> At the risk of sounding nationalistic, I think companies in the United States and other democratic countries should reconsider any and all business relationships with authoritarian regimes like those in China and Russia.
FWIW, that's the opposite of "nationalistic". Nationalism means that the highest principle is your nation's benefit; people suffering and dying in other nations, including at your hands, is not important. For example, current U.S. nationalists advocate ignoring human rights abuses in other countries in order to make more money for U.S. businesses (former Secretary of State and former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson openly advocated this policy).
You are advocating the reverse: the U.S. and other democracies should forgo business interests in order to help people in other countries.
I agree, but only when those measures are effective. FWIW, it turns out that using these economic tools is tricky; it's hard to get desired outcomes. First, beware of politicians offering something for nothing - we want to act against this country, but we don't want to pay or risk anything (significant money or the lives of soldiers); there's no free lunch - you'll get out what you put in. North Korea and Cuba, for example, survive under sanctions for generations and the only consequence has been harm to the non-elite in their countries; North Korea even managed to build nuclear weapons and ICBMs; Iran built nukes and is working on the missiles. Second, if you use the 'blunt' tool and eliminate all business activity, then you tend hurt the people you are trying to help: The common people lose jobs, homes, food, etc.; he powerful elite hoard the money for themselves; look at North Korea for an example. One solution is to apply sanctions directly to the elite in ways that won't affect others (e.g., block them from traveling or making financial transactions outside their country, sanction their businesses directly, etc.); this was used against Iran to significant effect, AFAIK, and is used against Russia. Finally, when you use the 'take my ball and go home' tactic, you lose further leverage over the other party - if you aren't doing business with them, why should they care what you think about the problem that arises next year? Staying engaged is very important for diplomatic leverage.
EDIT: A bunch of edits.