posed by china from the center for new security. later, the human rights director, will talk about human rights abuses. all of that plus your calls, texts, tweets and facebook. washington journal, starts now. ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." one of the greatest spectacles of international sports is underway in china with the beginning of the winter olympics. the opening ceremonies are done in the first gold medal has been awarded. this comes with international intrigue with the chinese and russian leaders meeting in china in symbolic opposition to the united states. the u.s. is participating in the winter games while keeping political leaders at home in protest of china's human rights abuses. this as well as china's desire

to become the sole superpower is casting concerns over the games. our question to you this morning, are you concerned about china hosting the olympics? we are opening special lines. that means if you are concerned about china hosting the winter olympics, we want to hear from you at (202)-748-8000. if you are not concerned about china hosting the winter olympics, your number is (202)-748-8001. if you are unsure or have not made your mind up yet, your number is going to be (202)-748-8002. keep in mind you can always text as your answer at (202)-748-8003 and we are always reading on social media on facebook at facebook.com/c-span, on twitter @c-spanwj and always on instagram @c-spanwj.

the winter olympics has begun in china. the u.s. olympic athletes are there but going through a diplomatic boycott of the games because they are held in china. white house press secretary jen psaki in december came out to announce that boycott and explain why the u.s. is not participating politically in the beijing olympics. here is what jen psaki had to say. [video clip] >> the biden administration will not send representation to the beijing 2022 olympics and paralympic games given the genocide and crimes against humanity and other human rights abuses. the athletes on team usa have our full support. we will be behind the 100% as we cheer them on from home. we will not contribute to the fanfare of the games.

u.s. diplomatic or official representation would treat these games as business as usual in the face of the egregious human rights abuses. we simply cannot do that. as the president has told president xi standing up for human rights is in the dna of americans. we have a fundamental commitment to promoting human rights and we feel strongly in our position and will continue to take action . host: the conflict with china seems to have americans less interested in the winter olympics van they have been in previous olympics. there's a story in axios that points out the concern some americans have about having the winter olympics in beijing. i will read a couple of paragraphs. americans' concerns about the chinese governments human rights abuses, surveillance, and competitiveness, and fears of

another covid-19 outbreak, are driving down enthusiasm about this year's games according to a new poll. seven in 10 disapproved of allowing china to host the olympics but half plan to tune in anyhow. 7% say they are more enthusiastic about this year's games in 2018 games while 47% say they are less enthusiastic. fewer than half of americans say the olympics should go ahead while omicron is spreading while the rest say they should be postponed or canceled. six in 10 americans could not name a single athlete who is competing. snowboarder shaun white got the most mentions, 6%, from people who named athletes. another 1% mentioned simone biles who is not competing.

with the olympics going on in beijing right now the question is, should americans be concerned about the idea of the olympics going on in beijing? should we be supporting the american athletes who are there? or should americans be tuning out these olympics in beijing? there is a story in pew research that talks about what americans are thinking about the winter olympics and i want to bring that to you. the biden administration is moving ahead with the diplomatic way caught of the 2022 olympics citing china's treatment of the uighurs. shortly after the white house announced the boycott in december leaders in the united kingdom, canada, australia and japan announced their governments would also declined

to send high-level officials to beijing. with the 2022 olympics set to begin here's is a summary of recent survey data about americans' view of the boycott as well as how people in the u.s. and around the world see china more broadly. according to a recent survey, 45% of u.s. adults say they have not read or heard anything about the biden administration's plan for a boycott of the winter olympics. the same share say they read or heard little about the boycott and only 9% said they have read or heard a lot. despite the low profile among the american public the views of the boycott are positive. nearly half of americans approve of the decision to hold the diplomatic boycott of the winter olympics compared with 22% who disapprove. three in 10 americans are not sure. confidence in president joe biden's handling of relations

with china have fallen the last year. 39% of americans have confidence in biden's ability to deal effectively with china, down from 53% in early 2021. we want to know, are you watching the olympics? are you concerned about the fact china is hosting the olympics? let's look at what our social media followers are already saying about the idea that the beijing olympics have started. here is one from facebook that says, yes, we should not have gone. talking about whether we should be looking to china. here's another on facebook that says, it is ok for china to host the olympics and if other countries want to boycott the olympics because of china's inhumane treatment to the weaker

uighur muslims, they should not participate in the games. another says, it is an absolute disgrace. one facebook post says, i hit the chinese government so much i would boycott the winter olympics. they persecuted ethnic minorities. they threatened to start a war by invading taiwan. here's one more post that says, i am not concerned but angry. they do not deserve it. the world is cowardly after they spread through the world the biggest pandemic in our lifetime and they have a repressive and brutal government against their own people. we want to know what you think about china hosting the winter olympics. are you going to watch the winter olympics? do you plan to support the american athletes who decide to go to beijing for the winter olympics? we want to know what you think. before we get to your calls

house speaker nancy pelosi on friday came out and explained why she is telling u.s. athletes who went to china for the olympics not to speak out against china while they are there during the olympics. here's what how speaker pelosi had to say [video clip] >> the olympics opened this morning in beijing. we wish our athletes well. we salute the president for the diplomatic boycott that has been joined by other countries and the approach i support. i wish the athletes well. i do not encourage them to speak out against the chinese government because i fear for their safety if they do. i remove all doubt about why they should not speak out because i fear for their safety. host: let's go to the phone lines and see what you think

about china hosting the olympics. let's start with kelly calling from lumpkin, texas. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm fine, go ahead. caller: what i wanted to say is i don't think they should have went to the olympics. my whole concern of it all is number one, china wants to take over the united states. that is common sense if anybody has not realized it. look at the play they put on the whole world. i think it is a disgrace and this is all i'm going to say but nancy pelosi saying that, they should fear for their lives but there is also freedom of speech. i don't know. i am totally against it. i am not going to watch it and for all the people who sponsored it in the united states, shame on them. host: do you think in addition to the diplomatic boycott do you

think american athletes should have boycotted completely? caller: i think it is unfair to them because they have trained all their lives but with the situation we are in right now and everything that is happened, yeah, i think they should have boycotted. i am not going to watch it. host: do you think the government should have told the athletes not to go or do you think that was an individual decision for each athlete? caller: it is an individual decision just like me and you. i am not for them going but, you know, other than that i am not going to watch it. i think it is wrong. look at the play they put on the world. i just don't trust china. i don't. after everything that has happened i would not have sent them over there but it is their decision. i would be very frightened if it

was me to go over there. host: let's talk to curt calling from mount union, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: morning, how are you? host: i am doing great. how are you? caller: really good. host: what do you think about the winter olympics in china? caller: i don't see a problem with it. it is an athletic event, it is a sporting event. i don't think you should really boycott those types of events. it is about sports. it is about the athleticism of these individuals who have trained for years. as far as the diplomatic boycott, not really sure i agree with that as well because that is probably a good time when you can really engage and show your viewpoints and may be able to change minds. canceling things i don't think is the answer.

host: you have some people will argue sports and politics should be divorced. do you think that is the situation right now? politics should not be involved when it comes to sports? caller: absolutely. the history of the olympics was not political, it was to show the excellence of world athletes. and if you inject politics in, you kill the original idea. host: do you plan to watch the olympics and what sports are you most interested in in the winter olympics if you plan to watch? caller: i do watch it from time to time. i am not a big olympic watcher. i do like to watch the curling. the curling interested me and i like to watch some of the skiing events. in general, i am not a big watcher but i do watch from time to time. host: let's talk to eric calling

from washington, d.c. good morning. caller: good morning. my comment is how dare we question someone's human rights violations when we are one of the biggest culprits. you know, worry about what is going on in your country. we don't know if that came from some planned thing with china. it is amazing to me these people call and say that. one about the human rights violations in this country? they not saying boycott the olympics here. they put up their fist to fight for human rights for african-americans but it is amazing. we are so hypocritical of what we do in this country. they are driving down 295

looking at this and it is amazing. i got people in my family who i love. they should be saying something about human violations in your country. china is no different from any other country. host: you have some people including the previous caller who said politics have nothing to do with sports. the two should be divorced. i am taking it you disagree? caller: yeah because we always jumping on the bandwagon. that platform, you have to stand up for it. everyone should be treated equal. i don't care if you blue, green, orange or whatever. wrong is wrong, right is right. i don't condone what china does

to their people but who are we to judge another country when our backdoors shows the opposite? we do the same things here in this country. host: let's go to steve calling from schenectady, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. wonderful to talk to you. i wanted to say i am not sure it is an actual threat to the olympics in any way to be hosted in china, but i do understand the worry. because china has done a lot of things that are kind of, i guess, underhanded. that is not necessarily the right way to put it but that is the feeling i feel most people have. i can understand being an extreme worry but we have the olympic committee for that reason and i have to imagine if they are to be bought out, it has happened already. they are going into china.

host: do you plan to actually watch any of the olympics? did you watch the opening ceremony? caller: as much as most people do. host: did you watch the opening ceremony yesterday? caller:caller: i have not watch much of it. i have some of it recorded on the dvr. host: are there any particular sports that happened during the winter olympics to enjoy watching? caller: the luge is quite interesting to watch. that opening run is always interesting to see. that is what sets them through the whole thing. host: you are in schenectady one. of the more famous winter olympics happened at lake placid. do you consider yourself a fan of the olympics or is this another sporting event for you? caller: to me it is another sporting event. i am not interested in it personally.

i am not the kind of person who is going out in my life and watching much winter sports even though it is common. host: let's talk to jeff calling from woodridge, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. the two things are separate, olympics and politics. china for sure is one of the worst abusers of human rights in the world, especially against the uighurs. the olympics go on as they do normally. i support the speaker nancy pelosi in calling out this and safety for our athletes and i support our athletes. host: do you plan to watch any of the olympics or have you been watching so far with the opening ceremony? caller: yes. i have not watched the opening ceremonies but i will watch select events. host: which events are you looking forward to? caller: skiing. i like downhill skiing.

host: great. let's talk to glenn calling from lakeland, florida. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: as far as the winter olympics is concerned i am not that interested in it. every now and then i see what is on but i agree with the previous caller. right now it is hypocritical to sit here and say china is -- we want to protest against them. how can we do that as americans when we have problems we refuse to fix? it is not about what china does in their country. we cannot even come together to fix anything here so why is it a concern? because when the winter olympics -- nobody talked about it. we don't know the athletes. the government doesn't support them like other athletes and we are trying to say, don't look at it. we cannot even fix our own problems. we can't solve our own problems.

everybody needs to get off china's back because when they had the crisis in san diego where do you think that came from? it came from china. it is hard to say we want to be negative towards them but then again, we depend on them for everything. i don't understand with the problem is. you bring up all the stuff they do and we cannot fix one problem we got, not one. people need to look at it from that standpoint. don't worry about china. worry about what we can do here. host: glenn, while the games themselves may not be political the symbolism of the games could be considered political. we all know and people still talk about the u.s. hockey team beating russia at the olympic games and in the history book is jesse owen going to germany

and winning medals in front of adolf hitler. sometimes the games can be made political. is there any worry of china coming up with a symbol they say will show their superiority? caller: i am not worried about them because we cannot fix our own problems. if we can fix our own problems, maybe we can be concerned about somebody else. until we figure out what we need to do here to take care of racism, the brutality, and everything we do, we have as bad a rap as they do. host: maxine is calling from chicago. good morning. caller: can you hear me all good? host: i can. caller: i am not terribly concerned of china hosting the olympic games. like the previous caller said, we have to look at our own self and i think china, you know, they are going to be our enemy for the 21st century.

yesterday you spoke about russia and i think one of the callers was correct saying they are no longer the biggest problem. but if we are going to fight china, it is not at the olympics. i am going to watch the olympics for one thing. i have a personal friend who does skiing. host: let's go to george calling for minneapolis, minnesota. good morning. caller: good morning. i am concerned but i don't think we should restrict who gets to the olympics. this is just like world war ii with the nazis. they have the uighurs and the whole ethnic cleansing thing and that is what we need to look at. if you are watching the olympics, you are choosing to support a kind of racism we cannot even understand here in the united states. when you talk about ethnic cleansing. you should feel bad. host: what about the family and friends of the athletes who are

competing? would you tell them the same thing? that they should not support their family and friends in the olympics in beijing because it is in china? caller: i am family and friends of athletes at the olympics and they support not watching it. they are happy to go and compete but they are upset with the olympic for having it there. it is the equivalent of giving the olympics to prewar germany. we talk a lot about the prejudice here but i have been in china. you don't understand real prejudice. the things we get upset about here is nothing compared to other countries. people are put in internment camps, people being killed, people who call your show have no idea. host: you said you have been to china. tell us about your experience. when was this and where were you in china? caller: i was in beijing but i was outside beijing.

i had a certain invention i had to demonstrate and i did. we were very restricted. we could not photograph. i watched the attitude toward people in different regions. it is a different world and you cannot conceive it. i took a picture of an armored vehicle inside the square in the pictures off my phone before i got back to the hotel. people have no idea, no idea the strides that have been made here against prejudice compared to other places. host: let's go to teresa calling from hampton, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i am calling because i don't think we should even be showing what is happening in china at the olympics because of their human rights atrocities. and also, here in america we

have people sleeping on the streets in the cold and the american government putting illegal immigrants in hotels. america has a double standard period when it comes to black people. we need to clean up our house and we need to deal with internationals that are doing wrong. host: teresa, can we as americans ever criticize what is going on in another country considering the problems we have in our own country? or can we do both at the same time? can we fix our country and suggest other countries fix theirs? caller: i think we can do both at the same time. what we need to do is come clean about what we are doing here in america. helping people living on the street and get them in hotels instead of shelters.

we need to deal with china because china has been taking jobs from americans. they have been stealing mineral rights in africa. we need to deal with them and we need to deal with them effectively and not by sending our athletes over to play in the olympics. we need to take a grand. stand. we should have taken a grandstand and said no athletes are going. pay them what they were going to get anyway. host: on thursday house speaker nancy pelosi came out to talk about the u.s. working with china on some issues like climate while also condemning the country's human rights abuses. here's what house speaker nancy pelosi had to say. [video clip] >> i take second place to know one in my criticism of china when i first came to congress and i fought them every step of the way on trade issues, on

human rights issues, and on proliferation of weapons, web minari, and delivery systems. -- weaponry and delivery systems. i have worked with them on issues related to climate. i have been to china on that very subject where we have seen what they have done. they deserve credit for many things they are doing in terms of climate but they remain a major emitter. as do we end we all have to do better but we have made our decisions. it is in their interest. it is in their interest because they have a pollution problem that is a health issue and that becomes a political issue as well as an economic issue. we cannot say, we hope you will do something on climate that we can ignore the fact you are committing genocide of a population in your country. that is not going to happen.

and i will close with this and that is i have said it all the time. i have said it with the dalai lama standing right next to me. if we ignore human rights abuses in china because of commercial interest, then we lose all moral authority to talk about human rights any place in the world. what does it profit a person or country to gain commercially and suffer the loss of its soul? we cannot do that. host: let's see what social media followers are saying about whether they are concerned about china hosting the limits. here is one tweet that says, i will be watching every moment that i can. here is another tweet that says, the united states should have never sent athletes.

comparing china to the united states is ridiculous. the human rights violations and atrocities are horrendous. we should contribute 02 them. -- zero to them. another says, the winter games could be held in lillihammer. the summer games could permanently be in athens. this tweet says, i don't know a single person watching the olympics. one final tweet that says, in a perfect world sports should be above politics and bring us together in the spirit of fair competition. problem is this is not a perfect world. we want to know whether you are concerned about china hosting the olympics. let's talk to lawrence calling from new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm fine. go ahead.

caller: we are all complaining about the olympics but every goes to walmart every morning and that is china's company. how can that be an issue? host: do you think there should be a boycott of china? not only the china olympics but chinese goods as well? caller: you cannot have both. they have the worst human rights country in the world and then buy them aircraft carriers and complain about the olympics, let's look at the aircraft carriers what you say? host: do you think americans would pay higher prices for goods if there was a boycott of chinese made materials? caller: remember, they did this in the 1990's.

remember the extra money we are talking about is nine cents on the item. we try to justify it by saying it is better to pay less than eight cents than to build them supersonic rockets and aircraft carriers. it cannot be both. it can't be both. host: danny is calling from missouri. good morning. caller: morning. good morning. i wanted to say i think they are corrupt. people should not watch it. you don't know what they are going to do. it is not legal. [indiscernible] china should not be a place

considered to have the olympics anyway. [indiscernible] host: let's go to steve calling from webster, massachusetts. good morning. steve, are you there? caller: good morning, mr. jesse. i am here. can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: please bear with me. i just started chemotherapy this week but i think i am going to make it. regarding human rights, i believe people are presenting a false equivalency. we all grow by leaps and bounds but i believe george floyd riots would have never happened in china when you think about the square or the great leap forward in the 1950's where the chinese

killed 50 million of their own people. but we progress. i do nothing we should boycott. we always need to have a dialogue with them. that is the politics in the game. it has not always but it has been present. tom smith in mexico city, great moment for america. to the munich olympics where the palestinians killed jewish athletes to one of our greatest moments when we beat the soviets in the 1980 olympics. i had one more point that i cannot remember. host: do you think boycott do any good? do you think it affected anything by the u.s. deciding to do a diplomatic boycott for these games? caller: yes. i think it sends the message we

do not approve of what you are doing with the uighurs. and i will still put up the record on civil rights against the chinese any day. one more thing i wanted to point out, the joining of putin and xi in the olympics. it seems most of the diplomatic participants are going to be people from that steer. listening to the echo chambers that is what is going to happen. remember that the russians went into crimea pretty much after the sochi olympics. there is a lot of political volatility as you know going on in the world. that is life. you just can't say i am not going to talk to you, you are not going to talk to me. we still need a dialogue.

advance with trepidation but that is life. host: mara elizabeth cunningham is a historian of modern china and the co-author of " china in the 21st century: what everyone needs to know." she had a column in "the new york times" i want to redo you about the diplomatic boycott and how it affected the beijing olympics. here's what she said. the united states wanted to send a message with the diplomatic boycott over china's human rights abuses. few were foreign dignitaries and the absence of foreign spectators are not necessarily bad things in the eyes of beijing. in fact, communist party leaders likely exhaled a sigh of relief that they had an excuse to close off the games. foreign spectators might call unwanted attention to the repression of the uighurs and crackdown on freedoms in hong

kong. a full-scale boycott for example would have been harder for china to ignore. that comes from maura elizabeth cunningham, co-author of "china and the 21st century: what everyone needs to know." we want to know what you think about china hosting the olympics. are you concerned? richard is calling from durham, north carolina. good morning. caller: i wonder if you are aware two things the african-american community should seriously consider. that the chinese have listed 800 million of their people out of poverty and the chinese have defeated the west in two wars against enforcing drug addiction. are you aware of that? host: where are you getting that information from? caller: it is easy to find, my man, it is really easy to find.

the competition between china, the african-americans, and the united states is going to be fierce and we should be very conscious of what is going on. how many people do you think the united states is lifted out of poverty? they have made a profit off of poverty. they have made a profit off drug addiction. you need to get on the right track, my man. host: rose calling from oregon city, oregon. good morning. caller: morning. i am concerned about anything that enhances china's image in the world and i am absolutely against having the olympics there. i think it is deplorable that the olympic committee decided to place the olympics there.

host: should america have boycotted and refused to send any of the athletes? caller: i do not think that is fair to the athletes. it is just not fair to pit us against the athletes who spent their lives developing their skills. so, i just think the situation is wrong from the beginning. we should not have to make that kind of decision. we just should not be there. host: do you support president biden's decision not to send political leaders? caller: i do not think it is relevant. host: you do not think it is relevant? caller: and i am sure the chinese are not concerned whether political leaders, or not. host: john calling from north hills. caller: good morning.

how are you today? host: i'm great. go ahead. caller: i am not concerned in the slightest. if china's human rights violations were so egregious, why was the president's son and brother brokering million-dollar deals to the same communist party officials in china that are committing these offenses? if americans were more informed and allowed to read the evidence on hunter biden's laptop, they would be very suspicious of this man's motives. and we can see with the ukraine how hunter biden is there is well. journalists need to become journalists again rather than stay narrators and let the american people know the truth about this family. host: let's go to paul calling from palm desert, california. good morning.

caller: you have our president. host: liz calling from linden, new jersey. caller: i think we are boycotting the wrong country. we need to be boycotting the apartheid state of israel. the american propaganda always shifts its attention on countries that are competing economically against them. israel has been brutalizing palestinians for the past 100 years or more and we support them, we send them arms to continue to harass and abuse and murder and imprison the palestinian population, and there is nothing set on no networks. but somebody wants to boycott israel we passed legislation in each state to say you cannot do that and if you do, you cannot

receive funds from the government. we are the biggest hypocrites in the world when we have a country who is basically an apartheid state and ethnic cleansing of palestinians and other minorities. hello? host: an event held by the heritage foundation on monday, house foreign affairs committee ranking member michael mccaul spoke about china's human rights abuses and the u.s. diplomatic boycott of the olympic games. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> the olympics are supposed to be the most prestigious sporting event in the world, but the international olympic committee has stained the reputation by turning a blind eye to these atrocities and handing the ccp the honor of hosting the 2022 winter olympics. the world must wake up to the horrors of the human rights abuses.

as we speak over one million people in shin john province are held in camps, forced abortions, sterilization and even death. the ioc allowing what i am calling the genocide of the games is a stain on the olympics and i am disturbed these games will take place in the shadow of concentration camps. glorifying the ccp and normalizing their genocide is simply unacceptable and putting u.s. olympians in jeopardy as they travel to china is unacceptable. american athletes who have ever spoken out against the ccp or spoken out in the country could face up to life in prison. we cannot turn a blind eye to the ccp without preparing our

athletes for the dystopian reality of china. i supported the diplomatic boycott because it is a way to stand up for american values without punishing our athletes. we can root for team usa without giving the ccp a propaganda opportunity and victory to spread lies and whitewash of their crime. if our olympians speak out against the ccp's atrocities, the state department should ensure they are protected. and just as jesse owens showed adolf hitler the area nation was not superior i know our athletes will show the chinese we are going to take home the gold and we are going to take it back home to the united states. host: let's see what our social you followers are saying about whether they are concerned about china hosting the olympics. here is one tweet that says, biden did the right thing with the diplomatic boycott and not punish our athletes who have worked for a lifetime to

compete. another tweet says, no, not at all. i support the athletes competing. stay safe. another tweet that says, i am more concerned about the athletes than the country hosting the olympics. these athletes work hard in their training and the olympics is the highlight of their training. politics should be put aside for the short time as countries come together and celebrate these athletes. one final tweet that says, why should the location of the limbic smatter? see how politicizing everything screws everything up for everyone? it is supposed to be about the competition between athletes, or so i thought. we got away from that because world leaders cannot get along. we want to know what you think about china hosting the olympics. are you concerned? don calling from ohio. good morning. caller: i would like to know why

we even bother with it anymore because the athletes, you know, they have to be drug tested and everything else and we pay for it. my question is, how much does it cost to taxpayers to put this on when the government is talking about equality? if equality means we should not be over there to be anybody, why did we give china $25 million? host: let's talk to laura calling from hampton, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to go back. i am always fearful for whatever. i have worked in various countries but what i feared mostly in china was the white american that was so negative toward the black from america.

from the famous words of martin luther king jr., injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. directly or indirectly and i am not watching the olympics because my infamous skater vanessa james and her partner are not participating because of what we are talking about today. host: let's go to al calling from the virgin islands. good morning. caller: it is sal. good morning. i competed in the 1972 olympics and shooting and qualified in moscow in 1980 and jimmy carter, the president, boycotted it because the invasion of afghanistan. in 1984 there were signs the eastern countries boycotted our olympics so the best were not there.

the best should be there. everybody should be there. i agree in the political boycott we are doing from our government representatives but they should not punish the athletes. it should always be about the athletes. we work very hard many years and we should not be punished. host: did you ever get the chance to compete in the olympics or was 1980 your only shot? >> 1972 in munich i competed. host: between 1972 and 1980 did you get to compete again? >> i did not qualify in 1976 which was in canada and i barely missed it by a couple of points. i could have qualified. qualify the next week but it was too late to go. i did not go in 1976. i qualified for 1980. i could not qualify by 1984 because my eyesight started to go. host: how did you do in the

olympics you qualified for? >> shooting, now everybody is a professional. back then it was really a sport of amateurs. but in shooting, shooting is mostly done by country's armies or navies. in georgia, they mostly represented the olympics. everything is paid for. your ammunition, you're traveling, your coaching, your uniform, we have to pay for everything. i do ok. it is the u.s. virgin islands i am talking about and i do welfare but i cannot train every day when i have to work for a

living. host: as an athlete and former elliptic athlete do you ever think there should be any boycott of the olympics no matter what country they are being held in? >> look what happened in 1980 and 1984. that is a perfect example of the best not being there. if the best is not there, they are not considered the olympics. you want to be an olympian who won over everybody not just, oh, well, the americans were not there or the russians were not there. that is not fair to the athlete. the best should be there. host: steve calling from bangor, maine. caller: good morning. how about the guy that was in the 1972? the reason i am very concerned, however, we are the issue.

i challenge anybody out there who is listening to look in your car, look in your cupboards. is there anything in there that is not made from china? we make a decision to keep china going and like many people have said i think the athletes are nonpolitical. if there is any athlete who does not believe in what is going on in china, they can stay home. that is the thing. we want someone else to make the decision for us. we want the president, for example, to boycott it. well, we all have a choice and we make that choice. the reason china is so powerful is because we want to buy those things at those prices and that is the bottom line. i mean, we had an olympics where we stole -- and we gave them back -- the medals for the who

was it? they raised their fists in protest of our own country. we want our cake and eat it too. we want to claim we are so outraged at what is going on in china but we still want to go to the grocery store or the big-box store and buy those things from china. host: let's go to matt calling from maryland. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to point out -- i agree with the gentleman who just spoke. i think he was right on the mark. but i want to point out, i just wonder why c-span gives them so much airtime, the heritage foundation. they have got to be one of the most racist and brutally capitalist organizations.

i don't know. we listen to them too much because they are, like i say, what can i tell you? host: kurt calling from indianapolis, indiana. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i don't have a problem with the chinese hosting the games. my problem is how does america callout china on its human rights abuses when america is the biggest human rights abuse the world has ever seen? you and i are black folks. our ancestors were beaten, raped, murdered for fun and they are still murdering black people in the streets for no reason. america is the biggest hypocrite in the world. how can they say something about

the uighurs when we support what israel does to the palestinians and our own genocide in this country of the american indian lasted until 1925? how does america justify that? by the way, jesse owens went to the munich games and when he came home he was still that word, was he not? host: eric calling from clive, iowa. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for all your work at c-span and "washington journal." i like the calls i have been hearing. making a comparison to the 1936 olympics and i know not every historical example is perfect but in that example we had adolf hitler sitting in the seats. in retrospect it is my understanding america likes to use that as an example of how

our way of living had produced better athletes or a more ideal country then hitler's. outspoken, racist, fascist kind of designs for germany and i don't know if we had boycotted the 1936 olympics whether or not that made a statement that would affect how things developed in europe. i agree with the caller who was a couple of callers ago. if we want to callout china for things, we have to do it with our lifestyle choices, with how we support them. i think if anything the olympics is an example to show awful and us great versus china. that is the only point i had to make. host: scotty calling from eden, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i think all the people have said is really true what they have said.

ain't it the same thing with what adolf hitler was doing in the 1940's what china is doing the same thing? i am just wondering maybe someday -- what my point is, i am just trying to understand all of this. i think we need to boycott china because of the human abuses what is going on right now. what is more important, life or sports? host: oregon democratic senator jeff merkley on monday came to the senate floor to talk about china and say that the perpetrators of human rights abuses should never again be allowed to host real epic games. here is what senator merkley had to say. [video clip] >> as it skiers raced down the

slope, the provinces will still be locked up for defending their culture. as athlete after athlete climbs the podium to have beautiful bronze, silver, gold medals around their necks, people will go on languishing in prison cells. that is the backdrop of this year's beijing olympic games. human rights abuses, genocide, the destruction of freedom and democracy, and we cannot allow that to be ignored or overshadowed. we cannot allow for that to be gone and forgotten in the glitz and glamour of olympic gold. we cannot let these names and these faces and countless,

countless others who have faced the same be lost in the shadows of the flames of the olympic torch. the world must join together to say to the international olympic committee never again the perpetrators of human rights abuses be allowed to host a treasured event like the olympic games. never again can the athletes of the world ask to be conspirators in the glitz and glamour of covering up genocide. and for all of us, we need to remind the world throughout these games of what is going on in china. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to ed calling from ocean city, new jersey. good morning. caller: yes, ed o'donnell. if we engage all people and all nations in a loving, forgiving

way, they will become more merciful and more humane. in other words, the quaker approach is the right approach. host: ok. we would like to thank all of our callers for calling in for the first segment. coming up next, or caddis mercatus center's weifeng zhong. later jacob stokes at the new american security will hear to discuss national security threats to the united states. stick with us. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> next week on the c-span networks, the house and senate are both in session. the house takes up legislation to avert a shutdown. the senate will follow suit on that bill. the upper chamber continue work

on president biden's judicial and executive nominations. on c-span3 the armed services committee holds a confirmation hearing for the lieutenant general to be the general of the u.s. central command. at 10:00 a.m. eastern u.s. surgeon general testifies before the senate finance committee on shortfalls and mental health care for children and teenagers in america. on wednesday at 10:00 eastern on c-span3, the senate commerce committee holds a hearing for the head of the federal communications commission. also on wednesday on c-span.org and on the video app, the chair of the commodity futures trading commission testifies before the senate agriculture committee to discuss what the agency needs to crackdown on abuses in cryptocurrency marquez -- markets. watch not -- watch next week.

also head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live and on-demand demand at any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> " washington journal" continues. host: we are back with way fangs

along we -- weifang zhong. thank you for being here. now, we know that the united states and china are two of the world's superpowers. what is the best way we can measure the economic competition between the u.s. and china today? guest: that is a great question and i think that is the question that will be confronting policymakers for years to come. in my view, this question gets to the core of the u.s.-china relations which is that we are facing this challenge in the united states about how to continue to keep china engaged in the free world, in the world, all not compromising our values, because that is the problem that we have after 20 years since china's accession to the wto. we have seen the economy rise,

but we have also seen a lot of unwanted authoritarian influence that the china has in the united states and among allies. how to confront that problem while preserving are economical and political freedom at home is the biggest challenge and how well we do not respect will be determining the success of u.s.-china competition. host: should we be looking at imports and exports to measure how united states is doing against china economically? guest: that is a great example because it talks to the good import from china that may have been made with forced labor. that is driving conversations about why we should diplomat -- boycott the olympic games, because that was seen as a way to counter china's human rights abuses.

if you go to walmart or pick up a cheap god made up china, chances are it might be -- a cheap good made in china chances are it is made with forced labor because there is no way to check where it was made from. that is the information problem we have because we have imported goods from china which have been good for u.s. consumers and for u.s. businesses but realizes that -- but we realize that that compromises our values because if we knew it had been made with forced labor we would not have consumed as many goods. that is the challenge from the import-export area. host: what about manufacturing capacity? anecdotally we hear people saying all the time that nothing is actually made in the united states anymore, we are exporting things from other countries, particularly to china that is

manufactured there and sold here. does not show where we are when it comes economically against china? guest: now we have seen a lot of goods made in china but that does not necessarily mean that it is not good for the u.s. economy because the u.s. economy has advanced, if you look at what happened decades ago versus what is happening now. the u.s. is not manufacturing a lot of goods, and one of the areas is the semi can dr. -- semi conductor industry. as a science and technology advances, the u.s. advantage has moved from making semi conductor chips to designing them and dividing more -- designing more people danced -- advanced champs and we have moved it to other countries and regions like if you think taiwan and south korea, they are good chip manufacturers. what ended up in terms of the

market of specialization, american companies are designing them and then the taiwanese semi conductor manufacturing company makes the championship setback. -- the champs and sends it back. the semi conductor industry is facing challenges but that does not mean we move manufacturing jobs back to united states. we should not be taking about what we did decades ago in terms of making the champs because it is not cost effective or efficient. so countering china will involve a lot of these problems where you make everything at home, that is maybe a way to build up interference with china but that will hurt our freedom as well. host: here are some specific -- statistics speaking of the semi conductor industry, these are sobering. in 1990, the u.s. share of global semi conductor

manufacturing was at 37%. last year, it had dropped to 12%. that is according to the semi conductor industry association. now, not me ask your opinion of this. who is winning the competition between united states and china economically? guest: now, i think the united states in terms of economic power is still dominating china. but the trend is what concerns me. if you look at current proposed policies and how to counter china, i see a lot of warning signs because many times politicians -- oftentimes policymakers will come up with solutions that are basically saying that in order to compete with china we need to be more like china. i am not going to even mention the forced labor issue here. being more like china does not

mean that we will be better competing. but the proposals in congress, lawmakers are coming up with ways to make us manufacture like semiconductor chips at home and a lot of protectionist measures that are basically asking the government to be more involved in the economy because that is what china has been doing. china has been doing pretty well. if you ask how well can the government do while messing with the economy, china has done well. but is -- but that is not the recipe for success for america and that is what concerns me because policymakers are thinking about asking the government to be more involved and that will hurt american competitiveness. host: i want to stick to that point for my next question, but before we get to that next question i want to remind our viewers that they can take part

in this conversation. we are going to open up our regular lines, that means that republicans can call in at 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. keep in mind that you can always text us at 202-748-8003. and, we are always reading on social media on twitter at c-spanwj and facebook.com/c-span. now, getting back to what you just said, comparing the economies of china and the united states is almost like comparing apples and oranges because of the two different forms of government. what advantages and disadvantages does china have because of its state directed economic policies? guest: the model of success for china's economy for decades has

been basically stealing its way up in terms of the value chain in terms of manufacturing. china has succeeded -- i grew up in an environment, in china, and when i was growing up in china, when i went to school, all we learned is that the west is the best, and so the focus has always been to learn from the best, even textbooks in universities and high school, sometimes, and they are basically photocopies of textbooks heavily used in u.s. and american campuses. obviously, in violation of copyright. but the education system in china has been focused on trying to learn from the best and steal from the best. when you have a target to hit, meaning you have something to imitate, using government to intervene in the economy sometimes might work well because you can coordinate resources when you know what you learn and steal from, but the

u.s. economy is already on the frontiers -- in terms of science and technology. there is nobody else on the frontier to steal a lot from and catch up with. so, when you were already on the frontier the model needs to be different. we need a freer environment for enterprises and individuals to thrive and innovate without asking government permission. my colleague at the mercatus center calls it permissionless innovation. we do not have to ask for permission to innovate, but in china you do to have direction. that is the core difference driving the different models. host: congress is currently debating a bill called -- currently debating a bill. let us see what this does and i

want you to respond to what this bill claims that it will do for our competition with china. under that competes act, there would be 5.2 billion aimed towards u.s. semiconductor manufacturing. funding for science research, and funding to help the domestic supply chain. it would prevent u.s. foreign -- firms from offshore in production to adversarial nations such as russia and china and expand the trade adjustment assistance program which can -- which provides aid to american workers who lose jobs or whose wages are reduced as a result of increased imports. tell us what you think about the act, is not something that congress should be doing? guest: that proposed policy contains many things, because the bill itself is almost 3000 pages and asking the government to fund hundreds of billions of dollars in the private sector.

so there are too many things to comment on. but when it gets to china among the other things we mentioned, funding the semiconductor sector to may have the manufacturing back home, i think it is a misguided policy, because if you ask the private semiconductor companies what they are thinking, everybody knows that we need to diversify in terms of supply chains away from china, but that does not imply that we need to bring things all the way back home. you can have the manufacturing done somewhere else that is close in terms of security, countries like japan, south korea, or taiwan that are more allies to the united states than adversaries or competitors like china. but that does not mean you need to bring those companies home and bring those manufacturing jobs home. another example is also what is called the regional innovation hub which is like what china

does because the chinese government has been so used to pointing fingers and saying we need to make that and this and we should do certain jobs here and there. and so, that is where the imitation comes in, and it is trying to imitate china's strategy and i get back to the question on whether we are on the same model and the answer is no. host: there are lawmakers who were on both sides of compete act. i want you to react to some of their praise and criticism. let us start with representative tim ryan who on wednesday came out to the house floor to support the competes act, and the economic competition with china. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> quite frankly i am stunned to hear some of the rhetoric coming from the other side around a bill that finally, after decades recognize is that we are in a

very staff competition s -- stiff competition with china and for a lot of time america did not know it. china was in this competition and doing everything that they could to dump steel in our country, spending seven to 9% on infrastructure every year they have islands in the south china sea, they told us that they were not military -- that they would not militarize them and now they have. they have bases in africa and long-term raw material contracts to celebrity -- solidify their control of precious metals. so that our phones, weapon systems and computers, they have a plan. this is not complicated. it is being seen through the prism of our current broken, and sane political system. and so, what we are trying to do

here is recognize that they are winning. 70% of ship manufacturing comes out of china. the cargo ships along the california ports, those are not coming from kansas. they are coming from china. over 50% of the electric vehicle market is dominated by china. and so, the thoughtful thing, the smart, strategic thing for us to do in the united states is recognized this, and make sure that we reinvest back into the united states. [end video clip] host: i want you to respond to what representative ryan said. guest: one misguided view in my opinion is that when we have goods manufactured from another country or in another country does not necessarily mean that

that is to our disadvantage. if you look at all industry a lot of americans are buying japanese made cars and that does not necessarily mean that it is a problem. in fact in the u.s. people used to have the same fear when the japanese economy was rising. i do not see the fact that the chinese economy rising per se is a problem. it is a problem because when we engage with china in terms of the economic relations, we are simultaneously compromising our values, and that is where the problem is. when we buy a t-shirt from walmart made in china, that t-shirt is going to be cheap and that is not a problem. the problem is that it might be made with forced labor and we have not seen policy that has tried to, so far, to deal with the problem. so, i agree with what the lawmaker just said that we have this problem, because we do not

have a plants and the chinese have a plan. that does not necessarily that we need the planet congress comes up with. we need to agree with that 100% because sometimes the policies are not achieving the goals they said that they wanted. host: let us let some of our viewers take part. we will start with bob from oxford, pennsylvania on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. i enjoy it very much. sometimes i wish you would have an opportunity to talk about the trade bills with china and they had few concerns about slave labor and all of the china -- the problems they had. they had no problem moving

things over there and putting our people out of work. i remember when our community walked to work, and now it is all about the money, and i wish you would say when you talk about the manufacturing coming from china, let us know, is that a chinese company, or is it an american company that moved out of here to go there so that they could get the slave labor and they gave them everything they wanted so that they could have the cheap labor, and now all of a sudden china does not need us anymore because they got our money, and that is what they are using. we are own worst enemies. we sent things over there and sure, you can have a dollar store, with a bunch of junk in it. we used to manufacture good products and now everything that you buy from china is a throwaway product. host: do we -- what type -- what

has it meant for us that so many u.s. companies are liens on china has that caller was saying? guest: i think that is one side of the phenomenon because as the chinese economy is integrated into the global community, that is what has happened in the past 20 years, especially since china joined the wto. we have seen in the u.s. markets more and more goods made in china. if you look at the chinese market, and things in china we have seen a lot of elements, goods and services coming from the western world as well. if you look at the opening ceremony that just happened in beijing, and if you listen to the tunes, a lot of them were western music. so china and the rest of the world as they get more integrated, we would see more elements on the others, whatever country we are looking at.

that per se is not a problem. i have a lot a concern about the policies to resolve this problem because they seem to suggest that we need to isolate and alienate each other and close our economy even more in trade, if you look back in the past few years we have this tariff war with china. has it achieved anything? that was a policy intention if you look a few years ago, we had this deal with china and by hypothesis -- the hypothesis was that if we had this economic pressure perhaps china would change unfair trade practices or change behavior in general. we tried to do that, even though it hurt american businesses and consumers every single day for the past two years. has it achieved the goal? it has not. i do not think we should continue this kind of policy that hurts us without achieving

our goals, and any policy that tries to close ourselves up would have the same effects. host: pat from keyport, new jersey on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, my question for you is that you say we should not necessarily move all of these jobs back to the u.s.. so, if we shut ourselves off from manufacturing and limiter -- and limit ourselves, are we hampering our own advancement? thank you. guest: that is a great question. i think moving all the manufacturing jobs, let us just sit take with the semiconductor industry. you say let us move all of the manufacturing back so he asked companies like intel to make all

these chips from design to physically making them, that will actually hurt our competitiveness because that is not what the market has found out to be the most effective way of innovation. and, it is correct that if you look at the shares of semiconductor chips now made in the u.s., it has been declining for years. that is true. it is declining because the share of chips designed in the united states have drastically increased in the past few decades. and that is where the industrial -- the specialized station happens because it is a division of labor in a sense when u.s. companies have been good with coming up with new designs on chips that make the devices that are so small and yet they can do many jobs. and perform many new tasks. and that is because of the advancement of making smaller

and smaller chips that can run fast. that is to the credit of designing. and so, if you ask your company's have to also be physically making those chips, i think that would hope that hurt though -- there focus in terms of designing more chaps. host: rob from buie, maryland on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to chime in this morning and just say i listens to the gentleman and it is good to have us design something but not manufacture something. and so, this is what i want to say. does the correlation between the quality of education, and these jobs in the manufacturing going offshore, going to china. now what we have is that we just have a daycare center and public

schools where we just are warehousing kids. we do not teach them high level math and science, and so there is no reward. yes, i am saying and what i am hitting around, let us design and bring the manufacturing back, and i'm thinking -- and some the right now is thinking, i can start a chip manufacturing company, do it. do it and do it in america. and bring back american-made products. host: go ahead and respond. guest: i think the caller pointed out a very important question which is the education policy, and something that i think the american people have focused not as much on or they have had a more heated debate in washington. and i think that is unfortunate because in the end, the reason we have all of these secondary problems often times i come down

to the education system and whether we are educating our next generation in the right way. i am not education policy expert so i would defer that to others who are. if you think about campuses now, not only in high school but especially in a university, we have seen that when it comes to china a lot of inference -- interference as well. that is the problem when we have engagement with china. one thing that people talked about was the confucius institutes, over 100 of them across the u.s. in on different campuses and often times that his education engagement with china. oftentimes we have seen examples where they are putting pressure on the host universities to stand down on the human rights issues. and that has been happening for years. they put pressure on campuses so they do not speak about hong

kong and the uighur forced labor issue. and those are concerning because we do not want to have an engagement in china while compromising our values, so i think there is a lot to be discussed in a lot of discussion to be had in terms of the education policies in the united states. host: greg from parker heights, texas on the grid -- on the democrat line. caller: good morning, i am so glad that you give us time, we need to give these people time to speak and what they have to say is as much as important as what is going on in america. i minute -- let me explain some stuff to you. do you know what the belt road means in china? explain what it means. my point is what is going on in china, china got connected with the belt road and in africa, china went over there and made a

deal with africa that we were going to build and finance your country and then they went in there and took those people's countries. they financed crooked politicians and they financed those people and now they own the country and took that country. they are doing it in mexico, they are going through every country and seizing it by building. they are bringing their own construction and their own equipment in their own tools and it has to do with the belt road. it has a history thing that is going on in the united states is not china focus. the china sold all of the steel over there for cheap labor and hurt the american see -- citizen. the chip factories in austin check -- texas and the chinese own it. they do not employed -- they did not employ american people and the belt road has a lot to do with this. shut china down and i got them a new president and they may

renegotiate the pricing. host: go ahead and respond to him. guest: i share the concern that the caller has and one way i think -- one way to understand the belt and love -- the belt and love -- the belton road initiative is china's program of doing infrastructure building in other countries by investing in them. and so, that one easy way to understand that is oftentimes the bill is -- the deal is if you do not take the road that we will deal with you, you will take the belt. that is the co-we are shown -- coercion on other countries and we do not have that engagement with china. china has been doing that for a lot of developing countries. annette has a lot to do with the trade-off that i started off at

with the very beginning, because if you look at any country in terms of engagement with china, when you engage with china economically you have benefit but oftentimes that becomes a leverage by beijing and beijing has been known for using this leverage and a lot of developing countries, and the reason that we see that in africa who are happily taking news deals because their calculation between economic benefits and not compromising their values are different than in the united states. then that is the problem because i do not think the problem in the u.s. is because we do not have enough highways. the problem in the u.s. is because we are sacrificing our values and economic engagement. so diagnosing that wrong will lead to a wrong solution. host: one of the things we talked about briefly during our conversation is the fact that china has been known to use forced labor to build materials

and products to ship over to the united states. we know which u.s. imports are mainly made with forced labor? guest: that is a hard question to answer, but what you pointed out is that the scale is very concerning. a good way to understand that, let me ask you, like in a typical holiday gathering for your family, what is the most number of families and friends that you will see in a thanksgiving gathering before covid? host: i have a big family so let us guess somewhere around 10 to 12 people. guest: 10 to 12 people, so if a uighur family were to hold a family gathering like that about one or two of their family members would be missing because they are in concentration or labor camps.

that is how widespread of concern the problem is. what makes policymaking really hard is that forced labor, they do not really just exist in that region. and a bill that just became lost year, the uighur forced labor prevention act, the goal of that act passed by congress and signed by the president was to ban imports to assume that you are -- if you're coming from that province, you are probably made with forced labor. importers can read about that because they say if we prove it is not really made with forced labor then they can be imported into the united states, but that does not solve all the problems because a lot of forced laborers were transferred somewhere else, so they ended up working in factories out of that region.

so those would not be put under the presumption of being made with forced labor. there are a lot of complications when it comes to forced labor because it is so widespread. and we do not have good information. and the reason you do not know is that oftentimes even the u.s. company could not really figure it out because you would read about the audits inground in china to figure out all of the connections and all of the pointing's of the supply chain whether anyone has employed forced labor. and that is something very hard to find out, even if you want to, the chinese authorities might not allow you to do a good audit. host: let us talk to ron from wilmington, illinois on the independent line. good morning. caller: hello, could you address the influence that corporate america has side -- has had on

tax policy in the united states by contributing to different politicians in conjunction with competitive advantage to export jobs. thank you. guest: i am not a tax policy expert, and i would rather not comment on how companies lobby lawmakers because that is not where my work is focused. but i do recognize even in the issues that we talked about, many of them have businesses in china and many are sponsoring the olympic games. the problem about that is that it is unacceptable for the american public, for us that american corporations are turning a blind eye on the forced labor issue.

in the end the problem comes to us meeting individual consumers, whether we are aware or care about this enough to take action. host: is the chinese government or companies spending money to lobby the u.s. government on economic competition areas? guest: china has been known for starting to try and influence policymaking in washington, they are not very good at it because they are not very experienced. if you look at washington, d.c. or all of the offices are, in terms of lobbying efforts by other countries like japan, they have interest in terms of trying to influence policymaking as well, that they have been doing it longer than china, so china is relatively green in that area, but we have seen china not want in some just wanting certain bills to pass such as a uighur forced labor bill.

passing that would hurt chinese exporters and they have been known to having tried to prevent that bill from becoming law, and fortunately some -- some version of it was law and now the problem is how do you implement it. how why do you want to ban chinese goods? it is a problem that the department of homeland security is coming up with a list. host: let us talk to chris from san francisco, california on the republican line. caller: hello, i think that one of the problems that mr. zhong plans comes from that as an economist and he mentioned that the market has found that producing goods in china is better than and more efficient than producing in america. i think he does not look at the whole big picture because when we manufacture in america we are jobs to our country and we have

more people working and people who do not have a college education can work in manufacturing jobs. host: i think we lost chris. can you go ahead and respond. guest: absolutely. one thing to correct is that i do not come from a communist china because i grew up in the air in china where the economic reform had already started, which is something that began in the late 1970's. so, that actually speaks a lot to the problem that we are facing because we are not facing a soviet style communist china because if that was a case the solution would be easier. back in the day it was easier for the u.s. to actually alienate or have a cold war competition with the soviet

union because the soviet union was much less integrated into the world than china is today. and that is the problem because we did not used to have this big trade-off to contemplate on the economic benefit of engaging with the soviet economy. it was much less of an economic benefit for americans when it comes to engaging with china. host: steve from freeland, maryland on the democrat line. good morning. caller: we all know the legislative branch of our government is bought and paid for. and it is so dysfunctional, it is going to destroy the nation -- the greatest nation ever by bankrupting us. outsourcing and off shoring passed by the legislative branch 30 years ago signed into law by president clinton has proven to be a horrible policy, causing this country the ability to manufacture anything. because it brought that to the

forefront. we no longer make anything in this country, so let us be honest. if you think the legislative branch is going to fix this in any way, you do not watch enough c-span to see the days that they are in session anymore. in reference to the new roads initiatives or the belt or the road initiative is similar to the cartels that say take the silver, or we will go in. when you have a country that is not able to get basics like toilet paper and paper towels because you have become so dependent on another country to manufacture things, that does not put us in a good position when it comes to our national security. host: go ahead and respond. guest: one thing i will say quickly is that, fortunately, a

great toilet paper crisis of 2020 has seemed to have passed, and probably the grocery store crisis will pass soon and that is the magic of market mechanisms. that is the benefit of keeping china engaged in the world, we have ignored some of it because oftentimes we do not contemplate what would've happened if we had not engaged with china. we buy iphones or other smartphones at a price mostly below $1000. if you have to make all those smartphones at home, including making the chipset home, they would be much more expensive. and we do not think about that because we just look at what we have now and we do not really contemplate what our lives would be without this efficient market system. i grew up in a country, like i said, where a lot of things were made at home and made by state

owned enterprises in china and they were hugely inefficient. i do not see any reason why united states should try and imitate any element of that. host: wayne from olympia, washington on the independent line. good morning. caller: hello, how are you. host: great. go ahead. caller: it is pretty simple, i just think that the youth or a little bit older than the youth are lazy, and that is about it. you have a whole lot of people sitting around and they are lazy. everywhere i go, you cannot get them to work. and, in between that and not educated, that is a bad combination. and i hate to say that about america's youth.

but that is life. guest: thank you. i have a very different view of lazy and has. i think there is a lot of virtue to laziness that we do not realize because oftentimes a lot of innovation people -- are coming out of the desire to be lazy or not to do a lot of work. thanks about elevators and how often you would have to walk the stairs. now we can use machines to do a lot of things that we do not have to do, and that is oftentimes what is driving innovation. host: we would like to thank weifeng zhong who is a senior research fellow at the marquis de sade to her at george mason -- merck kata center -- mercatus center at george mason university. thank you for being here this

morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: coming up jacob stokes a fellow at the center for a new american security will discuss chinese national security threats to the united states. later, minky worden will join us to discuss the issue of chinese human rights abuses. ♪ >> book tv every sunday on c-span2 feet years leading authors discussing their latest books. at noon on in-depth, we will have a guest life taking your calls and discussing race relations and inequality. her many books include "the failures of integration," and " white space, black hood."

on after words, row shares his book "dignity in a digital age." where he looks at the digital divide in america and offers suggestions to close the gap. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. ♪ >> exploring the people and events that tell the american story on american history tv. on "the presidency" the 60th anniversary gala with caroline kennedy and jill biden reflecting on the work of jacqueline kennedy for founding the association. on lectures incited -- on lectures in history, joseph riley and carrie taylor talk about why a new african-american

history museum is being built in the city joined by the former south carolina congressman and the author of "my vanishing country." exploring the american story every weekend and find a full schedule and watch online anytime at c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with jacob stokes who is a fellow in the indo's post -- indo pacific security program at the center for a new american security to discuss national security threats to the united states. in morning. guest: good morning and thank you for having me. host: let us set the stage for the conversation. how would you describe the biden administration's china policy right now? guest: i think the best shorthand for the bided -- the biden administration's china

policy can be described as competitive coexistence in that order. let me go through with what is entailed with each of those. starting with competition, competitive, it is a recognition that china is less of a partner and more of a geopolitical and strategic competitor on the world stage, and that the challenge from china is multifaceted, it spans diplomacy, military affairs, technology, economics, and also values. it is a recognition that china's rise has reached a certain point where it is really starting to challenge american values and interests and the rules-based global order, not just in east asia or in the indo pacific or increasingly around the world. then there is the second word, coexistence which is a recognition of two things, one that china is large and powerful, and that conflict with

china would be a negative, not only for the united states, but also china and the world, and avoiding such a conflict is an important goal, but also that finding ways and we need to find ways to work with china in the context of cooperation with a number of different countries to advance common issues like preventing climate change, global economic stability and security with a pandemic. it is an attempt to balance those two things but it starts with the recognition that china is a major competitor for the united states, and that we need to strengthen not only our domestic bases of power, but also our alliances and partnerships around the world to be able to compete with china over time. host: you said that china is one of our major competitors, would you say that china is our greatest competitor on the world

stage? guest: absolutely. we have seen that from the biden administration officials as well. the term that is used often by the defense department is the pacing threat, which means it is the threat that is in front of all the others when we are thinking about challenges to u.s. national security, also global stability and democratic values around the world. we learned this week that president biden is going to make several stops in asia this spring. which will be his first visit as president to the region. from your perspective, what does he need to do, and what does he need to say to assure our allies and keep us in this competition with china while he is in the region? guest: sure. this is set out to be an important trip for president biden going to asia.

he has set to go to japan for a meeting of democratic partners, big and powerful countries in asia including united states, india, japan, and australia. and they have served as a leading group for supporting the rules-based international order and regional order in asia, and the biden administration has done a good job of sustaining and improving that group. they held the verge for -- the first virtual leaders summits of that grouping and the first in person leaders summit hosted last year. this is a continuation and deepening of that relationship over time. in addition, what is important about them is that it is not a grouping designed to be against china, but to answer what we are hearing from allies, partners,

and other countries is that they want an affirmative vision which they mean -- they mean they want to know what we are working for. they want maritime security, vaccine distribution, supply chain security, things like that that show that the u.s. and close partners can be for and how to provide alternatives to chinese options. in addition we do not know the full list of countries where president biden will stop on his trip. it is likely that we will see some stops in south korea as we think about the threat from north korea, but also that is one of our most important alliances in the region, and it is possible that they will either stop potentially in china or in a country in southeast asia, it ultimately it is about offering an affirmative version for the reason -- version -- vision for the region and that

the united states president is committed. host: let me remind our viewers that they can take part in the conversation. we will open up regular lines meaning that republicans, your number will be 202-748-8001. democrats, you can call 202-748-8000. independents, your line is 202-748-8002. keep in mind that you can always text 202-748-8002 -- 202-748-8003 and we are always reading on social media at twitter at c-spanwj and facebook.com/c-span. you said we do not know which countries exactly that president biden will visit while in asia, is there any chance that he would visit taiwan, because we know that the tensions between taiwan and mainland china, we can also see a similar pattern but between the tensions going on between ukraine and russia right now. guest: yes.

i think there have been parallels drawn on the issue on whether president biden will visit taiwan. i think it is unlikely. we have not seen u.s. officials visit taiwan at the presidential level or really above the ministerial level or cabinet minister level. cabinet member level. and that has been a long-standing practice that goes back to the normalization of ties with china and de recognition of taiwan. ultimately our taiwan policy is about maintaining a status quo. for president biden to visit taiwan would be a major shift in the status quo, and not really consistent with the policy. as for the impact of potential with ukraine situation on taiwan, i think there are

several angles to consider when thinking about how china might view the situation in ukraine. you know, president she -- xi will be watching the response of the united states and other allies like japan. president xi can draw two opposing conclusions and we will have to be analytically cautious about assuming we know which one he will pick. on the one hand he could conclude that the u.s. and allies' inability to prevent a russian invasion if that comes to pass means the same would hold true for taiwan. on the other hand, he could conclude that a major u.s. and allied response to russia over ukraine might pin down the united states and europe and reduce the attention and resources that washington can devote to east asia and make taiwan more vulnerable. we do not really know how xi

jinping will interpret the situation. ultimately the situation in ukraine is one of many factors that he would have to weigh about using force against taiwan and local factors in east asia including the military balance and political situation in taipei and beijing are more likely to be much more can -- much more important considerations than in europe. host: earlier we were talking about china and the olympic games. from a diplomatic standpoint, what is president xi's goal? guest: president xi's goal is really to show that china is a major advance power in the world, and that it is really an attractive -- china has an attractive and sex -- successful governance model. i think that has ultimately been undermined in part by the united

states led diplomatic boycott where athletes go, but senior u.s. officials do not, which really deprives beijing of the political pageantry that they would get of having the u.s. and other allied leaders flocking to beijing to watch the olympics. and i think what is important about the strategy is that it has been calibrated enough that it has gotten the support of a number of other countries from the united kingdom to more tacitly japan and india, and having more countries on board makes it more meaningful if -- then if the united states was alone in sending the message that the abuses must be condemned. as it relates, china hosted the olympics in 2000 eight and it was at a time when china was still emerging in the world stage and it got a lot of kind of image benefits from hosting

the olympics in 2008. my sense is the picture in 2022 is not as positive. it really has been an opportunity for anywhere there is free media in the world that is not authoritarian to really focused on -- focus on china's human rights abuses. i do not think what president xi is seeking is what he is guessing -- getting. host: we are starting with cornelia from cottonwood, idaho on the republican line. good morning. caller: hello and good morning. hello? host: go ahead. caller: i was just going to ask two questions. one has to do with our withdrawal from afghanistan and leaving our base, that is close to the chinese country and what

effect that would have on our military security down the road. and also, what effect with the biden family being tied economically and gaining all kinds of wealth from the chinese government, what effect does that have on our president's trip to china, those are my two questions and i will thank you very much. host: go ahead and respond. caller: -- guest: thank you. the question about how the withdrawal from afghanistan might affect the u.s. military position in the indo pacific overtime is an important one, so i am glad that the caller raised the issue. as it relates to the particular base in afghanistan that she is referring to, most military leaders would say that the

operational imperatives, the ability to fly planes out of that base for operations are pretty minimal and we would need to be able to control or have access to that base, but also to have permission from the government in afghanistan to be able to do those operations and to protect our forces over time. it is much more likely or operational beneficial operationally unofficial to operate from other races. we have bases in japan and south korea with more access in australia and other places. the notion that we would stay in afghanistan simply to retain access to one base, i do not think the resources required really would justify the military benefit thereof. it took many billions of dollars a year, upwards of 10 plus billion dollars a year to fight

even at the very low level forces in afghanistan in the final years, and so, diverging those resources from the 20 year war in afghanistan to rebalance the u.s. military forces and an investment to each -- to east asia and the indo pacific will get us more value against china. host: her first question was about a connection between -- a financial connection between the biden family and china, do we know anything about that? guest: i think we see financial connections between china and a number of american political leaders, you know, there have been some stories about it related to biden that is much more well documented for the trump family and other families. more is -- how can we implement measures to ensure

transparency about not just our president but any of our political leaders' financial ties and assets to foreign government. it is about creating a system that has transparency over time. host: let's go to dominic calling from virginia on the republican line. dominic, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: i have two comments, by joe biden and going to asia and not going to taiwan sends a message to china that our current president in my opinion is both -- and incompetent. the chinese will view that as weakness if he does not go to taiwan. it is one of our oldest allies in the region. i did live in hong kong prior to china taking over and just look at what they have done to that country. you lead them into taiwan after

putin decides to march into ukraine and we do not have anything to do with it, we just send a strong message that we are going to sit back in a laissez-faire attitude and let china do what they want. i am done. host: go ahead and respond there, jacob. guest: i think the color raises an important question. particularly as a relates to hong kong, that is a good example of what we would be likely to see if china were to use military force and be able to invade taiwan. the traditional model for hong kong has been known as one country, two systems. but china throughout that agreement that have been made with the united kingdom but was really an agreement with the world and crushed the opposition with an iron fist in hong kong. i think china offered that model to taiwan and the people in taiwan are unequivocally

rejecting it because they do not want to have what happened to them -- happen to them what happened to the people in hong kong. it is a cautionary tale for taiwan but also for those of us it's in the rest it -- us in the rest of the expansion of chinese influence on taiwan would be. technically speaking, taiwan is not an ally of the united states. we have a special relationship with taiwan, a close partnership. the united states is committed by law under the taiwan relations act, to provide taiwan the ability to defend itself. whether we would come of the united states would, come to taiwan's aid and fight on its behalf with a conflict on the mainland and china, that is operated under a policy known as strategic ambiguity. we will not say whether that we will or we won't. there is debate on whether we should change that.

ultimately, the most important thing is have steady deterrence with china and upholding the status quo. on the one hand, we need to spend additional -- send additional messages to deter china but we also need to provide reassurance that we are not going to unilaterally change our political viewpoint toward taiwan, which could precipitate china to start a conflict. if the president flew to taiwan, that has the potential of being interpreted in beijing as the change in the u.s. political position to support taiwan's independence, and that is not consistent with our policy. we can't deter china and support taiwan without taking moves that create instability and end up itself. host: has any u.s. president ever visited taiwan? guest: yes but not since 1979 when the u.s. changed its recognition from -- of china from taipei to beijing. host: ok.

a comment from reuters -- i want to read a little bit of that to you and have you respond to it. guest: please do. host: with china knocking russia earlier this week in a united nations security council debate on ukraine called by the united states, both nations appear to see the gains of the opportunity to signal their increasing cooperation in the face of western states and other adversaries. many of whose diplomats are boycotting the games. with china making its ambition to bring taiwan back under beijing's control under 2020 increasingly clear and fears on the rise, china could benefit from close cooperation with russia, making it harder for it to be starved of energy.

what is the relationship between russia and china now? guest: this is a very important question. i am glad you raised it. this week's marks -- week marks a new high in china russian relations. she thinking and vladimir putin just held a sum as the winter olympics were beginning in beijing. this was notable because it was the first in-person meeting with the foreign leader that president xi has had since the president began more than two years ago. after this summit, the two countries released a comprehensive joint statement that proclaimed their relationship is at its best point in history and has "no limits," which is far beyond what many observers thought was possible just a few years ago. this moment has been decades in the making and goes back -- going back to the cold war, china and russia were ideological in geopolitical enemies of the time with the soviet union but the two powers had relations as the cold war ended and is improving ties over

periods of decade. -- of decades. putin stepped up that intensely. the two leaders cling to have a strong personal support and xi called putin his best friend. they have met each other more than any other pair of world leaders during xi's 10 year and power. they both sit at the top of authoritarian political systems where they have accumulated power to themselves. so both xi and putin have been able to personally mandate and oversee a cooperative agenda between their countries that is both broader and deeper than ever before. it stretches across diplomatic, military, technological, energy, economic, and other realms. what is driving their cooperation i think as peter wrote in that column to some extent is a shared worldview. it is one that stands in opposition to the u.s.-led rules-based order in which these

political and military threats from america its democratic allies in east asia and other. that is not to say they are at 100% aligned on every issue. there are major faultlines in the relationship over trade imbalance, intellectual property theft, and over russia's fear of china becoming a vastly more powerful country. though both beijing and moscow have taken great pains to avoid inflaming those sensitive areas. it is a time of close cooperation between china and russia. one thing to go on a little further is that column suggests this question about whether the u.s. and -- u.s. is pushing china and russia could together -- russia together. that is often a question we hear in this field. framing this issue as united states as pushing china and russia together does not accurately capture what is going on. a better way to understand the situation, beijing and moscow are taking aggressive action

that they themselves isolated from the rest of the world and violate the rules-based international border that has underpinned the global security and stability since world war ii. they are creating a situation where they have only each other to turn to along with a few arteries like pakistan and north area. if we worry too much about pushing them together, policymakers run the risk of being two accommodating with china or russia's misbehavior and in doing so conceding important interests and values. we have to be realistic about what we are giving up and let we might get in return. of course diplomacy with beijing and moscow remains essential to avoiding conflict and we see the biden administration making that diplomacy a priority with both countries. at the same time, giving up on bedrock interests and values in the hopes of enticing china or russia to abandon the other is unlikely to work. the old notion that comes from the kissinger era and nixon of a

strategic triangle with china, russia, and the united states is outdated and ignores the other power centers in europe, india, japan, and elsewhere. washington needs to lead a coalition to balance chinese and russian power. if we do that, the threat from them working together is ultimately less worrisome. i think we see the biden administration focusing on revitalizing alliances and partnerships, and that is in part a recognition of the need to build that counterbalancing coalition. host: let's talk to james calling for michigan on the democrats line. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. i will make the question quick. i would like to tightknit -- tired back to the taiwan issue. to ask your guest, in his opinion -- and i'm not looking at official policy -- in his opinion, does he think the united states would go to

war, call it war, on behalf of taiwan if or when china decides to when they want to bring taiwan into their orbit? thank you. guest: i think the united states would see it as crucial to regional and global stability, and ultimately to the u.s. interests. i think we would see, as the u.s. is required to do under law, united states providing supplies and assistance to taiwan to help taiwan to bend itself, so that is a question of what the level of military support would be, and i think it would likely be very high. there is a broad skill recognition that needing to deter chinese aggression against taiwan but also against disputed territories in the east china sea with japan or south china sea, potentially on the border

with india, is essential. it is not just about the territory, small pieces of territory. it gets to larger questions of regional and global security. i think the united states would not stand aside and let china take over taiwan without any massive response. host: let's talk to ethan calling from honolulu, hawaii on the independent line. good morning. caller: a ha, c-span. -- aloha, c-span. in addition to two questions -- i have two questions. in addition to what you have mentioned, what is china afraid of in regards to the united states? my second question is, are there conflicts between china and russia, regular con -- conflicts between them? guest: thank you for your

question. what is china afraid of is an essential question and i'm glad you raised it. ultimately, the most important political and strategic goal for china in its current incarnation is to protect the rule of the chinese communist party over the state and china. one of the things that the chinese communist party sees as a threat from the united states is two things, one they worry that the u.s. and allies are trying to contain china by encircling it with alliances and partnerships to contain china's rise in a replication of what we did with the soviet union during the cold war. they are also worried the united states and other democratic countries are trying to sew the seeds of democratic revolution

in china and pursue a policy of regime change. ultimately, that is what they really worry about. china's leaders are not just worried about threats from the united states, they are also worried about challenges coming from within china. they are worried about being seen as losing legitimacy in the eyes of their own people and being subject to what they call a color revolution, which would be a political uprising. that is why they use force to put down the protests in tiananmen square and that is why you see such ironfisted response in hong kong. there is that worry that there is a kind of -- that there would be a political uprising against party leadership. i think a lot of behavior from the prc government comes back to this question of regime security. the second question on whether there were conflicts between

china and russia, they fought a brief war in the 1960's during the height of what was known as the sino-soviet split. they were estranged for many decades and had much of the military forces lined up on their long shared border against one another. at the end of the cold war, they worked hard to build trust and to work slowly took the the relationship, and it took them a long time. they still have disagreements or potential disagreements over economic issues, linton electoral -- issues, intellectual property theft, potential for dispute over certain pieces of territory, so there are those fault lies in the china/rush holt relationship that we should we -- china/russia relationship that we should be watching.

united states is not in a position to create or drive wedges between russia and china but we should be on guard to see if those fault lines are splitting and wedges are arising naturally and whether we can exacerbate or make them worse. host: let's talk to john calling from johnstown, pennsylvania on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. one reason i think china is eating our lunch is because china does not have enough structure party like the republican party like the republican party in our country. the reason why we got out of afghanistan, it was costing us $1 billion per week and i think it was a great thing that biden did. no matter how you would get out of that country, it would never be pleasing to everybody. i'm thinking that really showed a great deal of strength rather than weakness. thank you. guest: i think the caller raises

two important issues. one is that ultimately for democracy to work and for democracy to continue, for us to be able to show the world democracy is a better political system than authoritarian governance in china is that we have to show our system can deliver benefits to people regular people, average citizens in the united states, but to some extent around the world, better outcomes than authoritarian political systems can like in china. that is a key part of the u.s. last china competition. is this question over governance and over values? china would argue that they do deliver a better outcome than democracy. that is quite incorrect in my view. wholely wrong but it is not a self -- we have to prove that that is the case by delivering

results over time. it is really incumbent on both parties to work together, to deliver, solve problems and deliver those benefits for citizens, to demonstrate democracy works. so that is a really key issue going forward. i think the caller notes he was probably right about the level of money being spent at the height of the u.s. involvement in afghanistan where we had many more forces on the ground. i think it was substantially less money per week by the end because the size of the u.s. force in afghanistan had gone down dramatically. but it was a still -- a very meaningful amount of money. that is one of the strategic rationales we had for ending the war in afghanistan, to be able to rebalance u.s. diplomatic and security priorities, to focus on china and russia as what is

called major power competition but also transnational threats like climate change and health security and other things that have come to the fore in the two decades since we have been fighting in afghanistan. host: let's talk to andrew calling from connecticut on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is more of a logistics question. how do you see china invading taiwan? is it going to be a d-day type invasion, a sea type invasion, a long-range bombing type to -- type invasion? do you think some type of destabilization political attack? how do you see the attack going? i know you are not a general but how do you see the attack coming from china? guest: it is important -- there

could be several scenarios as you pointed out, and part of the challenge in deterring china but preparing for an attack is making sure that's we are ready for all different types of scenarios. you can certainly see, as you put it, which is smart, a crimea-like situation where there are special forces but also an attempt to sew political chaos in taiwan. i don't think it would be as effective for the russians and crimea but that is one scenario we look at. another is more like a d-day scenario where there is a full all-out fast and big invasion against the strait. we would likely see turn out amassing forces before it happened, similar to what we see russians doing across from ukraine right now. it would be a major task for

them because getting the number of forces china would need to fight taiwan's military and any country's or japan providing assistance, they would need a lot of assistance. they need the ships to get them across the strait. we look at things in the defense analysis community does not only does china have the amphibious ships to get across the strait but can they pull in commercial vessels to ship troops across? and how can taiwan make itself difficult to be invaded? we talked about the porcupine strategy, hard to swallow. that has been the focus of taiwan's defense policy and u.s. cooperation to try to improve taiwan's ability to defend itself, but as we said, you have to be ready for a range of

different scenarios. there is also the question of kind of how much of chinese actions against taiwan would be pre-planned or pre-meditated. certainly in general they want to take back taiwan but in terms of planning a war, it could be premeditated over a longer period of time or it could come as a result of china using aggressive military maneuvers that results in an accident and then there is political and military escalation that becomes uncontrolled, so china has to -- but also taiwan -- has to decide to fight a full-scale war on pretty short notice. being prepared to respond any time is another critical element to this challenge. host: let's talk to lettie calling from texas on the democrat line. good morning. caller: hi. good morning. thank you, and thank you, mr. stokes, for your welcomed

knowledge. i want to make a, and have a question. since the corporations have all -- a comment and have a question. since the corporations have sent all of their companies have been making items in china for so many years including our computer technology because everything is about huge profits, it has made china a major power. and because of that, i think that is why we are in the mess we are in. over the last four years, putin has had an open door to do what he wants and now he and xi stan to be standing -- seem to be standing together against us. the gop has never been on the side of the working class or seniors of this country. i am fearful for the united states. i feel like we are heading towards an authoritarian or dictatorship style of government

, a one-party system ruled by the gop. i would like you to comment on those things as far as corporations making just about everything in china anymore and what our u.s. is looking like for the future. thank you. guest: thank you. i think those are all really important issues you raise. thank you for the call. this question of how u.s. investments have facilitated the rise of china's economy and whether that was a smart, strategic decision over a period of decades is admittedly a bed of a complicated one, but there is a growing i think bipartisan consensus that we need to -- that it is starting to pose a more direct challenge to u.s. economic interest but also our

strategic interests and values. there is an attempt now to rebalance the trade relationship. we see u.s. trade representative ambassador kathryn tie talking about workcenter trade policies as we negotiate the next round after the so-called phase one trade agreement with china, we negotiate what comes after that in the trade relationship to make it more fair, to level the playing field, to respond to where china is not adhering to the rules of the global trading system. so that is a really key area going forward. at the same time, there is a broader discussion about what types of economic interactions are helping to advance china's technological and military capabilities.

over the period of recent years, we have seen u.s. policymakers focus on looking more closely at chinese and other foreign investment in the united states, including reforming the process that is for what is known as the committee on foreign investment in the united states so it covers more sectors, so we do not have chinese companies buying up strategic assets in the united states. increasingly, it is cut it is also looking at what is known as outbound investment. so where's wall street and other u.s. companies and private equity? are they investing in chinese companies that are doing things like a lot parading with the chinese military or cooperating with chinese companies that are involved in surveillance and human rights abuses and thinking about ways that we should impose restrictions on those types of investments where u.s. capitol

is helping facilitate -- u.s. capital is trying to advance china in those areas. that will be a critical shoe going forward. host: we would like to thank jacob stokes, a fellow in the end of pacific program for the center for a new american security for being on with us this morning and sharing his knowledge about the chinese national security threat to the united states. thank you so much for your time this morning. guest: it was a pleasure. thank you for having me. host: up next, minky worder of human rights watch will join us to discuss the issue of chinese human rights abuses hanging over the olympic games. on monday, nba star and activist miss cantor freedom spoke about the u.s. diplomatic we can't and his message to fellow athletes when it came to the olympics and china. >> for me, diplomatic boycott is

good because it shows [indiscernible] i feel like all the athletes out there are saying enough is enough, this is bigger than sports. i think one called it really well, i call it the below shame and [indiscernible] it is not more important than your morals or principles. i feel like all the athletes need to stand up for something because in basketball, i'm not going to participate where in a country where there is a genocide happening. i feel are people need to understand the problems are with the national committee. they are in the same bed as china. i think athens has a huge choice and they need to use it. whenever i have a conversation with one of the athletes, i

bring in the missing tennis player and i said look what they do to their own tennis player, are we going to trust ccp with our own players? also, there was an article where the chinese comers party said while the athletes are in china, they are not allow to make any kind of statement about political stuff. that is pre-much killing freedom of speech. when i have a calm -- pretty much killing freedom of speech. whenever i have a conversation with athletes, i say whenever your daughter, sister, wife, was on a trip, would you still go? i understand -- i get this question a lot, but the athletes are working so hard for how many years to get to that level?

but i'm saying there are bigger things than sports right now. all the gold medals in the world are not more important than peoples' lives. i think we need to understand where -- understand what we are sending our athletes too. it is just bad. >> do you feel you are making any headway with your fellow nba members? do you think you speaking out as having an impact and opening people's eyes? guest: whenever we have a conversation -- >> whenever we have a conversation in private, we talk about what people are going through. when i started to talk about all the issues, and not just this puts what tobias, taiwan, and others are going through, not just people around the lake, not

just athletes, but people who work for nba, even the rafts, and i wanted to learn what is going on. whenever we sit down and have a conversation, they understand and acknowledge that genocide and they know what is going on. but unfortunately, they are too scared to say anything because of obviously again business and money and silence. that's what breaks my heart. they know what is going on, and they know about the abuses but because they have the endorsement deals or jersey sales or shoe sales in china, they tell me they have two remain silent while they are supporting me in praying for me. my one side, it breaks my heart for them to remain silent, but i'm like i will do everything i

can to educate them. i cannot stop because of all of that business involvements. but it does wreck my heart, yes -- break my heart, yes. >> "washington journal" continues. host: minky worder joins me now. it welcome to the program. -- welcome to the program. guest: thank you for having me. it is a big week for the olympics. host: i want to start with a call on the road the washington post. we will put it on the screen. while we are pulling that up, tell me, i know that you are director of global initiatives. tell me what that means. what do you do for them? guest: i oversee all of human rights watch's work on the board and worldwide. that would include olympics, china, russia, or the u.k., but also the world cup and qatar and

all of the issues around athletes rights. for example, the problem of sexual violence and abuse in florida as well. host: and if ewers would like to weigh in, you can call us, here are the phone numbers -- viewers would like to weigh in, you can call us, here are the numbers. republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats can call us on (202) 748-8000. independents can call us on (202) 748-8002. give me an idea of the human rights abuses you are following in china. guest: may be a good starting point is the beijing olympics in 2008. perhaps a lot of your viewers watched the summer games which were advertised as being a coming out party for china. but even then, those games masked serious human rights abuses, worker rights

violations, arrests of journalists, civil society, and surveillance that later contributed to surveillance and abuses of uighurs in china. the human rights abuses we have documented starting in 2008 have actually only work since 2015 since china won the right to host the winter olympics that have launched yesterday. these abuses include press freedom violations, worker rights violations, repression in hong kong that includes arrests of legislators and publishers, religious oppression in tibet, and in the uighur region of china, forced labor, mass incarceration, as many as one million muslims and other turkish muslims, and also a cash

not allowing the united nations in to monitor human rights abuses in china. the situation was bad in 2008 and has only gotten worse in 2022. host: let's take a look at white house press secretary jen psaki in december, announcing the diplomatic boycott of the games. [video clip] >> the biden administration will not send any diplomatic or official representation to the beijing 2020 to web terror olympics -- to the winter olympics given the ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity in chin jong and other human rights abuses. the athletes on team usa have our full support. we will be behind them 100% as we cheer them on from home. we will not be contributed to the fanfare of the games. the u.s. diplomatic or official representation would treat these gains as business as usual in the face of the prc's egregious human rights abuses in shin jong

and we cannot do that. standing up for human rights is in the dna of americans. we have a fundamental commitment to promoting human rights and we feel strongly in our position and will continue to take action to advance human rights in china and beyond. host: what do you think of that, the diplomatic boycott? is it enough? guest: i think the dipper -- the diplomatic boycott is a good start and close to a dozen countries have joined the boycott, including the diplomatic boycott including canada. it is really just the beginning. i think it was important for it to be not business as usual with these olympics, and the reasoning behind the diplomatic cut is that the chinese government is using these games to we call it sports wash a major human rights crimes,

crimes against humanity, and a diplomatic boycott says we are not going to send leaders to rub elbows with chinese officials who may be responsible for those crimes against humanity. it is a good start on a good start in policy but more needs to be done. host: do you think there should have been a complete boycott of the games in china? guest: a number of human rights watch's partners including the uighur human rights groups, the human rights project, a number of people from china, including chinese human rights defenders have called for a boycott, and we certainly support their right to call for a boycott. human rights watch does not back like cots, and the boycott would keep the athletes at home. that is a diplomatic -- a diplomatic boycott is what we advocated for and we are glad it is happening. host: what did chinese officials say? how did they warn athletes about

not speaking out? guest: so the deputy director at bohcog, the beijing organizing committee for the olympic games, a chinese organizing body, has given a rest briefing where he told athletes they needed to watch what they say or they will face in his words certain punishment. that is an absolute violation of athlete's basic human rights to free speech. first of all, he should not have been allowed to say that, and second, when athletes go to the olympics and there are tens of thousands of athletes as we saw the opening ceremony yesterday, they do not sacrifice any of their human rights, including the right to free speech, including the right to protest. so it is incredible operation. it should not have been allowed

yet the international olympic committee did not correct that threat. that means athletes really have to to second-guess themselves if they want to protest, if they have something to say. it creates a climate, a fear, and that is unacceptable. host: you say fear, could american athletes actually be in danger? guest: yes. american athletes, canadian athletes from around the world are as we sought the parade of nations in the opening ceremony. all of these athletes, american athletes and others, are at risk of being punished in some way. one of the threats given was athletes could lose their accreditation. that would mean, for example, american athletes who have trained for not just the last four years but perhaps their entire lives to compete at the olympics would be strip of the right to compete, and that is

absolutely wrong. it is something the international olympics committee corrected and did not. host: what other problems could they face, if they were to speak out? you said they would be banned from competing. could they be imprisoned? could they be expelled? guest: this is -- some of the great moments in olympic history has been when athletes use their platform to speak out. i think we all remember john carlos and tommy smith freaking out about racial injustice at the 1968 olympics, how they raised their fists on the podium with you live human rights object. since that -- rights project. since then, human rights has been more common and on important topics like equal pay for women in sports, s

topping sexual harassment, and i think there is a big concern heading into these games that officially kick off today that athletes will be muzzled in some way. human rights watch produced an animation with a chinese dissident artist, and that video shows an athlete preparing to go to the winter olympics, putting on snowboots, owning on -- host: not to cut you off, but i want to show that video. let's show it and i will talk about it -- i will have you talk about it. [video clip] ♪ [applause] ♪

host: so tell us about that video, minky. it is putting red tape over her mouth. guest: so that video -- i think ordinary americans or people around the world love to watch the olympics, and we were looking for a way to show these olympics are absolutely abnormal and outside of human rights protection. i think the idea that as part of your olympic operation, athletes have had to buy burner phones so they cannot be surveilled and their data and private information downloaded by the chinese governments, that athletes have had to scrub their social media accounts so something they said a few years ago would not be a problem, and finally that athletes who have a

right to speak out might have to muzzle themselves. so the red tape across the athlete's mouth is intended to show this is not normal preparation for the olympics. you should be getting your skis and skates, but you should not be preparing to silence yourself going to the games. that is what makes the beijing olympics such a catastrophe for human rights and athletes who absolutely have the right to speak out. host: let's take a call from one of our viewers. david is calling us on the democratic line from kentucky. good morning. caller: how are you doing? i think she she paying is an atheist and i want to comment on a religious part and human rights, maybe with the olympics and all of that. thank you. host: minky? guest: so before the beijing olympics in 2008, the chinese

government actually had designated places of worship -- but these were all places controlled by the chinese communist party. i think one of the -- as viewers watch the olympics, you should keep in mind that the chinese constitution and human rights guarantees freedom of religion but you only have to look at the situation in tibet, at the situation for devout catholics, some priests jailed for decades in china, and finally you should -- finally the situation in the uighur region of china, where muslims have been jailed simply for being muslim or for practicing their faith or growing a beard or praying you. i think this is one of the true human catastrophes is that so many people in china who have been promised religious freedom

and religious autonomy in the chinese constitution, by the chinese government, are suffering their faith. as you watch steel and picks, think of all of the people in china who are not able to freely practice their faith, and it is a reminder that we should not take these beta right -- these basic rights and freedoms for granted and the world has an obligation to press, for example, for a u.n. human rights investigation that has been blocked for many years, including until after the olympics. host: on our independent line from cleveland, ohio. hi, michael. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. quickly, i had a comment. this seems to me -- i don't believe history repeats itself, but ok, we have an olympic games going on now in a country that is clearly repressive of human rights.

i think back to the 1930 six olympics in nazi germany, and there were other things going on in current affairs and world affairs that kind of reminds me of what was going on in the 1930's, vis-a-vis germany and japan and italy and russia making a pack so they could be aggressive on a country in [indiscernible] meanwhile in the united states, we have a significant movement, backed by sadly a former president, spreading their version of a big lie. host: thank you. minky, put it in historical context for us. guest: so in historical context, the 1936 olympics, which were held at a time where hit was

actually consolidating his power and using propaganda to advance his terrible message, i think there are parallels in history. we now have a word for this. we call it sports washing. sports washing is when you take a beloved sports event and you deploy the glamour and pageantry and the human achievement, right? the sports events should celebrate the best of humanity. but in the case of not just china but saudi arabia, russia, and other countries are using sports to cover up their terrible human rights crimes. in the case of china, it works very well. sports washing worked well in 2008. the chinese government was not called to account for any crimes in 2008. unsurprisingly, these crimes have escalated, they are far worse, the human rights conditions are far more dire for

ordinary chinese people. i think it is important to say as ordinary chinese people, citizens, journalists, lawyers, doctors, women's rights activists who suffer, i think we should mention that -- you mention the 1936 olympics, lenny refinshtal did a film that was a propaganda vehicle. i think anyone who watched the opening ceremonies yesterday for the olympics would see similar elements of propaganda. perhaps the most shocking element was having an athlete of uighur heritage light the flame at the same time as many as one million uighurs have been put in reeducation through labor camps separated from their families and forced to undergo torture, surveillance, and even forced

labor. host: what is the international olympic committee saying about these abuses you are outlining? guest: the international olympic committee has given a press conference this week where its president, thomas bock, essentially refused to comment on the plight of uighurs and called any comment on human rights political. we have to correct that. human rights are not political. they are universal. the chinese government agreed to uphold human rights, but is breaking those rules. i think if you look back in history, there are times where the international olympic committee has stood up against horrific human rights abuses. the 1988 summer olympics in south korea, the government was a military dictatorship that's was threatening to kill students and demonstrators in the

streets. they use this leverage to insist on elections in -- and south korea has been a stable democracy more or less ever since. so this was used as leverage what all of the evidence is so far that it is not using as leverage to improve human rights in the run-up to the olympics, 2015 to today. it is also not using its leverage right now. i think anyone would have said it is a terrible insult to the survivors of camps -- we are survivors of cams to have an athlete of we are heritage like that flame. it was a blatant and cruel failure of the ioc to allow that to go forward. host: let's take a call from washington, pennsylvania, on the independent line. hi, peter. caller: hi. i agree with the callers who compare this to the 1930's when

the olympics were held in berlin. our governments and those in power seem to feel that the human race has evolved or is going to evolved, always have -- evolved, all we would have to do is get together and things would change. then nothing has changed. it is still the truth. the major change is wealth is the root of all evil. the holy scriptures is what i believe in, and it is god-breathed. our leader of the house of representatives said we should keep quiet. our athletes should just shut up . this is not going to work.

it's not going to work and i am sorry. i feel very sad about this whole situation. host: thank you, peter. minky, he mentioned the money. what do you say to sponsors of the olympic games? guest: i think just a little background for our listeners, the olympics are financially supported by a program called the top sponsors, tlp, for the olympic partner. these are a dozen of the world's biggest multinational companies including household names like coca-cola, procter & gamble, intel, visa, things people use every day. these companies, including nbc, the broadcast sponsor -- so they buy the media rights and pay for half of the international olympic committee's annual

operating budget. the international olympic committee is a multibillion-dollar organization, and it is because of these sponsorships. the sponsors i think have had the attitude that they were going to put their heads in the snow and just wait for these olympics to be over, but they certainly had an opportunity to press the ioc to uphold human rights and use their leverage with the beijing organizers. i think the sponsors are really risk complicity in the human rights abuses in china and they need to be transparent about their own supply chains and if they are producing products in china with the five rings. they also need to show that they are not -- that their supply chains are not contaminated with forced labor. i think the sponsors that are on the hot seat were called last summer to congress to testify about what they were doing to

support human rights in china. and they said we were supporting the athletes. now that the athletes are under enormous pressure and being told they have to be silent, threatened by the chinese government, where are the sponsors and defending the rights of athletes to speak up? just to be clear, athletes have the right to speak or not to speak, but i would be very surprised if following these olympics there is not a ground swell of complaints about these olympics and how they were carried out and how they did not put athletes' rights first. host: jackie is calling from denver, north carolina on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just had a comment regarding our athletes from around the globe. being in china right now, where coronavirus has never been addressed nor has the globe been

given an apology of all of the covid that is happening around the globe because of coronavirus, and i think it is in dignified that we have our athletes there now. that is how i feel. host: what do you think, minky? guest: thanks for raising the topic of health rights because health is actually a human right. i think it is really -- one of the problems -- so the international olympic committee model is it partners with the chinese government or the japanese government or when the olympics come to the u.s. in 2028, they will partner with los angeles and the u.s. government. the problem is in china, you are partnering with the chinese communist party, and the chinese communist party, when the coronavirus surfaced in wuhan , china, covering it up, leading

to the preventable deaths of doctors and health workers in china, and even now the chinese government is jailing citizen journalists who try to document the government's failures and cover-up. so i think it is -- the chinese government brought up the coronavirus, continues to cover up the actions so the world health organizations can't get to the bottom of it, and i think it is absolutely correct it is a genuine risk for athletes. at least one athlete, a belgian skeleton racer, was put into a harsh coronavirus quarantine and was filmed in tears clearly terrified, separated from her national olympic committee. this is a real concern for athletes, and i think the summer olympics were postponed for the

coronavirus, so there should be hard questions about why the winter olympics were not postponed both for coronavirus but also so that the world could press china to stop its crimes against humanity in shin john, it's repression, and hong kong and general human rights abuses. host: jimmy is in shreveport, louisiana on the democrats line. in morning. caller: how are you -- good morning. caller: how are you? it's a very interesting topic. one thing i want to say. when the guys in the olympics raise their fist to show their disregard for discrimination in america, they became public enemy number one. it is amazing now, listening to some of those other guys about the way -- the thing that is killing america and i will say this and be through with a, greed. industrial greed. the desire to make more and more money. that is all i gotta say.

host: thanks, jimmy. let's go to alan in little rock, arkansas on the independents line. hi. caller: it's like that gentleman just introduced my call. mine is the correction, the reference to money being the root of evil. it is actually -- the correct quote is the love of money is the root of all evil. that color before me was saying the same thing, but it is the love of money, not free enterprise, not american free enterprise, it is this corporate merger of capitalism and communism that we are seeing in china that has absolutely ripped our absolute infrastructure and everything else, and we need to absolutely bring home our free enterprise, this mass corporate, forgive me for saying it, rape and plunder for our country, has

to be reversed. thank you. host: comment on that? guest: the piece i wrote in the washington post opens with an anecdote, a story. it has got the international -- the then international ski federation president who gave an interview where he said that the olympics are "easier in dictator -- easier than dictatorships." he goes on to say is because you do not have to ask the people anything. you can do anything you want. i think when we reflect on the second olympics in china, it should be a warning for everybody that the world's largest -- the biggest abusers of human rights both in scale and severity want to host the world's biggest sporting events, most will love events.

i always say both of the olympics and world cup are taking place this year in 2022. the olympics are in china in hero -- in a horrific demonstration of human rights abuse and then also the world cup is taking place in qatar, a country that has built stadiums with modern-day slavery. i think it is really a question -- the world needs the tools to deal with serious human rights abusers hosting the world's biggest events, and as you say, major corporations sponsoring these events. i think the companies are the ones who have the leverage. they are not using it. i think one of the postmortems of the olympics in china is going to be companies have the ability to do human rights due diligence, to pressure the ioc, and pressure the chinese

government either individually or collectively, and they chose not to. host: we will take one more call from florida. louis is on the republican line. caller: good morning. you are doing a wonderful job and i would like to complement you both. i want to tell the world that this is probably one of the most gravest times in history in times of american -- the american experience and america itself. complacency prior to world war ii/world war i, we are in a state of a complacency. americans have gotten so comfortable with their remote controls, tv's, and the state of life we have here. this virus that has killed millions of people around the world was unequivocally, by the virologist that worked in the wuhan laboratory, was a direct intentional release by the chinese military against the world.

she is the virologist that appeared on tucker carlsen several times. she escaped with her life. they killed her professor boss and no one is recognizing this foundation of where we are and why this world is the way it is right now. we are under a biological germ warfare by the chinese military. now an alliance with russia. no one in america has a recognition in the middle of world war ii, in europe. they are complacent, and now with the hypersonic missiles and putin knocking on ukraine's door and xi advancing his military, this navy is larger than the united states. host: we are running low on time but we appreciate your call. last question, what does beijing want to get out of hosting the olympic games? guest: so, the chinese government has ambitions to

project strength and power and approval of its repressive policies abroad. but, perhaps the most important audience for xi jinping is the domestic audience. and i think one of the great challenges is that a lot of the progress over a 30 year period for reform that was really done by ordinary chinese people, chinese lawyers and journalists and others, that has been rolled back, and i do think that xi jinping is hoping to show that world leaders are standing with him and his repressive policies. this will, in turn, further crush of some -- any signs of uplift -- of opposition in china. and hoping to show the policies of crimes against humanity, torture, repression in hong kong and tibet are approved by the world.

but, there is still time for everyone to say we do not approve of these policies, and it is time for reform that will bolster human rights in china i think that the international olympic committee, there should be tough questions about bringing the olympics to china a second time without protections or framework for human rights. host: we appreciate you being on the program. thank you. guest: thank you. host: that is it for "washington journal" thank you for joining us, we will be back again. we hope you join us then. have a great saturday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] click into her