Knowing that trade has facilitated the continued survival of communism in China, maybe we didn't choose the best path. But hindsight is irrelevant, because you cannot put the baby back in the womb. With China a major trading partner - and growing, a sudden fall of the regime is far from America's interests.
In Cuba, however, we have no existing economic interests, and Castro is an old man. There are a few heir apparents, but Castro's cult of personality is the glue holding the deteriorating machine together. So long as the embargo remains in place, Castro's successor, and with him communism, will fail.
Doing business with Cuba unavoidably props up the regime because of the way Castro has designed the rules of the game. Castro double-dips from joint ventures: first by splitting the profits, and secondly by stealing from the Cuban workers. Foreign companies don't employ Cuban workers; they rent them. Companies must pay Castro for each worker, in cash, and the regime in turn pockets 95 percent, doling out the remaining 5 percent in pesos.
At least in China, those employed by American companies are paid directly by the corporation and usually have the benefit of exposure to American culture and values. Chinese employees of American companies are immediately vaulted into the middle, and often the upper-middle, class. Many of these employees of American corporations make enough money to send their kids to private schools, a freedom that would never be allowed in Castro's brutal society.
More importantly than the different nature of trade with China, though, is the simple geographic fact that Cuba is a stone's throw away from our shores. Our foreign policy has always recognized a distinction between the Western and Eastern Hemispheres. Reagan began the push for freedom in Latin America as a move to enhance our national security. Normal trading with Castro, in fact, would be an exception from our policy toward thugs in Latin America.***