The difficulties and dangers of expanding trade for both sides are too visible and too often mentioned. It is far too easy to ignore the possibilities and value – again for both parties. If elements of a new relationship do not stem from the growth of economic relations, little will be lost, except that opportunities have been excluded. But the basic operations are so important that we must try to develop common interests between the Soviet Union and the United States. Trade is the most obvious area to work in and compromises are required from both sides. The Soviets were more inclined to respond to Western concerns about human rights related to the development of economic relations. We do not want to regret, in three or four years` time, to deplore the missed opportunities in Soviet-American relations, as we recognize today, this was the case in the late 1950s. The seriousness of Soviet interest in stabilizing relations with the United States should not be overlooked. Affirmative decisions are needed in Washington. Congress and the new government should react carefully, but also with flexibility, foresight and more than a hint of boldness.
6. Each Contracting Party shall allow nationals, undertakings and organizations of the other Party to promote their products and services (a) in direct agreement with advertising media, including television, radio, printing and posters, and (b) by direct mail, including the use of attached envelopes and cards addressed to such nationals, undertaking or organization. 4. Each Contracting Party shall accord to products imported from the territory of the other Party treatment no less favourable in terms of technical rules and standards, including conformity testing and certification, than the treatment accorded to like products originating in a third country. In addition, the Parties shall ensure that such technical rules and standards are not developed, adopted or applied in a discriminatory manner in order to create barriers to bilateral trade or to protect domestic production. The United States has an estimated services trade surplus of $US 3.4 billion with Russia in 2019, up 6.3 percent from 2018. Nevertheless, the benefits of trade are considerable from the U.S. perspective. The reaction to exaggerations should not make us lose sight of usefulness. We must, of course, distinguish between the interests of the company and the nation. We cannot consider that what is good for the executives and shareholders of Pepsi Cola is also good for the United States. (On the other hand, this also doesn`t mean that these interests are necessarily contradictory.) For some companies, dealing with Russians can be a very profitable exercise.
Perhaps their leaders will also receive important psychological rewards when they fly to Moscow and play the role of head of state or, at the very least, visits by statesmen, which will compensate them for the daily tasks of running their distant enterprises. But it must also be said that other companies have found that doing business with the Russians offers the possibility of losing a lot of money by pursuing business that does not happen, wasting a lot of time learning that they will not have the deal and finding their remuneration measured only in frustration. 2. In view of the importance of tourism for mutual understanding between the peoples of the United States and the Soviet Union and the increased role of tourism in the development of economic cooperation between the two countries, the Parties agree to conclude a separate bilateral agreement on tourism. 4. Nothing in this Subsidiary Letter or in the Agreement shall limit the application of any existing or future Agreement between the Contracting Parties on trade in textiles and textile products. . . .