that could have an impact on national policy decisions, even as it keeps the United States open to different influences and the rich cultural and social contributions of diaspora populations.

According to the liberal viewpoint, the interplay between the political framework of the state and societal structures impact the degree to which domestic entities can determine a nation's foreign policy [5, p. 5-7]. A situation in which institutions of the state are less powerful and social actors have more power over policy is one in which different groups have more influence over decisions made by the government. This condition is best presented by a state that allows more societal forces to inform its policy-making, such as the United States with its inclusive constitutional process. By expressing themselves or assimilating into this political environment, diasporas function as one of the numerous domestic interest groups that influence state policy. Furthermore, two additional factors play an important role in determining how the diaspora shapes both the host country and the country of origin. First, the host land regime: in a state without a dictatorship, mobilization is typically simpler and less complicated with danger of retaliation. The second component is the political climate of the state, which influences how much of an impact a diaspora can have on the policies of both its home country and the host nation. Diasporas have the potential to be important assets for their home countries' foreign policy if the host nation, such as the United States, has a fluid political system that is open to influence. This is because such diasporas have the ability to shape the host country’s foreign policy in a way that benefits their homeland. The effectiveness of a diaspora in this role depends on the global significance of the host country's foreign policy. When the host country's foreign policy carries significant relevance to the homeland and the host country is open to the diaspora's attempts to shape its foreign policy, the diaspora's capability to impact foreign policy decisions is increased [28, p. 463-464].

The said approach posits two prerequisite conditions for diasporic influence on homeland foreign policy: a democratic host land and an identity-based motive. When these conditions are met, a diaspora's impact on its homeland's foreign policy (the dependent variable) hinges on the power balance between the diaspora and the homeland (an intervening variable). This balance is influenced by three factors (independent variables): the homeland's strength or weakness (materially, ideologically, and in terms of openness to external influences), the diaspora's cohesion regarding homeland foreign policy, and whether the diaspora is seen as an asset or liability by the homeland [28, p. 470-472]. When adapting this framework to the host land, instead of homeland, I adjust it in the following way: the approach would posit that for a diaspora to influence the host land's foreign policy, the host land should be democratic (permeable institutions) and the diaspora should have a strong identity-based motive aligned with the host land's interests. The efficacy of this influence would depend on the power balance between the diaspora and the host land's political institutions with restrictions set to guard national interests. This balance is determined by the host land's receptiveness to external influences, the cohesiveness of the diaspora regarding the host land's foreign policy, and the perception of the diaspora as either an asset or a liability by the host land's government.

2. Influence of the Chinese Diaspora in the United States

General overview

Importance of diasporas stems from their ability to form themselves as groups based on self-identity, which is often influenced by their homelands. The effect they have on foreign policies of their host lands is then also shaped by active ethnic lobbies. United States, being a state comprising numerous ethnicities, is a perfect example of such an interplay. According to Clough, the power of numerous ethnic lobbies has brought fragmentation of American foreign policy [5, p. 3-5]. Shain and Barth also point out that some researchers warned against agendas of diasporas that are after the interests and benefit of individuals and entities outside of the US [13, p. 18].

The Chinese diaspora in the United States is comprised of approximately 5.4 million individuals who were born in Mainland China, Hong Kong, or Macao, or reported Chinese ancestry or race, according to Migration Policy Institute tabulation of data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2022 ACS. The Chinese diaspora is the ninth largest in the country [24].

Identity-based motive

Beijing sees Chinese Americans as part of a global Chinese diaspora and assumes that, regardless of their true citizenship, they still have a loose cultural and even political allegiance to the so-called Motherland and a stake in the welfare of China. The Chinese diaspora has been called upon by Xi Jinping to contribute to the revitalization of the Chinese nation; this demand is exerting increasing pressure on ethnic Chinese worldwide to live out the "China Dream"[4, p. 39].

The majority of the Chinese diaspora in the U.S. emerged after 1980. The growth in the number of ethnic Chinese in the U.S. occurred during the period of "new" migration, specifically in the 1990s and 2000s. The impact of these "new" migrants is significant, as they are more educated and financially well-off, beginning to change the nature of overseas Chinese diasporas and their level of influence within the country. The ability of Chinese diasporas to influence agendas can be determined by their level of integration into American society, particularly their holding of influential positions in the political, economic, and academic spheres. If they are successful in these areas, it may be easier for them to lobby for causes that support Beijing's goals or their own interests. Beijing launched a deliberate program intended to target and exploit abroad Chinese populations in order to serve its own political, economic, and security objectives after realizing the accomplishments, influence, and expansion of the Chinese diaspora. Therefore the "new" migrants maintain stronger ties with China. They more actively and frequently interact with colleagues, friends, and relatives in China. Previously, Chinese maintained their identity by preserving culture within the confines of a narrow diasporic community (Chinatowns); now, they do so through active contacts with their homeland, facilitated by the Chinese government. The patriotism of overseas Chinese is actively reinforced by China's economic successes, leading to a significant rise not only in cultural, but also in political and economic loyalty to the homeland. It might also be partially explained by Australian and New Zealand researchers Ip, Inglis, and Wu who introduced the concept of "instrumental citizenship," i.e., citizenship used as a tool to achieve certain professional and business goals [22, p. 374]. This kind of citizenship is not related to civic loyalty; in this case, loyalty belongs to the historical homeland. A person's citizenship is determined by standard documents and property ownership. In these conditions, the "new" migrants are significantly more loyal to China. Simultaneously, the Chinese authorities encourage overseas Chinese to take an active stance in their countries of residence: abide by the laws of the host countries; start businesses; create "huaqiao" organizations; seek recognition from local authorities; spread Chinese culture; actively participate in the social life of local communities, enhancing their role and influence; engage in local political life, seeking voting rights and advocating for the interests of minority groups. The official description of the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office (OCAO) states its purpose as: “to enhance unity and friendship in overseas Chinese communities; to maintain contact with and support overseas Chinese media and Chinese language schools; [and] to increase cooperation and exchanges between overseas Chinese and China related to the economy, science, culture and education.” Officials from Beijing have stated clearly that they do not view overseas Chinese as simply citizens of foreign countries, but rather as “overseas compatriots” who have both historical connections and responsibilities as “sons and daughters of the Yellow Emperor” to support the PRC’s goals and the “China Dream” [4, p. 43]. Apart from catering to the cultural preferences of Chinese Americans, the Chinese government has instituted an extensive array of initiatives aimed at fortifying connections with the upper echelons of this society. China has given thousands of Chinese Americans free visits to China, where they are recognized by top United Front leaders and has elevated hundreds of Chinese Americans to posts in its United Front groups. Chinese Americans are occasionally given seniority in front groups. For instance, a Chinese American who was born in Guangdong Province in 2013 was the first and only person from outside the nation to hold the position of vice president of the COFA [36].

Chinese front organizations have publicly assigned Chinese Americans to carry out actions that promote PRC goals in a remarkably bold and open manner. One instance happened in October 2017 following the Communist Party's 19th National Congress. On November 24, 2017, the state-run Fujian Daily announced that local Chinese community associations from the US, Australia, the Philippines, and Europe had gathered in Fujian and were given letters of appointment by local united front agencies in China for their official role as "overseas propaganda agents" when they returned home. As a result of these commissions, they were compelled to take on the duty of disseminating the party's national conference decisions back home [2]. Convincing Chinese living in the United States that the PRC government in Beijing is the only legitimate representation of China and that the Republic of China in Taiwan is an illegitimate government is a major objective of PRC overseas activities. The councils have many well-known Chinese Americans as members across the country. For many years, the honorary chairwoman of the council in Northern California was a successful entrepreneur from California. This person has continuously supported PRC policies in the US, particularly China's claims to Taiwan, and has assisted in planning protests against "Taiwan independence" in addition to supporting US-China educational exchanges. Her affiliation with the China Overseas Exchange Association was a component of the United Front Work Department [10].

The Chinese government has historically engaged in efforts to influence local Chinese American community associations to align with its objectives. These associations tended to support the Nationalist government of Taiwan. However, a significant shift occurred in the 1980s in San Francisco. Suey Sing, one of the city’s six major Tongs, which are community organizations representing Chinese immigrants, was the first to prominently display the flag of the PRC on its building. This act initiated a symbolic competition between the PRC and Taiwan in San Francisco's Chinatown, with both sides vying to display the most flags–a rivalry visible from the seventeenth floor of a local public housing project, where flags of the PRC and the Republic of China are seen atop numerous buildings. The prevalence of the PRC's flag not only signified the growing influence of Beijing in what was once a stronghold of Taiwanese support but also acknowledged the shift in official American recognition of Beijing as the legitimate capital of China [4, p. 46].

The U.S. political institutions

The structure of the American federal system grants significant autonomy to subnational governments such as states, counties, and municipalities. This autonomy allows these entities to engage in foreign relations activities including forming commercial and people-to-people relationships independent of the federal government's geostrategic concerns. This aspect of American governance has facilitated local leaders across the U.S. to cultivate relationships with counterparts in the PRC, contributing significantly to the bilateral relations between the two countries since the early 1970s. As Larry Diamond and Orville Schell point out, federalism in the shape of independent China policies by local leaders is overall a positive thing that might help counteract erroneous national policies during turbulent times in Washington as it happened with the Paris Agreement. Despite the fact that the US had left the said agreement (before President Biden took office), several governors who had joined the US Climate Alliance kept on their collaboration with China. But if US-China ties continue to deteriorate, there will be increasing likelihood that local and autonomous state policies would occasionally conflict with national objectives, making it harder for the US to compete with China to shape international norms and practices [4, p. 35]. For instance, subnational support for China became excessive when Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti announced his city's independence from the impending Sino-US trade war during a visit to Hong Kong in July 2018. Garcetti claimed that China and Los Angeles “have closely integrated economies, closely integrated cultures and closely integrated geography. We hope to be the leading Chinese city in America for investment, tourism and students” [3].

States and cities often engage in what is sometimes termed as "paradiplomacy" or "subnational foreign policy." These activities can include trade missions, cultural exchanges, and twinning relationships with foreign cities. Such engagements are typically designed to promote economic growth, cultural exchange, and international cooperation at the local level. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly forbid states from engaging in foreign relations, but activities are generally constrained by the need to not contravene federal policy. The legal framework provided by court rulings such as the decision in Zschernig v. Miller (1968), which limits states’ international engagements that affect U.S. foreign relations, outlines the boundaries of such engagements.

At the municipal level, just like with state-to-province level, there is still another way to circumvent federal policies. As part of its united front bureaucracy, China seeks sister-city relationships through the Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, which works to uphold the Chinese Communist Party's rule and expand China's influence globally. There is a common pattern to how the association and other Chinese organizations build their contacts with local politicians. First, China asks that state-to-province and sister-city partnerships in the US be implemented in accordance with the "principles" that guided the establishment of Sino-US relations in the 1970s (as understood by the Chinese side). This implies that if local authorities attempt to keep their connections with Taiwanese representatives or other people–like the Dalai Lama–whom China considers as adversarial forces, their delegates will probably object. Secondly, China aims to establish substitute channels of communication and assistance with the national government, leveraging these fresh connections to regain momentum in Washington [4, p. 31-33]. The Ypsilanti, Michigan, case study draws attention to the challenges and potential risks associated with exchange and investment projects involving Chinese organizations, particularly those in the diaspora, and local government representatives in the United States. In 2017, four Ypsilanti officials–including the mayor–went on a purportedly Wayne State CSSA-funded trip to China. It was later discovered that the trip was actually paid for by developer Amy Xue Foster, who was hoping for favor for her proposed $300 million "Chinatown" project in the area. When the true purpose of the funds was revealed, these officials were fired [4, p. 34; 27].

3. Conclusion

The complex interaction of identity-based impulses, democratic institutional procedures, and geopolitical considerations shapes the effect of the Chinese diaspora on U.S. foreign policy. The Chinese diaspora's influence on policy can be investigated through the lens of constructivist and liberalist theoretical frameworks, taking into account the group's socioeconomic power and collective identity in the US.

Constructivist perspectives highlight how the diaspora’s ties to China and their cohesive community identity significantly impact U.S. foreign policy. This influence is particularly potent in areas of trade and cultural exchange, where diaspora advocacy aligns with broader U.S. interests. However, efforts that seem closely tied to the Chinese government or that clash with American strategic interests often face resistance and scrutiny. This is especially true during periods of tension between the U.S. and China, where concerns about espionage and undue influence may dominate [11].

On the other hand, liberalist views emphasize the role of U.S. democratic institutions and norms which provide a platform for the diaspora to engage in advocacy. These institutions, while facilitating diaspora participation, also serve as vital checks to ensure that advocacy efforts align with national security and sovereignty requirements. Legislative tools like the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) are crucial parts of these institutional controls, balancing openness with necessary regulation [16, p. 817]. Additionally, the legal framework established by court rulings such as the decision in Zschernig v. Miller (1968) further delineates the boundaries of these engagements, explicitly limiting states’ international activities that could adversely affect U.S. foreign relations. These legal provisions ensure that while the diaspora can advocate for their interests, their actions remain within the confines of U.S. law and foreign policy objectives.

Furthermore, Chinese diasporas might work as instruments to circumvent federal policies through state and municipal levels, which enjoy a significant level of autonomy. This autonomy allows for subnational engagements like sister-city agreements, which are established following the Sino-US principles from the 1970s but often reflect a Chinese understanding. Such agreements can subtly influence local organizations toward maintaining or enhancing ties with the PRC, even potentially sidelining groups considered adversarial by China.

The balance of power between the diaspora's actions and American political institutions moderates the overall effectiveness of the diaspora's influence on U.S. foreign policy toward China. The diaspora can advocate for beneficial policies by using its socioeconomic contributions, but these initiatives are always constrained by the larger national interest of the United States.

In summary, Chinese organizations and the diaspora have typically had a big impact on American opinions and policies, especially when it comes to acknowledging the People's Republic of China (PRC) as the only legitimate government of China over Taiwan and influencing attitudes regarding Tibet. This influence highlights a complicated link between identity-based motivations that sometimes coincide and sometimes run counter to the objectives of the host country, highlighting the diverse role that diasporas play in international relations. Case studies also highlight wider ramifications of diaspora activities aiming at improving China's image generally, particularly as a competitive commercial partner. These programs, which aim to promote a positive image of China and enable stronger cultural and commercial connections, include planning travels and cultural exchanges.