How the diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics may play out for the U.S.

Amna Nawaz:

As we reported earlier, the Biden administration will not send an official delegation to the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics. Administration officials say it's a move to protest China's human rights abuses.

To break down what this means for U.S.-China relations, I'm joined by Victor Cha. He was the director of Asian affairs on the National Security Council staff during the George W. Bush administration. He's now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a professor at Georgetown University.

Victor Cha, welcome back to the "NewsHour." Thanks for making the time.

At this point in already tense U.S.-Chinese relations, what do you think a boycott like this, what do you think it's likely to accomplish?

Victor Cha, Center for Strategic and International Studies: Well, I think the accomplishment is to send a message to China, as they have already done, that the United States is not going to allow China to go unaccountable for the human rights abuses in Hong Kong or in Xinjiang or what they are doing to individual athletes.

I don't think it is going to change Chinese policy. I don't think it is intended to change Chinese policy. But what it will do is, the United States is leading, and maybe other countries will follow. It is a political boycott, which means it's not going to affect the athletes, and that's important, because I think the athletes should be allowed to compete, unlike what happened in 1980 with the boycott of the Moscow Olympics by the Carter administration.

But it is sending a very high-profile message that the United States was going to do something about the fact that China is sort of running rampant with regard to human rights abuses in its own territory and in other parts of the — of its country.

Amna Nawaz:

Well, I guess it begs the question, could they have possibly sent a stronger message? Could they have called for a full boycott, as you mentioned they did in 1980, athletes also not participating, or coordinated with allies in advance, so everyone could announce at the same time?

Is this the strongest message they could send at this time?

Victor Cha:

I don't know — there could have been a stronger message, but I think it's just about right, because to try to coordinate a broader response would have taken — one, it would have taken a lot of time.

Two, it gives other countries and other leaders the opportunity to make their own choices, rather than being cornered by the United States into making choices. And it's going to be difficult choices, clearly, for other countries as well.

With regards to the athletes, I don't think this should affect the athletes. I mean, I think the athletes should go and they should compete and they should try to win. I mean, that is the most important thing. The biggest tragedy of the 1980 boycott was that it accomplished nothing in terms of changing Soviet behavior, and it ruined the lifelong ambitions of many athletes.

So I don't think we want to repeat that. But I think it's sending the rise message, and it gives other countries the opportunities to join or to opt out.

Amna Nawaz:

So, China did warn of what they call firm countermeasures. What do you think those could look like? What form would they take?

Victor Cha:

It's hard to say.

I mean, they could respond in a tit-for-tat fashion with some kind of political boycott of something involving the United States or something the United States hosts.

They could respond with some sort of trade actions, which would be escalating, escalating the situation. Undeniably, the Chinese were going to be unhappy with this, and they will accuse the United States of mixing sports and politics, when these two things should be separate. We expect that to come from the Chinese.

But they are, I think, in the end just going to grit their teeth. They know there's going to be a lot of criticism of them before the Olympics, and they're going to wait for the start of the Olympics, because, once the Games begin, everybody just focuses on the performances of the athletes. That's what happened in Beijing in 2008.

Amna Nawaz:

Yes.

Victor Cha:

And I think that's what they expect to happen this winter.

Amna Nawaz:

In the brief time, we have left, I need to ask you.

There was a high-profile case many of us have been following of the Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai, obviously, who accused a former senior party official of sexual assault and then disappeared for weeks, reappearing, seemingly under duress.

The Women's Tennis Association suspended all tournament play in China in response to that and concerns over her well-being.

Do you think that the U.S. government would have taken the action it did today without the WTA taking that step first?

Victor Cha:

I think they took that step in support of the WTA.

This is a big decision by the WTA. It costs them a lot of money. But it shows that China cannot simply use their economic potential or their economic market as a way to run roughshod over human rights. The WTA showed they're not going to be in bed with the Chinese like the IOC have done, unfortunately, the International Olympic Committee, and Thomas Bach.

So, in that sense, I think it's a sign of support for the WTA's actions.

Amna Nawaz:

That is Victor Cha from the Center for Strategic and International Studies joining us tonight.

Thank you so much for your time.

Victor Cha:

Thank you.