Making them an offer they cannot refuse

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Wolf and Singer readings for me was the issue of lost sovereignty resulting from free trade agreements and membership to the WTO. Although both point out that because a nation will always have a basic sense of sovereignty in that they can always opt out of these free trade agreements and withdraw from the WTO, this seems somewhat a false freedom. What comes to mind is how many companies, say the makers of Crest toothpaste, have the freedom to not sell their product in Wal-Mart. Well, this is true, but the consequences of not selling their product in the largest retailer in the U.S. can be a fatal blow to the company. It is this very basic reality that companies, especially smaller ones, often cite when explaining how they were put into a position with such little bargaining power that they reduce their profit margins tremendously. It is worth pointing out, for the sake of fairness, that this very pressure can lead to greater efficiency and lower cost for American consumer thereby lowering the cost of living. My point is this: when economically weaker countries are dealing with powerhouses such as the U.S. and EU, it is worth appreciating how little bargaining power they have coupled with how much they have to lose.
Another interesting topic brought up in the readings was the idea of trading with somewhat disagreeable governments (dictatorships, oppressive regimes, etc). Watching Gen. Wesley Clark in an interview back when he was running for President, I was struck by something he said with an almost matter-of-fact tone: embargos and trade barriers strengthen the very regimes one set out to weaken. While Wolf explains that the mercantilist understanding of trade as economic war is fundamentally flawed, perhaps trade can serve a purpose that normally is reserved for armed conflict. For example, Castro has long blamed hardships of Cubans on the U.S., with some success, because of the trade embargo. Furthermore, because the U.S. has nothing it can take away or restrict, it has given up much influence on policy in Cuba. If, on the other hand, we were to increase trade with Cuba, the people of Cuba would enjoy an increase in products and services from the U.S. and would put pressure on the government to avoid any policy actions that may disrupt this beneficial trade relationship. Moreover, Cubans would have a tremendous new market for their goods and services (cigars would top a long list) which would further increase the welfare of the Cuban people (comparative advantage). While Singer and Wolf may see globalization in different lights, the truth is that when the picture is not clear, data is not obvious or incomplete, and there is no consensus among experts (given the credentials of both Wolf and Stiglitz and simply the title of their respective books, this seems a reasonable assertion), we should focus on trade related policies that seem to have proven ineffective. The embargo of Cuba seems a particularly compelling argument for review, however there are others (North Korea, and to a certain degree Venezuela)