Ignoring how ethically insane it is to justify human rights abuses under the guise of national sovereignty, this same sovereignty would allow the US to cease trade relations.
The question was never if it can, but whether it should.
No you are wrong again. The question was whether its OK to cease all trade with a country solely because of its questionable human rights record. I pointed out that its not. That Sovereign countries have the legal right to do certain things and must be dealt with in an appropriate way.
It is the same argument made, by the way, when the US wants to justify buying oil from the Middle East, none of whose countries have a stellar record regarding human rights.
'China is a sovereign nation and has every right to Govern itself the way it wants to.'
Rather than taking the human rights abuses seriously, you continually obfuscate obvious facts by pointing to the United States' history of human rights abuses (of which there are plenty), and simply double down on your own indefensible position.
You could also do the most elementary research into your own position, which would immediately reveal that currency manipulation, censorship, restrictions on freedom of movement and associated crimes violate UN human rights laws and countless international trade agreements. Any honest definition of 'legal' would account for this.
There's an honest conversation to be had about how sanctions impact the poorest segments of a country. That conversation cant proceed if you don't acknowledge reality.