This was a post a long time coming. Not because it contains some scoop on current events – just that after Vinod invited me, and then checking with the rest of the Mutiny, I wanted to be sure that whatever I eventually wrote would be timely. So with time running out, I sat down to post on the unintended consequences of a higher profile for brown folks in the U.S. Most of the focus will be on Indian-Americans specifically, because that is what I am more familiar with. But, in past postings, one idea that has often been tossed about is that IA’s should adopt the stance of more prominent minority groups to garner more attention to its own causes. However, on of the advantages of being a relatively more recent arrival is that you get to learn the consequences of earlier methods – both planned and unintended.Last week, I received my copy of The Israel Lobby, a book by John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Stephen Walt (Harvard) that argues domestic lobbying, rather than strategic concerns, shape American policy in the Middle East. They first published their thoughts in a shorter essay version that was published in the London Review of Books back in March 2006 – an essay that received both praise and criticism. Without going too deep into the book (since this blog is focused on South Asian matters), the authors do make a reference to Indian Americans. On page 11, they write, “… Indian Americans have rallied to support the recent security treaty and nuclear cooperation agreement.†The role of Indian-Americans in shaping policy was also touched upon by Edward Luce in his book In Spite of the Gods, who wrote about, “… the almost 2 million two million people of Indian origin based in the United States had become a strong new voice in U.S. politics.†(page 278).
How does this relate to South Asia? Well, many ethnic groups use the Jewish model as something to structure their own lobbying efforts. But becoming too dominant in a region where America has different, sometimes conflicting interests, would harm both the U.S. and India. Secondly, in order to wield influence effectively, it is sometimes necessary to cut off internal debate, so as to present a more united front to Congress. In the case of the Israel Lobby, M&W argue the viewpoint it presents does not accurately reflect the varied opinion of Jewish voters in the U.S. So, an Indian lobby wishing to emulate groups like AIPAC or the ADL may wind up silencing dissenting voices that should be heard.
For example, after the attack on India’s parliament in December 2001, there was plenty of domestic pressure on the government in New Delhi to strike back, if not at Pakistan directly, then at a minimum some terrorist training camps in the Pakistani portion of Kashmir. If there existed an Indian lobby that focused solely on Pakistani-sponsored terrorism, which was as dominant as the Israeli lobby, you had the risk that the U.S. would not have tried to restrain India, thereby making a bad situation even worse. Instead, the U.S. managed to pull India and Pakistan back from the brink. Arguably, Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent was a more immediate reason that India did not strike, as discussed in Sumit Ganguly’s and Devin Hagerty’s Fearful Symmetry, but lack of domestic pressure politics allowed the Bush Administration to approach the crisis with a greater leeway than it has in the Mideast. The Bush Administration was able to offer enough incentives to both Islamabad and New Delhi to cool down the rhetoric. In Pakistan’s case, it was being designated a major non-NATO ally, a status enjoyed by South Korea and Australia. In India’s case, it was the nuclear deal. Another calming factor was now that India is “back-office to the worldâ€, it had more to lose by going to war.
In contrast, when the Democratic-controlled Congress drafted spending bills for the Iraq war, it withdrew a section that would have required the President to seek Congressional authority before it undertook any military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. AIPAC put tremendous pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and that portion of the bill was dropped. For an administration that is stuck in Iraq, allowing it the freedom to bomb Iran does not promote stability in the region or Israeli security.
While Indian American lobbying efforts will probably increase in the coming years, it seems that Indo-American relations will proceed along two tracks. In matters of regional security, lobbying efforts will take a back seat to old fashioned self-interest, by both India and the U.S. The increased military cooperation between India and the U.S. seems more focused on regional stability and not against any one country. For American hawks that worry about a rising China and see India as a counterweight, keep in mind that the level of trade between India and China is increasing rapidly. Indians are not likely to be foot soldiers for American adventurism in the region, but having been beaten by China once on the battlefield in 1962, and knowing that Pakistan’s nukes came with a Made in China sticker on it – India is not going to let China dictate terms. A partnership with America helps in that effort.
The second track – the economic one – is probably where lobbying by Indian Americans will be more prominent. Whether it is giving campaign contributions, or sending strongly worded complaints when candidates put their foot in their mouths, such as Obama’s camp did a couple of weeks ago – it is in the economic arena that Indian American efforts will yield results more quickly.
This is fine by me – a nation’s security policy should put its own interests first, and not worry about immigrant lobbies or, in India’s case, diasporic communities which advocate taking an extreme position, but not risking anything themselves.
With respect to Canadians working in the US – I said ‘virtually unlimited’ rights, not unlimited, ACFD! But you’re a lawyer!
Whether Canada is a de facto independent country – something Canadians themselves argue about, BTW (even if considered on an economic basis alone – nearly 90% of Canada’s trade occurs with the US, for example) – that’s something for another day.
Where does grassroots organizing fit into this picture, as opposed to the limited strategy of Capitol Hill lobbying?
I don’t want to thread-jack, I know this is not a post on Canada, but I have to respond to #51. No, no one in Canada argues about it. We know we are an independent country, and find it a waste of time to even argue it.
love the handle….
With respect to Canadians working in the US – I said ‘virtually unlimited’ rights, not unlimited, ACFD! But you’re a lawyer!
I should have stated the virtual part 🙂
First of all, Razib, how can you say that Jew’s from Russia are ‘more similar’ to German Jews, then for example Gujuratis to Malayalees. You are basing your conclusion on the idea of the existence of a cohesive tribe called ‘ashkenazi.’ If you are basing on ethnicity, I would the Jews are probably no more related than the indians. Lets say 1000 years ago ‘ashkenazi’ jews went to both Russia and Germany, then 25 years a generation makes 40 generations. Taking a conservative outbreeding estimate of 10% per generation, and guessing that 50% of their offspring identify as Jews. After 1 generation the average would be about 97.4% Jewish. Obviously the non-Jewish genes at this point would be confined to children of the 1/2 Jews. After 20 generations the average Jew would be 57.5% Jewish. After 1000 years, or 40 generations, the average Jew would be around 33% Jewish. Essentially a Russian Jew would be more Russian, while a German Jew would be more Jewish.
In fact I think there is a definate strong similarity between Indian Americans, Jewish Americans, and the way they should try to affect political change. However, in general, I think most people here assume that there is something ‘special’ about Jewish(pro-Israeli) lobbying efforts, that their influence oversteps their numbers significantly. Maybe thats right, but a basic feature of our democracy as it is constituted here is while the average interest of all citizens will set the average direction of the country, a particular group, however small, with a strong interest in one policy can be very effective. Forget about the AIPAC….there are more impressive lobbying efforts: a sizable majority of Americans actually support pro-Israeli policies. Look at farm subsidies on the other hand: a majority of Americans oppose such generosity, particularly for big farmers. The farm lobby has managed to keep, and expand, subsidies without popular support, and with a government whose ideology should oppose them. Of course some argue that the Israeli jobby has helped create the popular support it receives through influencing the media, however a lot of that is just speculative. Truly believing that would imply that you also believe that ‘Jews control the media.’ Associating Jewish overrepresentation in the media with coordinated, direct influence over it, with the intention of supporting ‘Zionist’ policies IS essentially racism or haha ‘anti-semitism.’
Just like when recently the LA Times wrote an article about a possible link between Indian-AMERICAN financial support and pro-outsourcing policies. That is just racism…pure and simple.
whoops i meant a German Jew would be more German
Look at it like this. Most policy issue matter only a little to each person. For example, I may oppose farm subsidies, but I wouldn’t change my vote just because someone supports them….there are other bigger issues for me….perhaps for the average American an issue like Iraq is a big issue that could sway their vote. So a smart candidate would be against the Iraq war, and on the fence for subsidies. However there is a small group of farmers with a bit of money and influence, and they really really care about the subsidies, while there is no similar group opposing them. They could tip the balance so that the candidates that support them would get their votes and cash. This leads to the interesting phenomenon that on all small issues all candidates will be ‘pro.’ Lets count Israel-Palestine as such a small issue. There are a small number of vehement Muslims on one side strongly anti-Israel, and on the other side a slightly larger number of Jews who are strongly pro-Israel. With the added advantages of wealth and stability, the pro-Israeli side would win as the vast majority of people could go either way . On a bigger issue like abortion, which almost everybody seems to care about, candidates will choose sides. Interestingly in a mature democracy like the US it seems to be that most of these big issues turn out to be nearly 50-50. I would argue this is not a coincidence, but a result of the issues of large importance naturally becoming the issue in which the population is split ~ 50-50 either way on. This results in nearly 50-50 elections and a nearly 50-50 split in the legislature.
First of all, Razib, how can you say that Jew’s from Russia are ‘more similar’ to German Jews, then for example Gujuratis to Malayalees. You are basing your conclusion on the idea of the existence of a cohesive tribe called ‘ashkenazi.’ If you are basing on ethnicity, I would the Jews are probably no more related than the indians. Lets say 1000 years ago ‘ashkenazi’ jews went to both Russia and Germany, then 25 years a generation makes 40 generations. Taking a conservative outbreeding estimate of 10% per generation, and guessing that 50% of their offspring identify as Jews. After 1 generation the average would be about 97.4% Jewish. Obviously the non-Jewish genes at this point would be confined to children of the 1/2 Jews. After 20 generations the average Jew would be 57.5% Jewish. After 1000 years, or 40 generations, the average Jew would be around 33% Jewish. Essentially a Russian Jew would be more Russian, while a German Jew would be more Jewish.
roger, there’s genetic data on this. to make it short: you’re wrong. ashkenazi jews are genetically cohesive. the outmarriage into the group was on the order of 1% per generation according to genetic data. if you are curious about the jewish literature, go here. you also don’t know the history of jews as it is naive to talk about ‘russian jews 1,000 years ago.’ jews showed up in poland around the 14th century, and that is the community that exploded in population after 1600 and spread both east and west. so ‘how can i say’? because i know stuff. as for indian genetic similarity, it is on the order of europeans. that is, the typical gujarati related to a malayalee is like a swede related to a frenchmen. that is not a distant relationship, europeans exhibit some natural genetic cohesiveness, but it isn’t like ashkenazis. to make the math simple for you ashkenazi lineages tend to coalescene on the order of 1,000 years or less. south asian lineages on the order of 10,000 years or less.
p.s. please don’t bring khazaria into this. the only evidence for khazars is one particular levite lineage.
After reading some of the studies on that site, I don’t think you are completely correct…at least one study was showing that mtDNA was more homogenous while Y haplotypes were less homogenous. What this shows is NOT that there is little outermarriage, but that ‘Jewish’ social identity is passed through the mother. The outermarriage estimate should be based solely on the Y-chromosome. However, I guess you may be right theoretically about the Jews being more ethnically identical. However when you meet someone, do you ask for their genotype? Culture similarity is far more important, at least currently, in human-human interaction. Indian Americans have all arrived here around the same time, have a more recent interaction with their home country, and have lived in one society for far longer. I think our cohesiveness on issues could arguably be greater than that of Jews. What I should have said, is that a Jew coming from Germany will be able to identify less with a Jew coming from Britain, since they were essentially members of non-interacting communities for hundreds of years.
After reading some of the studies on that site, I don’t think you are completely correct…at least one study was showing that mtDNA was more homogenous while Y haplotypes were less homogenous. What this shows is NOT that there is little outermarriage, but that ‘Jewish’ social identity is passed through the mother.
1) that site is mine
2) the studies are complicated, but if you want me to summarize it for you askhenazi jews seem to have had a few gentile founding mothers and near eastern fathers (according to the balance of the evidence). their admixture proportion is probably 50% western european and 50% near eastern. they expanded from a relatively small baseline population around 1400 and increased by orders by magnitude by 1800. so yes, they’re one people that emerged from a hybridization.
3) the examination of genetic markers implies 1% inmarriage per generation from outsiders if you assume 25 years and 1,000 years.
4) What I should have said, is that a Jew coming from Germany will be able to identify less with a Jew coming from Britain, since they were essentially members of non-interacting communities for hundreds of years
again, you don’t know the history. they aren’t parts of non-interacting communities, the jews of europe were famously transnational and cosmopolitan. they moved around quite a bit and fissured mostly along sephardic and ashkenazi lines. when jews were allowed back into england after 1650 they were mostly sephardic, but by the 19th century ashkenazi jews from eastern overwhelmed the earlier community of sephardic jews. in places like france you have two different communities, sephardic and askhenazi together, both of these are generally exogenous in origin.
5) again, you confuse the nationality issue. ashkenazi jews in places like hungary, poland and russia did not speak the local language, they spoke yiddish. if they were educated, secular and sophisticated quite often they spoke german and were part of the german-speaking culture of mittleeuropa.
KXB, this is for you..others can ignore
influenced by your interesting post, i went to the bookshop to pickup the book Israel Lobby. forgot the name and had to inquire and came across this recent book – The deadlies lies:The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control – which claims to be a rebuttal to Walt & Meirsheimer’s book. Then went to the newstand to pick up my weekly dose of USNews and came across this editorial: The Israel lobby myth
Oops the right link to the recent editorial in USNEws : Israel lobby myth
Brij,
Thanks for the link. Couple of things – Schultz is employing a tactic often used by Alan Dershowitz – you read the word “Israeli” and instead see the word “Jew”. Schultz charges M&W with arging that the lobby has a “uniform agenda”, when in fact M&W make no such claim. They point that Martin Indyk, formerly of the Clinton admin. and a member of the lobby, believes in a 2-state solution, as does Dennis Ross. However, he does not believe that American aid to Israel should be conditional. M&W argue It is this unconditional support that is more prominent among the lobbyists, than any specific policy.
Second, he charges M&W for lending support to the Arabs simply because of numbers. Again, they make no such claim, but rather say that Arab concerns should play some interest – demographics do not play much of a role.
As for Schultz’s choice of venue – U.S. News and World Report is published by Mort Zuckerman, who is a high-profile member of Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations – a very hard right group.
Interview by the John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt on their book and the backlash that it has received