Diaspora politics in the United States refers to the political behavior of transnational diasporas of ethnic groups, their relationships with their ethnic homelands and their host states, as well as their role in inter-ethnic relations. This article describes case studies and theories of political scientists studying diaspora politics within the specific context of the United States. The academic field that studies diaspora politics is part of the broader field of diaspora studies.
Overview
To understand a diaspora's politics, one must first understand its historical context and attachments:Ambrosio, Thomas. 2002. "Ethnic identity groups and U.S. foreign policy." Praeger Publishers. A diaspora is a transnational community that defines itself as a singular ethnic group based upon its shared identity. Diasporas are created by a forced or induced historical emigration from an original homeland. Diasporas attach great significance to their homelands due to their long history and deep cultural association. The importance of a homeland, especially if it has been lost, can lead to the establishment of an ethnic nationalist movement within the diaspora, which, with time, can eventually result in the homeland's reestablishment. However, even in cases of success, if homelands are reestablished, it is relatively rare for the complete diaspora population to emigrate back to their land of origin, leaving a remaining diaspora community which often retains significant emotional attachment to its foreign kin and homeland.
Writers and academics Yossi Shain and Tamara Cofman Wittes argue that formations of politically active ethnic diaspora communities are "inevitable" and "endemic" features of the international system.Shain, Yossi & Tamara Cofman Wittes. Peace as a Three-Level Game: The Role of Diasporas in Conflict Resolution in Ambrosio, Thomas. 2002. "Ethnic identity groups and U.S. foreign policy." Praeger Publishers. They give the following reasons: First, within each of a diaspora's host states, resident members can establish contacts with the citizens of their homeland and cooperate with them in an organized manner to maximize their political leverage. Second, a diaspora can exert significant pressure in its homeland's domestic political arena regarding the issues of concern of the diaspora community. Lately, a diaspora's transnational community can engage directly with third-party states and international organizations, effectively avoiding becoming limited to contacts with their homeland and host state governments exclusively.
Thus, Shain and Wittes state that diasporas are best understood as transnational political entities, operating on "behalf of their entire people", and capable of acting independently from any individual state (be it their homeland or host states).
Political spheres Diasporas are politically active in three separate realms: their influence on their homeland's domestic politics as outsiders, the exercise of their domestic political rights within their host states, and their independent involvement at the international level.
Homeland
Significance to the diaspora identity While all transnational diasporas retain objective components of a coherent ethnic identity, such as a shared history and folkways, including food and music, in some cases, diasporas can share the objective reality of a territorial homeland. When these ethnic homelands exist, they serve as "the physical embodiment", "a territorial, cultural, and social focus for the ethnic identity of the diaspora community." Moreover, Shain writes: "In the homeland, the community's language is the language of daily interaction, and all the symbols of sovereignty - currency, stamps, military awards or decorations, flags, insignias, and similar objects - are ingredients that reinforce the identity of the diaspora kin in ways similar to their functions in cultivating and sustaining the national identity of the homeland's citizens."
Thus, from the perspective of the diaspora, the homeland's "political and territorial fate has profound implications."
Negotiating the national interest In international relations, it is commonly assumed that a sovereign and independent country, in contemplation of manoeuvring coherently and decisively in the geopolitical system, needs to precisely identify what is commonly referred to as "national interests", its goals and ambitions in the economic, military, or cultural domains. The formulation of policy, both domestic and international, is then straightforward, it is simply the pursuit of the nation's identified national interest.
The national interest of a state usually derived from its closely linked national identity and national narrative. For ethnic homelands with diasporas, there is conflict between the national identity of the homeland and the diaspora's ethnic identity — most obvious is the state's principal concern for only the people living within its boundaries, while the diaspora's is more broadly concerned for the transnational community.
While the homeland is capable of independently formulating and defending its national identity, narratives, and interests, it is usually also highly motivated to accommodate, or at least appear to, the concerns of its ethnic diaspora because of "the diaspora's political clout and financial assistance, at home and internationally." Thus, the homeland's formulations must accommodate the ethnic identity needs of the diaspora to allow for the homeland to retain its significance to them and thus their support.
Shain describes the negotiation process as: "Although national identity can be negotiated between homeland and diaspora, the structure of modern international relations grants the prerogative of constituting, elaborating, and implementing the national interest to the government of the homeland state. [...] [In] reality, neither the diaspora nor the homeland community ultimately dominates in constitute and communicating national identity. [...] The degree to which the one influences the other is associated with the relative strength that the homeland and the diaspora can exercise vis-à-vis one another through monetary flows, cultural productions, community leadership, and the like."
The conflict between the homeland's national identity and the diaspora's ethnic identity often results in the diaspora emphasizing different aspects of the national narrative, allowing the diaspora to embrace a slightly different interpretation of the homeland's national interest than that held by the homeland's citizens. "A certain degree of flexibility can be preserved because of the distance between homeland and diaspora: each can, to a degree, put its own 'spin' on the national narrative and live out its shared identity in its own way." "Sufficient areas of overlap exist that homeland-diaspora ties can be quite close despite differences of emphasis in the national narrative."
Domestic activism Some diasporas have become significant players in the domestic circles of their homelands, according to Shain and Wittes. Diasporas are vocal in their declarations of support for elected homeland politicians or in voicing their belief that certain politicians in their homeland may be "betraying the national causes" as they perceive it. There have been mass demonstrations of support or opposition by diaspora communities in response to specific policy decisions by their homeland governments. In addition, diasporas have targeted domestic public opinion in their homelands and their domestic political development via the use of "monetary contributions, affiliated political parties, and transnational communal organizations."
Host states Diaspora communities can both influence the governments and public of their host countries, as well as have their social and political status in a host country affected by the policies of their homeland authorities.
Lobbying for ethnic interests According to Thomas Ambrosio, "like other societal interest groups, ethnic identity groups establish formal organizations devoted to promoting group cohesiveness and addressing group concerns." While many formal organizations established by ethnic identity groups are apolitical, others are created explicitly for political purposes. In general, groups that seek to influence government policy on domestic or foreign issues are referred to as lobby groups or "interest groups." Those groups established by ethnic identity groups are referred to as ethnic interest groups.
Homeland authorities can enlist diaspora communities to lobby their respective host governments on behalf of the homeland.
Potential liabilities These issues can result in real danger to the local diaspora community. May lead to racism directed towards the diaspora community, either directly or by being co-opted by opportunist extremists. Diaspora communities are almost always minorities in their host states, and thus are at risk of xenophobia or persecution by other demographic groups in the host state.
Domestic accountability for foreign kin actions Shain explains that "[when] kin states violate norms that are valued by the host state (such as, for Americans, democracy or human rights), diasporas are often implicated or held accountable morally and politically. [...] The [host state] government and perhaps even [its] public may expect diaspora leaders to persuade or pressure their homeland government to alter its policies in a more congenial direction," and the failure of the diaspora community to act as desired by the host state "can impinge on the diaspora's ability to achieve cherished political goals."
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: "The violence sponsored by the Palestinian nationalist movement over many years, and the Arab countries' endorsement of that violence, severely hampered the ability of Arab-Americans generally (and Palestinian-Americans more particularly) to integrate themselves into American electoral politics. In 1999, a prominent Arab-American was removed from a government-convened panel examining U.S. counter-terrorism policy because of (perhaps prejudicially rooted) concerns about his attitude towards Arab terrorism against Israeli and American targets."
Conflicting loyalties Diaspora leaders can be presented with a dilemma of dual loyalties when the interests of their homeland come into conflict with those of their host state. This is most common, according to Shain, when the homeland is involved in a violent conflict or in negotiations to resolve such a conflict.
Shain describes one example: "[When] the Bush administration in 1991 threatened to withhold loan guarantees to Israel unless Israel agreed not to spend the money in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, Jewish-American advocacy organizations were forced to choose between their good relations with the U.S. foreign policy establishment and their loyal support of Israeli policies in its conflict with the Palestinians. Most chose to support Israeli policy at the cost of incurring the wrath of their American partners. But after the bilateral United States-Israel confrontation was resolved and the loan guarantees were put into place, the majority of those same organizations joined the effort to pressure the Israeli government to adopt a different attitude toward settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza."
International A diaspora's transnational community can engage directly with third-party states and international organizations, in effect bypassing its homeland and host state governments.
Bilateral relations