作者： 凌恒
2020年11月9日，丹佛
美国2020年人口普查预测目前有大约三百八十万华裔居住在美国，占总人口1.2%左右。美国人眼里同一的美籍华裔其实来源不少于15处（见https://libguides.southernct.edu/c.php?g=15048&p=4147383），其中接近60%来自中国大陆，15+%来自台湾， 15+%来自东南亚，还有接近10%来自香港。不同的来源地更是会把它们政治和文化上的差别、以及它们和其它地区的历史关系上的差别印烙在每一个华裔的脑海中，使得即使在来自同一地域的华裔人群中仍然派别丛生。
以来自台湾的华裔为例，他们至少可以分为两大派别：一派祖籍中国大陆，另一派祖籍台湾。一般说来，祖籍中国大陆的台湾华裔们大多敌视中国大陆，这是因为他们的父祖辈都是因为国共内战的战败，才不得不在上世纪四十年代末撤离大陆，离乡背井来到台湾。所谓祖籍台湾是统指在那之前移居台湾所有人的后裔，他们大多冀望台湾能立足于国共两党之争以外，甚至独立于中国这个以大陆为根基的概念之外。这两派尽管一直争议不休，但都多少以中国大陆政府为敌。中国大陆最近几十年里经济的高度发展也使其能够着手发展现代化的军事能力，附加在两岸巨大的人口和资源差别上，使台湾安全必须依靠美国的军事和政治护卫。所以对于来自台湾的华裔来说，如果美国能够对中国大陆施加经济压力和制裁，那当然是好事；如果美国愿意加强和台湾的军事交流甚至军售，当然更好；如果美国政府是鹰派当权进而加剧和中国大陆政府经济甚至军事上的敌对，那可是好上加好！
来自中国大陆的华裔人群要更复杂一些。其中有相当一部分人对中国大陆政府恨之入骨，这是因为在他们眼里，他们的家族、家人、甚至他们本人曾经惨遭中国共产党人的迫害甚至残杀。这些人也许并不许意台湾独立，但会和来自台湾的华裔一同敌视中国大陆政府。相对的，有另外一批年轻一些的华裔成长于最近三十年的中国大陆。他们在成长过程中随着父祖一起受益于中国大陆政府经济发展策略，尤其是和苏联解体后东欧和俄罗斯等国相比之下，他们大多对中国大陆政府多少有些感激之心，至少没有多少敌意。这些华裔一般来到美国不久，溶入美国不深，因为成长在种族相对单一的中国大陆，一般对华裔作为美国一个少数族裔的种族问题也少有感触，许多人甚至仍然在某些方面依赖于在中国大陆的亲朋好友。对他们来说，美国政府对中国大陆进行经济制约甚至制裁不可能是好事。他们大多不认为台湾独立有任何意义，尤其是在当今中国大陆的经济实力已经远远超过台湾、且台海两岸贸易交往已成为台湾的经济命脉的情势下。他们大多也熟知台湾和美国签有共同防御协定，所以都不希望美国在台海周边有什么军事上的运作。
至于来自香港的华裔，其实只要知道上世纪五十到七十年代曾有过一大批人（香港官方统计大约有五十万，但有称数倍于此）从中国大陆为了逃避迫害和饥荒，搏击海潮、躲避炮艇、 历经四到八个小时泅渡来到香港的事，就不难看出这个美籍华裔人群也相当复杂。几句相关的香港历史也许能让人们更容易理解这个华裔人群。（详见https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E6%AD%B7%E5%8F%B2）
清政府于1842年因第一次鸦片战争战败后把香港割据给英帝国作殖民地，在此之前，这一片土地上并没有城镇，香港这个名字来源于境内的一个渔村。在后来的五十多年里，晚清政府把附近的几片土地相继割让或者租借给英帝国。香港在二战中为日本军队占领，人口从战前的一百六十多万缩减至六十万。在二战后的几年，国共两党打内战，香港因为属英国免遭战火，所以从大陆迁居香港的人流不断，到上世纪四十年代末期共产党军队逐渐赢得整个中国大陆的时候已接近两百万。最终，共产党并没有攻占香港（有共产党无力攻占香港一说，但笔者以为只需看他们夺取隔海的海南岛一事，就应该知道河湾彼岸的香港无以为守）。1982年，英国政府试图和中国大陆政府谈判序延香港新界于1998年将尽的租期，结果双方达成了“一国两制”和整个香港在1998年回归中国之后的50年里保持原有政府建制的协议，这促使了一批香港居民移民境外，其中一部分人移民美国。在交接后的二十多年里，中国大陆政府多次试图对香港施行更多的监控，包括最近一次议安全法允许直接引渡香港案犯去大陆，香港人民多次以游行等方式逐一与之抗议，结果各不相同。同时，香港和大陆的经济联系不断加大、加深，大陆政府也在香港周围和其东南沿海地区逐渐建立了一系列港口、相应的经济开发区和金融口岸中心。这些设置自然是顺应着整个中国大陆的经济发展需要，但它们在战略上替代香港的贸易和金融功效的可能也是不容忽视。
所以大多数来源于香港的美籍华裔也都希望香港政府能够更加独立于中国大陆政府的控制之外，但是作为大陆政权范围内的一块土地，香港没有独立的外交、更没有军队和倡导独立的可能。有一部分香港的美籍华裔寄希望于外界政府能够以更强硬的针对中国大陆的经济政策甚至军事手段来支持香港人民的抗议运动，因此川普政府的强硬的态度一时很合他们的胃口，他们尤其是对川普政府于2020年7月以行政命令单方面取消1997年由中英美三方达成的香港作为特别贸易区的协议一事称赞有加。（笔者以为香港作为三方的特别贸易区具有中国大陆其它金贸中心无法相比的特殊性，这应该是阻碍中国大陆政府对香港更激烈施手的原因之一，川普政府废除这个协议则大大的增加了香港在经济和金融的作用上被中国大陆其它金贸中心取而代之的可能，所以对香港人民的诉求来说是有害而无益的。但这应该另外谈论。）
（限于篇幅，我们暂且不提美籍华裔之间种族上的差别。）
我们谈论这些华裔凭籍来源地的差别的原因当然不是贬损这些派别的政治观念和角度。正如一开始提出的，这些和华裔来源地相关的差别反映着普遍的人情、人性，所以即使有误区和误解也只是人们在探索和谋求过程中的正常经历，而不应该被当作是某一群人本身或者本质上的弱点。
不过，过于侧重这些出于来源地差别的考虑确实有所缺失，因为美籍华裔其实都有一个共同点，这就是所有人都希望美国能够对我们各自的来源地施加（合适、正当、正面的）影响、甚至直接施以援手。这是因为尽管美籍华裔的声援和经济支持在过去和将来都会对这些来源地有不可磨灭的正面影响，这些和美国政府以官方和外交形式能够付诸的努力和达到的效果都是无法比拟的。 不难看出，美国政府对这些境外地区施加影响的功效至少取决于两件事：第一，美国国政都能够继续在政治制度、道德和人文理念等方面站在世界的至高点，也就是继续作为里根总统所说的“山顶上闪耀的都市”；第二，美国能继续保持其在世界经济领域中的领先地位、至少是主导地位。
在论及这两件事情之前，需要谈谈为什么美国的军事霸权不位列其中。这是因为尽管美国有作为世界警察的军事能力，也在近二十多年似乎战事连绵，作为一个民权和民主的国度，美国历史上很少因理念之争发动战争，为其领域之外的利益而的发动的理念之战就更少。回想即使在富兰克林，罗斯福总统经年备战后，还需要日本直接偷袭珍珠港成功才迫使美国参与二战。更近一些，在非洲甚至欧洲的几次种族灭绝性的屠杀发生后，美国都似乎介入得不甚情愿，甚至几次都直到事件的尾声才有所动作。美国对2010年埃及以及辐射周边的阿拉伯之春的介入也只是了了。后来即使是约旦的阿萨德政权面临大面积的人民反抗而大厦将倾，甚至在俄国军事参与扶持阿萨德政府，同时造成周边严重的人道主义危机的时候，美国的参与也非常有限。相关于这些华裔的来源地来说，其实还有一点更重要：试想假使美国真的因为香港或者台湾和中国大陆发起战事（这在不远的将来仍然有明显的可能），这将会带给所有美籍华裔 — 无论来源地后派别 — 至少两大问题、甚至是难题。第一，美籍华裔必须在这场战争中选择站边； 第二，因为战事的两边都是华人和华裔，华裔在美国作为一个少数族裔有很大可能会一同受到猜忌甚至因为战争伤亡而遭受社会反弹。所以尽管美国的军事能力是其在境外施展影响的后盾之一，美国军事介入这些华裔来源地应该没有太高的可行性，且从华裔的角度来看更不一定是可取的。
回过头来看前面提出的美国政府对域外地区施加影响所需要的两件事：在剔除军事介入的形式以后，所剩的只有经济和人文方面的交流和影响。如果没有经济和人文方面的交流，譬如商业和旅游，当地政府可以相对轻易的把当地的人民和外界隔绝开来。在谈论甚至评判这些地区的政治体制（譬如民主政治和自由市场体制）、政策方案（譬如人权、少数族裔和少数人群的待遇）、法理和执行（譬如香港的引渡法案）的同时，美国也必须自己在这些方面占据相对的高点。试想如果美国的领导人和普金一般的搞独裁，那么美国政府批评他国的人权问题和不民主的政策的话语恐怕都不值得打印到纸上。从这个角度去看，川普和金正日、普金、维克多·奥尔班（Viktor Orbán）等之间的惺惺相惜对华裔所求只会有害无益。当然，美国经济的繁荣以及美国保持世界经济的主导地位是从经济上对任何地区施加影响的必须。
（值得一提的是如对待北韩和伊朗一般的极端经济制裁在此不是合适的政策选择。众多的文献和报道表明在这样的极端经济制裁下，当地的政府当然会在经济和外交上承受严重打击，但是这些政府大多有机会把民意和民愤转向国外、境外，甚至乘机以更加铁腕的手段控制国内的政治和经济。迄今为止，这些极端经济制裁大多使当地的人民更加困苦不堪，但对改变或者推翻当地极权政府的作用都不明显。）
用经济和人文方面的交流对异地施加影响大多不可一日而就，尤其是因为很多情况下当地的历史惯性和人文理念是和这些索求的变化相左的，克服多需要相当长的一段时间。再者，如果美国的对外政策常因政府换届而变化不定，甚至只是因为美国的对外政策有变化不定的声誉，那么这些外域的政府倘若不会被弄得不知所从，那很可能是在观望美国政坛变化而不再积极合作。有鉴于此，美国对外域某一地的政策应该以持之以恒为要，且不能轻易改变。
最后，华裔在美国是一个少数族裔，其中的那些派别更小，能不能以一个少数族裔去影响整个美国对待某一外域的政策、怎样去影响其实是最重要的话题。无论相互之间的差别，人们应该都可以清楚的认识到，假使华裔在美国不是一个值得人们敬重的人群，假使华裔在美国社会没有合适的社会地位，或者在美国政坛不是一个有合适权力的政体，那么华裔作为一个整体都不可能对美国的对外政策有任何影响，更不用说其中的派别了。
所以，尽管“团结起来力量大”也许已是陈词滥调，用在这里还是最合适不过。华裔的所有人群，无论来源地或者其他的什么差别， 都需要一起撰写我们华裔作为美国的一个平等和值得敬重的人群的篇章。在更广阔的意义上，我们华裔需要继续和美国的所有其他人群一起为美国的经济繁荣、民主政治的清明保驾护航，只有让美国一直在世界上保持着“山顶上闪耀的都市”的地位，才让我们拥有真正去帮助故土的可能。
—————————————
Chinese American vs. Their Origin
by Heng Ling
11/2/2020， Denver
The 2020 census estimates that there are approximately 3.8 million people of Chinese descent living in the United States. To people outside of this group, they are all “Chinese Americans”. But it is far from a cohesive group for those within. One of the biggest internal distinctions lies perhaps in their actual geographical origins.
By one account, most of the Chinese Americans came from 4 places, they are: mainland China (almost 60%), Taiwan (15+%), Southeast Asia (15+%), and Hong Kong (a little less than 10%). But in total, such distinct origins number at least 15. (see https://libguides.southernct.edu/c.php?g=15048&p=4147383)
Whereas everyone may have come to the US for different reasons, people’s attachment to their origin — where their homes and families used to be — is a shared human nature. It shouldn’t be any surprise that such attachments inevitably extends to political, regional and cultural differences, as well as their historical and current connections and relations.
Taking Chinese Americans from Taiwan as an example, there are at least two sub-groups: one with ancestry on the mainland; the other with ancestry native to Taiwan. The former tend to continue to feel antagonistic toward mainland Chinese — their parents or grandparents moved to Taiwan were essentially forced exiles resulting from the civil war with the communist, who took over the mainland. And the latter carries the desire of their ancestors — who has lived on the Taiwan island for much longer — for independence of Taiwan from the mainland/rest of china. Despite the difference, these two groups are, for the time being, united by their common enemy – the mainland communists. So politically, one of their desire is for increasing American involvement in the Taiwan Straits, especially militarily. As this may be the only means to keep the mainland communist away from Taiwan — especially in recent years as the mainland communist china became increasingly prosperous economically and increasingly modernize their military. If the US would effect any economic constraint on mainland china, that would be helpful to slow the mainland communists down. More military ties between Taiwan and the US, great! Getting the US to sell Taiwan more military hardware, can’t wait! Actually getting the US administration to be more openly hawkish toward mainland china economically and even militarily, now that’s monumental!
The Chinese Americans from mainland china are a bit more complicated. There is a sizable portion who absolutely hates the communists to their bones — their families were hurt or even murdered by the communists, they themselves might have been persecuted at some point. So this group may not necessarily care for Taiwan’s independence, but they share the same animosity to anything mainland communist with those from Taiwan. Then there is also the (mostly younger) group who had grown up during the last 30 years when China modernized under the communist party. Many had seen their own families (still in mainland china) becoming more prosperous and wealthy because of the particular path the Chinese Communist Party had led. Especially when compared to what happened in Russia, many feel certain amount of gratitude for what they and their families have now. So their feelings toward the Chinese Communist Party are not as hostile nor driven. Not having been in the US for very long, this group may not yet feel completely at home here because, among other reasons, the Chinese Americans remain a minority in the US, This group generally do not have much appreciation of the racial issues in the US because the mainland china where they grew up is ethnically near homogenous. And because of shared recent life experiences in and outside of China, many in this group may continue to feel more at ease with others from the mainland, and even continue to rely heavily on friendship and connections from families and friends in mainland china for support. So the idea of US government somehow constraining or even restricting the economic prosperity of mainland china is mostly unthinkable. Many in this group do not see any reason why Taiwan would even consider independence at this point, as the mainland is economically far more powerful than Taiwan now and the economic ties between Taiwan and the mainland china are prevalent, and may even be the lifeline of Taiwan’s economy. Ultimately, everyone knows that there is a common defense pact between Taiwan and the US. So if any fight ever breaks out across the Taiwan Strait, US will very likely end up fighting against the mainland. Well, this would clearly be disastrous to this group. So of course any military posturing from the US to bolster Taiwan can not be any good.
And we shouldn’t forget those from Hong Kong. One only need to recall that there were many (official counts are around 1/2 million, but some believe to be in a multitude of millions) people who had swam across the bays — battling tide for between 4 to 8 hours and evading gun boats — during the 50’s, 60’s and even 70’s to run away from persecution and famine on the mainland to Hong Kong to realize that things are not simple in this group either. To understand the perspective of those living in HongKong — and hence many of the Chinese Americans came from Hong Kong — it’s worthwhile to review its history quickly (for additional details, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hong_Kong）.
Until the British colonized it from the Chinese Dynasty following the First Opium War in 1842, there was not a city in the area. Its name came from a fishing village in the vicinity. In the ensuing 50 or so years of the dying Manchurian dynasty’s rule over china, additional surrounding areas were ceded or leased to add to Hong Kong. At the end of WWII, Its population was decimated by the Japanese occupation to around 600,000 (from a prewar population of 1.6 million). And the ensuing civil war in China between the Communists and the Nationalists brought a population boom in the late 1940’s, as the communists gradually won over on the mainland. However, the communist left Hong Kong alone (for reference, the communists did attack and take control of HaiNan Island, a far larger land mass separated from the mainland by a 10+-mile strait; and for comparison, Hong Kong is separated from the main land by a river inlet). In 1982, British government attempted to negotiate extension of the lease of the New Territory — then a part of HongKong — prior to the expiration of its 100-year term, with the mainland Chinese government. The end result is the proposal of a “One Country, Two Systems” plan which would allow Hong Kong be handed back to China in its entirety in 1998, with a promise that the democratic government of Hong Kong should persist for at least 50 years following the handover. That handover saw a wave of immigration of Hong Kong people abroad, including to the United States. Since the handover, the mainland Chinese government have on multiple occasions attempted to exert more control over Hong Kong, one particularly heinous act is the proposal of a bill in 2019 which would allow extradition of political prisoners from Hong Kong to the mainland without trial. Hong Kong people have staged protests to resist each of these attempts, some with more successes than the others. Meanwhile, the economic ties between Hong Kong and the mainland have become increasingly dominant to Hong Kong’s economic prosperity. Over the years, the mainland Chinese government have initiated the construction of multiple ports along with designated special economic zones around Hong Kong and along the eastern coast of China, as well as developed additional financial network and centers on the mainland — while these are certainly necessary for the continued economic development of China, the potential of using these developments to effectively replace the functions of Hong Kong can not be understated.
The point is that much of the Chinese Americans with origin from HongKong are interested in seeing more support to bolster the relative independence of HongKong from the mainland Chinese government. Unfortunately, such efforts are severely limited by the fact that HongKong is within the mainland Chinese government’s sovereign control. Compared to Taiwan, Hong Kong does not have the option to actually becoming independent, nor does it host any military forces of its own. In fact, Hong Kong can not even maintain any independent diplomatic relationship with the rest of the world. Some Chinese Americans of HongKong origin have sought and supported more hawkish military and economic policies from the US, especially those targeted in support of the demonstrations in HongKong, with the expectation that the mainland Chinese government may be more responsive to economic threats. Many in this circle took refuge with the Trump administration because of its openly hawkish stance toward mainland china, and they sought and praised the Trump administration’s July 2020 action to end preferential economic treatment for Hong Kong (originally instituted around 1997). (Note that in this author’s perhaps naive understanding, the ending of HongKong’s preferential economic treatment removed one critical reason which had upto-now prevented the mainland Chinese government from taking control of Hong Kong more aggressively — as now there is little reason why any functions HongKong has served can not be replicated and/or replaced at some appropriate mainland Chinese locations. But this is a different topic altogether.)
And we have not even gotten into the differences between different ethnic Chinese groups!
Now, these discussions are not intended for disparaging any of these groups’ perspectives and political affinities. In fact, from the discussions, it is pretty clear that they are all natural and reasonable — all human — and even when there are misconceptions or misunderstandings, it is far more likely that such misconceptions and misunderstandings resulted from people trying to figure things out rather than being associated with some inherent flaw to the particular groups.
Nevertheless, emphasizing on these differences would miss the shared foundations of nearly all of these perspectives and interests. And it is this: every one is interested in America’s influence, even direct involvement, in making their place of origin better in some way.
Think about this for a moment, beyond the vocal and even financial support from Chinese Americans to the causes indigenous to each of these regions — which will continue to be highly desirable and even influential within those regions — what might be far more helpful and effective is for the US foreign policy with each of these regions to effect the desirable influences. And this is actually predicated on two things: one, that the US continues to hold the political and moral high ground as the torch bearer and the “shining city upon the hill” of democracy and humanity; and two, that the US remains economically prosperous and influential (if not dominant) on the world stage.
Before delving into each of these two, it’s worthwhile to speak about the conspicuous absence of US military power in the above — it is purposeful and intentional. Despite US’s world-dominant military might and its famed reputation as “world’s police”, and what appeared to be endless wars in multiple regions in the recent year, one should not miss the historical fact that the US, because it is a democracy, rarely engaged in wars for ideological reasons, especially ideological reasons concerning only some foreign land. Recall that even after FDR taking a multitude of years to prepare the US popular sentiment against the Axis, it still took direct attack at Pearl Harbor before the US openly declared war. More recently, US involvement in the genocide at various regions in Africa, and even the one in Bosnia (in Europe!) were all reluctant if at all, and in many cases only in the aftermath. It is consistent that the US did not engage with the Arab Spring movement nor its subsequent offshoots in other Arab countries during the 2010’s in any significant scale. And even when the Assad regime in Jordan faced an imminent collapse from a popular rebellion, which presented both the possibility of a humanitarian crisis as well as the opportunity for a real democracy in Middle East, the US’s involvement remained minimal and cursory, even as Russian heavily committed to bolster the Assad Regime.
What is perhaps even more important is to consider the following: suppose the US did intervene militarily in some of these regions, say on behalf of Taiwan or Hong Kong against the mainland Chinese (which distinct possibilities remain in the future), it would present the Chinese Americans — all Chinese Americans — at least two issues (if not problems). One: we will have to choose sides, and the side opposite the US will not be easy to take — and the side which the US is on may not be the one we want to take; two: because Chinese American is a minority group in the US and there will be Chinese on both sides of that conflict, the group as a whole may face suspicion as well as potential backlash as the cause for American lives. So, whereas it is certainly true that the backing of US military might is necessary for US to effect any influence in these regions, it is not clear whether direct US military based intervention is possible or even desirable.
Going back to the two included items. As US is a foreign power and outsider to these regions, the only real political influence that the US has — and for that matter, any other country or state may have — resides primarily in economic and human engagement and from the regard of the US from the people in these regions. Without the channels of contact facilitated by economic and human engagements (such as exchanges and tourism), people there may be easily shielded (by the local government) from the opinions and even policies of the US. And for criticisms of the US government and/or public opinion to actually become meaningful to these regions in its government ideology (such as democracy vs. authoritarian dictatorship), policy design (such as human rights, minority rights), legal mandate and maneuver (as in Hong Kong’s new extradition law), it would require the US society and government to retain legal, moral, and humanitarian high grounds. Imagine if the US become led by a Putin type leaders, surely any criticism about human rights and non-democratic acts of the government probably would not be worth the paper on which the criticisms are issued. Following this understanding, Trump’s cozying up with authoritarian leaders like Putin, Kim Jung-un, and Viktor Orbán can only be detrimental. It goes without saying that economic prosperity in the US is a requirement for effecting any economic influence in any of these region.
A word of caution on enforcing Iran or North Korean style extreme economic sanctions: study upon study have shown that whereas these government did suffer devastating consequences on the international stage, paths do exist for and have been undertaken by these government to steer their people’s anger toward foreign powers which resulted these government successfully steel their political and economic grip on their people. So far, these extreme economic sanctions have led to extreme and prolonged suffering of people in these regions, while the desired political and/or policy changes remain elusive at the best.
It should also be clear by now that for the US to effect its influences in these regions through economic and human engagement, the US needs to execute consistent and rational foreign policies in regard to each and every one of these regions over a multitude of administrations and a prolonged period of time. This is because first of all changes in these regions, especially those driven by foreign influences, will most likely take time to overcome the preference and ideology of the local government. Should the US foreign policy in regard to a particular region changes from administration to administration significantly, or if the US foreign policies with regard to any particular region around the world does not project consistency — even if the region is unrelated to any of these origins of Chinese Americans — the likely outcome is that the local government would either not know what to adhere to, or would decide that waiting for US administration change would work better than actually reacting to any particular administration. It is for this reason why significant changes in US foreign policy in its relation and regard to any particular region should only be made with extreme caution.
Finally, as the Chinese American is a minority group in the US, and the subgroups from particular origin are even smaller, whether US foreign policy with respect to these regions can be influenced and how to effect appropriate influences are at the very center of this entire undertaking. What should be obvious is that if Chinese Americans do not command the equal regard and respect from the rest of the US society, and if Chinese Americans as a group does not have an appropriate voice in the US politics, there is little chance that any subgroup of Chinese Americans from a particular origin would be able to imprint their desires onto US foreign policies.
If the “United we are stronger” sounds cliché, it also happens to be spot on in this case. As the only path to develop an appropriate voice and presence in American politics, Chinese Americans, regardless of their place of origin, need to unite together to control the rhetoric of the Chinese Americans as equal and equally respected Americans in this society. More broadly, only through the commitment to build — together with all of the Americans — an economically prosperous United States and ensuring that the political system and policies executed in the United States continue to be admired by and be the envy of people from all over the world, can there be real possibilities of effecting any real positive change to the people still living at we each come from.
