Final answer:
An argument against using trade restrictions is that they often fail to achieve their intended goals and can harm the civilian population of the targeted nation more than their leadership. These measures can lead to retaliatory actions, ultimately harming the sanctioning country's own economy.
Step-by-step explanation:
An argument against using trade restrictions to punish an offending nation is that sanctions seldom achieve their goal of forcing change in the offending country. This is particularly relevant when discussing how to address issues such as the changes and military regime in Burma. While some countries advocate for increased sanctions, others argue that sanctions harm the civilian population more than the ruling leadership and don't effectively promote change. Instead, these countries suggest that open trade policies are a better strategy.
Foreign aid and sanctions are tools used by the international community to influence a nation's behavior. However, to be effective, these actions require widespread participation and the closing of loopholes. Without these measures, the target state might not feel the consequences substantially. Furthermore, economic analysis shows that while protectionist measures like tariffs, embargoes, and quotas might protect domestic industries, they often result in higher prices for consumers and net losses for the sanctioning country, owing to retaliations and decreased competitiveness.
In summary, while trade can create winners and losers, international trade generally provides net benefits to a country's economy. However, when considering sanctions, it's important to weigh the effectiveness of such measures against their broader implications, including potential harm to citizens and retaliatory measures that could hurt domestic industries in the sanctioning country.