Do you think governments should consider human rights when granting preferential trading rights to countries? What are the arguments for and against taking such a position?

Political arguments for government intervention into international trade cover a range of issues, including protecting jobs, protecting industries deemed important for national security, and retaliating against unfair foreign competition. Protecting jobs and industries from unfair competition is the most common political argument for government intervention. For example, the Japanese quotas on rice imports are aimed at protecting jobs in that country's agricultural sector. In terms of protecting industries deemed important for national security, countries sometimes argue that it is necessary to protect certain industries (like aerospace, steel, advanced electronics, etc.) because they are important for national security. Finally, with regard to retaliating against foreign competition, some people argue that governments should use the threat to intervene in trade policy as a bargaining tool to help open foreign markets and force trading partners to "play by the rules of the game." In addition to these, political arguments for government intervention might also be motivated by the desire of governments to protect consumers from unsafe products, further its foreign policy objectives, protect human rights in trade partner nations, and protect the environment from pollution and degradation arising from growth of international trade.

Describe briefly, with examples, the use of trade policies by governments to support their foreign policy objectives.
Governments sometimes use trade policy to support their foreign policy objectives. A government may grant preferential trade terms to a country with which it wants to build strong relations. Trade policy has also been used several