Hacker News Reader

> at what point does appeasement just become acceptance of China's behavior?

This seems to be US policy since Nixon's visit to China. The difference is now we're just more open about it.

I think this is as much a "business thing" as a "US policy" thing, and it's been going on much longer than the Nixon administration. IBM sold Nazi Germany the tabulators that powered the Holocaust, Chiquita (then United Fruit) ran slave plantations well into the 50's, et cetera.

Don't expect corporations to stand up for what's right, especially overseas; you're always going to be disappointed.

Someday we may regard those "achievements" as the worst strategic mistake by any sitting US president.

Someday? I think we already do.

It wasn't a one-and-done deal between Kissinger and Mao on the first visit. While I think it's fair to assess the US's 1972-(2016? 2017?) policy toward China as regrettable overall, blame must also be put on the Carter (giving the PRC a waiver on the Jackson-Vanik amendment, 1980), Reagan (continuing those waivers), Bush Sr. (rejecting repeated Congressional motions to end that waiver after Tiananmen Square, 1989 and every year of the '90s), and Clinton (permanent normal trade relations, 2000) administrations. Successive administrations seemed to be fairly consistent on keeping China's access to US and world markets intact.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com