I see a parallel between this and the Cuba dilemma. That is, we may feel that we are receiving much less than the huge gains that could be gained by the government (ie Communist Party) of Cuba. It may also be that by engaging in trade, we feel we may become a contributor to a continuance of human rights violations taking place in the island. If this is true, then it could provide an argument for being against trade, just as it is the argument for the partner student who refuses to take 10 knowing the other student is taking 90.

Also, I would mention that many trade agreements (e.g. NAFTA) are not designed to provide equal gains for both sides, but rather each side tries to maximize his/her gains. Hence, many of these trade agreements contain more than 3000 pages worth of rules, regulations, and stipulations. A true free trade agreement would be one line that reads: “All tariffs and quotas will be removed along with any barrier mechanisms to free trade between both parties.” Unfortunately, this is never the case and this partly why there is so much opposition to so called free trade agreements.

The Cuban Embargo has been a miserable failure that we can add to our list of foreign policy blunders. It’s time to end this one and move on. Fidel and his cronies have yet to miss a meal since 1959. The Cuban people have suffered not just as a direct result of his policies, but because of our embargo.

Making the case for trading with the capitalist countries Lenin once said: “The capitalists will sell us the rope on which we are going to hang them” and, as people in Eastern European countries can testify, eventually they did.

In the years prior to the WWII, Germany proceeded to break international treaties one by one. Following one of the most flagrant ones (default on its financial obligations to the british creditors), UK government considered applying the trade sanctions. Given the dependence of german rearmament program on the imports from the british empire, the sanctions could have hurt pretty badly. However, for the fear of escalating the conflict and strengthening the “hawks” in the Reich, the idea was dropped.

Later, during the preparation stage of the Barbarossa plan, when british imports were no longer available, the German Reich badly needed to increase the import of metals and grain. So the Fuhrer declared the export to the USSR, which was used as payment for the import, to have the same priority as the armaments production.
So much for “a self-enforcing cycle of trust”.

Certainly, arguments can be made in favor of trading with the regimes we don’t like. Just let’s not forget that at some point this trade may also backfire.