[kyleplum]

If Cuba refused to trade with anyone who traded with the US, would you say that Cuba is violating the national autonomy of the US?

[boomboomsubban]

Yes, however the severity of the violation is dependent on the influence of the violator. Cuba's violation would be wrong but mostly meaningless compared to the US's.

[kyleplum]

Would it not be a violation of Cuba's National Autonomy to force them to trade with partner's that they did not wish to trade with?

[boomboomsubban]

Yes, but I don't see how that's relevant. Not banning trade doesn't force the countries to trade, it just gives them the choice.

[kyleplum]

> Not banning trade doesn't force the countries to trade, it just gives them the choice.

And the choice made by the US is to not trade with Cuba or anyone who trades with Cuba - it's their right to make this choice.

[boomboomsubban]

It's not. They're free to choose who they trade with, using who that country trades with as a decider violates their autonomy.

You're just framing the violation as a choice and saying it is their right to make that choice. Sure, they also have the right to make the choice to invade Canada, but actually invading is obviously violating their autonomy.

[kyleplum]

Okay let's use a specific example:

I decide that I don't want to trade with Country A because they are producing weapons that they plan on using to attack me with. Now let's say Country B is trading with Country A, and I think they are trading components being used to produce the weapons in Country A.

Is it a violation of Country B's autonomy for me to decide to not to trade with them because they are trading with country A?

If I believe that anyone who trades with Country A is supplying them resources to build weapons to attack me, and I decide to not trade with any Country who is trading with Country A, am I violating the autonomy for all of those countries?

[s1artibartfast]

Not just the US, but also the third party.