Paul Cheung was recently named president of the Committee of 100, a non-profit organisation of influential Chinese-Americans that promotes bilateral exchanges between China and the United States on all fronts.
In this Open Questions interview, Cheung talks about the role of C100 in addressing anti-Asian hate in the US and bridging the gap between the two biggest economic powers in their ever-growing rivalry.
What’s your strategy as president of the Committee of 100 (C100) to keep a neutral US-China connection during this period of heightened tension?
China and the US need, require, an intermediary. At the Committee of 100’s founding, that made a lot of sense, but fast-forward to today, both China and the US don’t need an intermediary, per se, in terms of government.
Where we fit in is providing context and nuance. The US-China relationship has an enormous impact on Chinese-Americans, as well as on Chinese who have dealings with Americans and families in America. Putting aside business, human-to-human relations are something no one talks about in terms of impact.
This is an interesting time for us, and our role is to really highlight these narratives and help both countries understand that. The problem is, the relationship between the US and China is no longer just government to government. Its impact on citizens and the world is great. People in Europe, in Africa and Latin America, a lot of them don’t know what to do.
It’s almost like we can’t afford to make America mad but we can’t afford to make China mad. Given C100’s historic knowledge and expertise on China relations, this is an opportunity to elevate that discourse.
The way the two countries evolve, politically and economically, has a lot of cultural nuance. And as Chinese-Americans, we bring unique insights into why each side is behaving a particular way.
So, our insight and our membership are invaluable.
Do you have aspirations to expand C100 globally?
We’re still very rooted in Chinese-American participation and in protecting civil liberties for Chinese-Americans. But in terms of the US-China relationship part, it’s not that we want to go global. But the topic is global, so to ignore that would be foolish.
So does that mean liaising with any European-Chinese committee? Are there similar groups you’re aware of?
Not yet. But when I think about the global discourse, it’s not just within European Chinese, Canadian Chinese or Latin American Chinese. Looking at who needs to pay attention to the US-China issue and their perspective, we can convene thought leaders and elevate this global discourse.
Given US-China co-dependency, it’s not that easy to just disengage from each other. And however they engage or disengage has enormous global impact. Because of the current administration’s handling of US-China relations, you see Korea, Japan and China forming a pact in ways unimaginable a decade ago. The Europeans, Africa, Latin America are thinking about their own independent strategies.
But you’re not, I assume, able to change the trajectory of US-China relations?
We’re not going to intervene in what the government is doing. But we can provide research, conversations and insights, very much like a think tank, given our members’ expertise – science, technology, business, culture and the arts. That’s where we could uplift the conversation and bring something new. Whether government, private or public sector, that’s a better way.
The C100 has been around for 35 years. How do you distinguish yourself from other players seemingly trying to do the same thing?
Our uniqueness is our dual mission. Whatever happens with US-China has a direct correlation to Chinese-Americans here and vice versa. A lot of Chinese-American, even Asian-American, non-profit organisations either focus on domestic issues or strictly on US-China relations.
They pick one particular lane, whether it’s policy, economics or media. But we are actually working across sectors. So, our conversation is much more fluid. We believe that business and culture influence each other. That is the uniqueness of C100.
The C100 appears to be trying to do the impossible. How do you address Asian hate without being perceived as too critical of American policy in these difficult times?
The work that we do on anti-Asian hate may involve a bit more nuance. There are a lot of people doing different parts of discrimination against Asian-Americans. But we recently did alien land law research, looked at policies that are discriminatory in nature and the impact on both Chinese nationals and Chinese-Americans.
You are absolutely right. Because of our dual mission and history, depending on where you enter, it’s been C100: where are you? Are you more US-China, or are you more domestic? But C100 is an action network of influential Chinese-American leaders who turn ideas into results by focusing on three priorities.
First is to develop the next generation of Chinese-American leaders and prepare them for senior roles across sectors. We want to convene global thought leaders to elevate the discourse on issues that shape Chinese-Americans here in the US and on US-China relations.
Second, something we’ve been doing all along is to produce credible research, expose bias and inform public understanding on Chinese-American issues.
We mobilise our members, who are themselves influential community leaders, to act through targeted advocacy that drives community change, protects civil liberties and ensures full inclusion of Chinese-Americans.
And finally, we want to channel our members’ expertise, networks and resources, whether financial or non-financial, into projects that strengthen community organisations, build cultural partnerships and advance mutual understanding between the US and China.
We want to make sure that Chinese-Americans not only excel in their industry but also learn from across different sectors and hopefully get folks to be civically engaged. On the US-China side, we used to have a scholars programme and we’ll be redesigning that, reflecting a viable path for US-China exchanges.
And how do we advocate? We have state-of-the-art Chinese-American research that no one else is doing, looking at things like alien land laws, really applying a fine lens to policies that are discriminatory against Chinese-Americans and maybe other ethnic groups. Chinese-Americans are just one major group affected by the Alien Land Act.
The same with student visas. This is where we can play a bigger role, generate data for our industry or community leader members. One member formed the Asian Pacific American Justice Task Force. We’re making sure there’s an Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) curriculum here in New York. We want to focus and cultivate member energy to do public good.
How do you fight the community’s corner while convincing other Americans you are American, even as you keep channels open with China and the Chinese government?
When we think about the next generation leaders programme, we’re probably going to look for leaders to deal with US-China issues. And in redesigning the programme for Asia, we want to think about folks in China dealing with US-China issues.
What is lost right now is the people-to-people connection. So much coverage is actually about government-to-government. Chinese coffee chain Luckin’s launched here in New York and business is going on in Tennessee.
There are still billions of dollars of agricultural products being exported from America’s heartland to Chinese companies. So part of what we want to do is really educate both sides on how each side is working.
But people-to-people depends on visas, which are tightening on both sides, and on educating the next generation in both countries. But overseas student numbers are down on both sides. This all ultimately depends on the political context.
There’s a political and logistical challenge. With technology, we are connected virtually; that’s something we need to think thoughtfully about. There’s already a lot of exchange on social platforms. And in the new year, we’ll probably do more virtual people-to-people exchanges.
We have to think about who we should be talking to in various sectors on both sides. A long time ago, C100 facilitated a media tour of American journalists to China and that really facilitated great relationships. There are visa restrictions, but it’s not a lockdown. We want to figure out what the requirements are and what is still viable.
There will be some in-person exchanges, but embracing technology that can facilitate them is also very important. And people-to-people exchanges don’t have to be in the US or [mainland] China. This is becoming a global conversation. We could have the same conversation in London, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong.
But there’s a real perception issue, particularly for Americans. China used to be the hot thing, and everybody wanted to go. But professors tell me when students realise, wait, I can’t even use Gmail or Instagram, they’re put off. How do you advance if people aren’t interested in people-to-people conversations, outside maybe the Chinese-American community?
I’m hoping our research from the State of Chinese-Americans Survey helps us. For the first time in this latest survey, we polled non-Chinese about their perception of Chinese-Americans, data that can inform our strategy going forward.
If you go to TikTok, there are quite a few Westerners talking about China because they’re living in China. When I look at those TikTok posts, I even learn something new about China. People’s knowledge of China, especially Chinese-Americans, depends on when they came to this country.
In some way, your memory of your homeland is frozen – perception is shaped by the government narrative. But I’m also seeing the other side on TikTok, people saying you actually don’t know anything about China.
I don’t want to ignore real concerns about China; a lot of people do talk about that. Let me be clear, we are American first. This is our country, but what we add to it is our cultural heritage.
You mentioned that many Americans’ views are shaped by government narratives. Does that go both ways?
Yes, we know how the media on both sides portray each other. There are always narrative gaps. That’s why we emphasise people-to-people exchange.
As you try to inhabit the middle ground, how do you define success?
It comes back to how we measure it. In terms of leadership, folks who went through our scholars programme or leadership programme, do they get promoted? Are they in positions of power? What does their career advancement look like?
If you don’t have a seat at the table, you don’t have a way of shaping things. So that’s one.
In terms of our research, it’s ultimately similar to journalism. Do we see legislative or regulatory change, litigation outcomes, citings from media, academia and policy? I picture our research more as catalytic, because we are not a 501(c) (4) [non-profit for social welfare], and are able to act as an advocacy organisation.
But we equip our partners with the data to advocate. Going back to the alien land law issue, we can equip partners in residential or commercial real estate with the right information so that they can be more active locally, letting their local representative know the economic impact on the community of such a policy.
I don’t expect your local real property agent to do alien land law research, whereas we can work with different non-profit organisations to disseminate the information and measure the total value – whether it’s contributions, expertise, networking and other resources feeding into community partners, helping them unlock Chinese-American philanthropy, connecting them with members with deep subject expertise and seeing what they did with that exchange afterwards.
Finally, by really looking at the timeliness and effectiveness of how we respond to discrimination cases. Recently, we worked behind the scenes with the Asian-American Foundation, gathering prominent Asian-American leaders from culture, Democrats and Republicans, to send every member of Congress a letter reminding them that AAPI is still very present, and whatever conversation they’re having between the US and China directly affects their constituents.
We heard that some local representatives responded by suggesting meetings with our members. That’s an outcome because if we elect public officials, they should respond to our needs in theory.
What three goals would you like to achieve in your first year?
The goal is to clearly define what C100 is and what we do. Because, as we just mentioned, it can seem schizophrenic. We have 140 experts and, for a while, depending on who you engaged with, they could tell you something different.
Second, is to really streamline the work we do into buckets where people say, “Oh, I understand your take on this particular issue.”
A third is who we are, what we do, and understanding who it is we are serving. We’re not here to only serve our members because if the organisation exists to serve 140 members, then we’re just a club.
How do you communicate this to average Americans who don’t know much about China and whose knowledge gap may be growing, given all they’re hearing from the administration?
The focus here is really on how we can be thought leaders using survey research on non-Chinese Americans from this year’s State of Chinese-Americans report. We need to diversify, pick topics and work sector by sector.
C100 in the past, given the intermediary role, wasn’t focusing on topical issues. But now, we could convene farmers in the Midwest and talk about the agricultural impact, help leaders understand what the current US-China relationship looks like, and how that affects the heartland.
In California, what does it look like when China and the US disagree on basic AI governance? If these two countries that lead in this technology cannot agree on what public safety and governance look like, would this potentially be the end of humanity?
It’s on these topical issues that we need to do the work. And that’s how we go beyond preaching to the choir with issues that impact everyday Americans.
I could also imagine convening higher education academics and saying: “What is the impact of student visas on your institution?” Not from a revenue standpoint, we all know that Chinese students make up a big part of the revenue.
But what does that mean for American innovation? Throughout history, many science and technology advances have been made because of international students, and a lot are Chinese.
Without international students, how does that hurt American innovation? We were leaders in the Covid-19 vaccine because of our academic institutions, advances in science and technology.
If we don’t have diverse talent, are we producing second-rate vaccines? People come to America because whatever China and Russia produce is not at the same level.
People don’t understand that so much of this innovation that affects our lives most discreetly and benignly is because of the diversity of talent that America attracts, and a big part of that talent is Chinese.
The frequent counter you hear to broader student exchanges is “there are 300,000 spies in the country”. How do you counter that, no matter how ridiculous it is?
We’re not an organisation to start vetting every single student. No way there are 300,000 spies. If there are spies, of course, we want the government to find out who those are, because those are bad actors hurting our country. But we also believe in the promise of America.
Going back to data, how many international students came to this country, ended up being residents, became citizens and contributed to the American economy and innovation? Countless.
So, to basically group a whole class of people, whether you’re Chinese, Russian or Iranian, to me, that is a flawed assumption that we need to combat. But it’s not just us combating alone.
Korean Americans have a stake given what’s going on with the ICE raids, with a lot of Latin Americans, even Canadians now. This is something that we all need to do together. Because of what’s going on in the country, Chinese are facing a tough time, but we’re not the only ones.
Beyond your research, given all this xenophobia, do you have a specific initiative to address this?
Obviously, we have to assess what the problem is that we want to solve. We’re a small non-profit, so we want to make sure we target our resources and definitely focus on very narrow band research. No one is doing it, and so we need to work in collaboration and coordination with other AAPI organisations dealing with this issue.
This is not an issue where one organisation could take it on alone. I am encouraged that we have existing partnerships with the Asian-American Foundation, AAPI Law and members in other NGOs who are figuring out partnership opportunities.
Another structural problem is the combining of Asian-Americans into one basket, resulting in a ton of little alphabet soup organisations. Logic suggests that a more centralised organisation, focus and message allow you to fight your corner better.
Whether it is Chinese-Americans or Asian-Americans, we’re seeing that evolution already. The same with Latin Americans. They all speak Spanish, so they can caucus better but they still have very regional differences.
Chinese-Americans and Asian-Americans are still relatively early in how we centralise our power and our voice. But I am seeing that happening. So for the past two election cycles, you see Asian-Americans really banding together and concentrating their efforts on some key swing states.
Asian-Americans are the fastest-growing minority group in the US. And Chinese-Americans are pretty much a dominant player. It doesn’t matter that you’ve been here five generations, are from Canton, Hunan or Fujian province; your common American experience is probably very similar.
If you don’t speak English, your experience is probably very similar too, no matter what Chinese group you come from. Or if you are mixed Chinese, it’s the same.
Every single Asian person has dealt with being mistaken for being from a different ethnic Asian background at some point. That is the nature of the beast. But I am seeing the emergence of a mobilisation.
Perception in politics is often everything. We’re living in crazy times.
Right now, we happen to be the “it” factor but at some point, are we going to say the same thing about all German Americans? That has so much to do with government, and not the actual zeitgeist. We’re loyal to our country.
You raised the challenges of the German, Italian, Irish immigrant experience. But for Asians, there’s the racial component as well, the “eternal foreigner”.
That’s unique to Chinese-Americans. One of our members, Professor Gordon Chen, actually wrote a whole book about it. Look, this is the home we chose and it comes with both opportunities and challenges, and it’s just one of these challenges. The only thing we could do is continue working to change that perception.
As an immigrant yourself, how does that inform the job and your perspective?
I was born in Hong Kong so I speak Cantonese. My dad is from Fujian and my mom is half Fujian, half Canton. But they all went to Hong Kong during World War II. So in some way, I feel like I embody that.
The US-China relationship is not great and what better time to get involved? When the conversation is great, they don’t need me. This is something I could do, help figure out what the new path forward is. So much of my life is about this duality you write about.
How do I harmonise the two parts of me? For a good part of my life, I was very cognisant about my accent until I realised that my accent is what makes me unique in journalism because it signified that I bring a different perspective to how I tell my stories. And what could be more American than that?
Part of this is our own journey. The Chinese culture is what makes us an asset and unique to America, and we have done that for the past 100 plus years, which is why we have the railroad and rice farms. Chinese-Americans contributed to medicine and the arts.
Yes, the individuals were great at what they did. But that unique heritage also teaches us how to think through a different lens.
Where did you arrive as a kid?
New York, Chinatown, the Lower East Side. Back then, it was predominantly Latinos, Puerto Ricans. That was great because that was not the America that I was watching in Hong Kong.
My perception of America was Dynasty and Dallas because that’s what they were playing. When I came to New York, I was like, what is a walk-up? My first home was tenant housing where the bathtub was in the kitchen, and it had one of those toilets with a chain.
That was really confusing because in Hong Kong we were in a high-rise. And I’m like, this is not the America I saw on TV. New York shaped a lot of how I see the world.
What would you say your leadership role models are?
Because I’ve been a journalist for so long, one of my role models was, of course, Connie Chung. I saw a few faces that looked like mine then. And my hero is probably people like I.M. Pei, who’s one of our founders, and what he does to transcend culture and borders.
Also, individual members like Dr David Ho because without him, the LGBT community would probably not be able to advance in HIV medication research.
In terms of non-Asian American heroes, as cheesy as it sounds, it’s RBG [late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg], Harvey Milk – they thrived in the harshest conditions and through their convictions made systemic change.
The common theme for the Chinese-American is that we are not alone. Whether you’re LGBTQ, women of colour, each person brings a different struggle to overcome, thrive and change. That’s incredible.
So given your investigative journalism and technology background, how will you enhance the committee’s public image?
One of the things I hope to do is never give a “no comment” answer, and be as direct as possible. So when you asked the loyalty question, I’m going to tell you unequivocally, my loyalty is here, I’m an American citizen, full stop.
So I bring that journalism lens, and as a 501(c) (3), we are non-partisan and Team America. No matter who is in charge, do we agree on tactics? No. But that’s why we live in a democracy. Because we always have a voice, and this is exactly what we do – exercise our views.
In terms of my technology background, it is about understanding how technology impacts lives and consumer behaviour. How do we build connections virtually?
Technology is going to impact everybody globally and given what’s going on with AI, crypto and blockchain, understanding that helps me lead the organisation, the conversations people are having.
Think about China’s crypto policy versus Hong Kong and the US. Think about AI issues; they’re really competing and there will be winners and losers. I just want to make sure that the losers are not the public everyday citizens.
The committee has a long history of policy engagement. What do you want to focus on?
Not necessarily one particular policy. What I don’t want to see is a modern-day Chinese Exclusion Act. How many little wonky policies are going to get passed that actually marry up into a modern-day Chinese Exclusion Act?
I feel like I see the emergence of it, landlords, visa restrictions, those are clear signals. We have to be vigilant in looking at legislation and how it impacts our community. Because I feel like it’s just going to sneak up.
A political science concept holds that immigrant groups draw a lot politically from their home country experience. In East Asia, especially China, for centuries, you control your clan, your money, but “don’t mess with the emperor” or get involved in politics. There’s been progress in the last two elections for Chinese-Americans, but it hasn’t always been a particularly loud political voice.
It has not. That’s where collaboration with other partners comes in and why Gary Locke is our board chair. He’s very vocal about some of these issues.
We have quite a few members in government and public service. And a lot of members are doing things that traditionally are not what you think Chinese or Asian immigrants are doing.
Beyond finance and accounting, many members are in medicine, entrepreneurship, journalism and the arts. Our members are all actually heroes to somebody.
Really want to be a producer in Hollywood? Look up to Janet Yang. Want to be an actor or actress? Look up to Joe Chang, who’s our member. By celebrating individual members, we are writing the narrative of Chinese-Americans.
I was looking at a C100 posting of some board or other meeting, and a lot of people seemed to be quite senior. How do you tap a younger generation?
That’s why we have programmes like the Next Generation Leaders. I want to use data to actively recruit younger members.
Actually, our board is a nice range of demographics and genders. And our membership includes mixed Asians or mixed Chinese like Paula Madison, who’s African-American and Chinese, or David Sze from Greylock, who’s white and Chinese.
We’ve started looking at the Chinese diaspora in the US, too, as a way to think about how to diversify and rethink what it means to be an American with a Chinese cultural sensibility.
It’s a small organisation, which has challenges. Any thoughts on shifting C100’s internal culture?
One is the narrative. Second is to actually talk about impact with 140 very accomplished members with different projects in mind, articulating that value, measuring success and what we want to address.
I want to be realistic with our organisation. We alone are not going to change whatever issue it is. We have to understand what the needle is that we can move.
Are we playing a catalytic role or an implementing role? Our membership has a great catalytic influence and power. So I do think we could accelerate and stop some things.
In the past, it seemed difficult for C100 to take a position. Can you do that with 140 influential, strong members with different views?
The members represent their own views. That’s why they appointed me as president. Tactically, we can disagree, but I don’t think there’s any membership dispute over our mission and vision.
We just have to be really clear what the position is we’re going to take. Sometimes we might not have one, by the nature of what we do. Some will want to see us comment on everything about the US and China, but that is not our focus.
Yes, we’re focusing on constructive dialogue, and when talks don’t work out, we can tell you that. But we’re not going to comment on, say, individual positioning.
An issue like press freedom, individual members have their own opinions, but as an organisation, this is not the work we do, and I would refer that to the Asian-American Journalists Association (AAJA).
To the extent that we can support AAJA, we will, but we’re not the experts in that area.
What are the particular challenges in these times with this administration?
There is a lot of misinformation about Chinese and Chinese-Americans, and the lack of distinction between the two. It’s almost like there’s a transitive property: Chinese-American equals Chinese.
Chinese-Americans don’t look at themselves as Chinese nationals. And certainly, a lot of Chinese nationals here don’t see themselves as spies.
I saw this ad on TV about agriculture, saying: “If we don’t do this, then China wins.” I don’t think most Chinese-Americans, or even Chinese nationals, see this as a competition.
It needs to be win-win, because global security and global prosperity depend on the two countries getting along. And we have plenty of history pointing to what happens, not just with China, when two dominant players don’t get along.
Think about the US and Russia, the Cold War, the Iron Curtain, is that what we want? No. Most Chinese-Americans want to go back to China, visit their ancestral land and see relatives.
Most Chinese want to come to America, whether it’s for education or tourism. But when the two countries are having high tension, nobody wins. They don’t have to like each other, but they have to work with each other. The two countries are going through a thing right now.
How long do you think this will last?
It depends on the midterms. And also it depends on President Xi Jinping and who his successors are. Every time a chairman changes in China, the direction is widely different. So we can only hope for the best.
What is your vision for C100?
The vision is a world where Chinese-Americans lead with confidence and without bias, and US-China relationships are grounded in mutual understanding.
What about more direct community issues, such as the bamboo ceiling?
We have a lot of members who actually broke that. We select members given what they exemplify for America and for future generations of Chinese-Americans. Do we want to see more Gary Lockes? Absolutely.
Who’s going to be our next Chinese-American governor? So that’s one ceiling we want to crack. In the private sector, arts and public sector, we have many role models that hopefully will inspire more people to get into fields that traditionally Chinese-Americans didn’t think about, like journalism.
I’d love to see more Chinese-American journalists. That’s the only way to change how we cover issues.
When I speak with Asian-Americans about increasing their voice, some point to the way the Jewish-American community has espoused its views. Can the anti-Asian hate message be conveyed in a more forceful way, or is that difficult given the diverse nature of the community?
What I see with AAPI hate right now is less visibility because there’s just less coverage. It’s still a very important story and it’s still worth coverage.
African Americans and Latino Americans, German and Thai Americans, also dealt with this issue. Many might not remember, but it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
So how do we actually deal with history, education, to inform this? We are the latest target, but it can be you. McCarthyism is a few doorsteps away, right? Is that what we want for this country?
As a community, we need to do a better job building a broader alliance. That’s why we need more Asian-Americans in politics, in the public sector, civically engaged.
Are we exercising our vote? Are we communicating with our local congressmen and legislators? Because if we don’t exercise our voice, then we are invisible.
This is where various communities are doing well. Not only are they out there, not just physically protesting, but behind the scenes, thinking about how they move capital, how they bring awareness, and how they actually get their voices heard. That is something we need to emulate.
