economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve forign policy objectives

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this, I will post this variation of my case. As this is the LD topic I will do this in the LD format. "…it is important to observe that when Europe or the United Nations imposes sanctions that are supposed to be aimed against a certain regime, usually generally millions of people end up being directly punished." These words of Omar Bongo, a former Gabonese Resident, show that Economic Sanctions, regardless of their intentions, harm the innocent. This is why I agree with Omar Bongo in my affirmation of the resolution; Economic sanctions ought not to be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. For Clarification, I offer definitions for three of the key terms and phrases in the resolution. Economic Sanctions (from businessdictionary.com) are economic penalties, such as stoppage of trade and financial transactions, imposed upon a country to force compliance with another country's or UN's or WTO's demands. Ought (from Webster's Revised and Unabridged Dictionary) to be bound in duty or by moral obligation. Achieve (from Random House Dictionary) to bring to a successful end. Observation. The objective of an Economic Sanction is to influence changes in foreign states. The way this works is trade to that foreign state is cut off or heavily taxed so as to hurt that foreign nation's economy. If this can be done it is assumed that poor conditions will make the citizens of said nation miserable, the citizenry will then pressure their own government into making changes, or possibly inciting a revolution. Value. The resolution is essentially posing the question, "what tools can be used to achieve a foreign policy goal." The notion of limiting what can be done suggests that it pertains to the morality of the situation. As the previous quote stated, Economic Sanctions punish people not directly involved with the targeted regime. It is by this that I choose to value Human Rights in this round. Criterion. To understand the morality of a situation as it pertains to Human Rights I propose the application of Kant's categorical imperative. Kant's categorical imperative can be used to establish morals concerning interaction between people. Kant argued that morality is a standard that applies to the intentions behind an action. "The first premise is that a person acts morally if his or her conduct would, without condition, be the "right" conduct for any person in similar circumstances (the "First Maxim"). The second premise is that conduct is "right" if it treats others as ends in themselves and not as means to an end (the "Second Maxim"). The conclusion is that a person acts morally when he or she acts as if his or her conduct was establishing a universal law governing others in similar circumstances (the "Third Maxim")." A simple test to determine this may be whether another moral agent-another human being-is used as a means to one's own end. What this means is that any action that uses a moral agent as a means is morally prohibited as an encroachment of the rights of that moral agent/human. This criterion achieves my value of human rights because of 3 main reasons: 1.Simplicity- the criterion provides an easy test for any action, not does it require extensive knowledge of world. 2.Certainty- by basing the morality on the action rather than on the outcome then there is no variability in determining infringement on Human Rights. 3.Universality- The standard set by this does not depend on the circumstances in which an action is taken. The resulting judgment will be generalized statements like the resolution is. So if a rigorous enactment of the provisions indicated in Kant's categorical imperative commence, Human Rights will be upheld. Contention 1. Respect for Foreign Citizens My first contention is that Economic sanctions do not respect the rights of citizens of foreign nations. This is done by using the residents of the foreign nation as the means to an end, that end being the foreign policy objective. Charles A. Rarick, a professor of Management at Barry University, and partner Martine Duchatelet said in a 2008 issue of the Economic Affairs Journal: "The theory operating behind sanctions is to cause as much pain as possible to the people of a receiving country in order for pressure to be brought on the government. The citizens of the sanctioned country are used as a means to achieve the foreign policy objectives of the sanctioning country." This means that the mechanics behind a sanction is to make life miserable among citizens so that they might pressure change in that country or even incite revolution. A specific example is that of Iraq. According to the same article written by Rarick and Duchatelet: Sanctions in Iraq caused the price of basic food production to greatly increase, resulting in inadequate nutrition, caused a decline of health care, and led to the collapse of the national currency. According to UNICEF, economic sanctions against Iraq resulted in the doubling of the death rate for children less than five years of age. The organization reports that the sanctions made it very difficult for parents to provide needed medicines, food and safe drinking water for their children, and estimates that they resulted in the deaths of 500,000 children under the age of five between 1991 and 1998. As this violates Human Rights according to the Kant's categorical imperative, such actions as placing sanctions ought not to be done. Contention 2. Respect for Domestic Citizens My second contention is that economic sanctions also violate citizens of the sanctioning country as much as it does the sanctioned country. When a sanction is declared a precedent is set to not trade with the sanctioned, either because it is off-limits or because of raised prices. Either way it deprives those citizens from being able to make business transactions within the sanctioned nation. According to Daniel Griswold, a director at CATO Institute; The proliferation of trade sanctions in the last decade has been accompanied by their declining effectiveness. From Cuba to Iran to Burma, sanctions have failed to achieve the goal of changing the behavior or the nature of target regimes. Sanctions have, however, deprived American companies of international business opportunities [and] punished domestic consumers. To back this up Griswold cites the president's Export Council with claims that; "The United States has imposed more than 40 trade sanctions against about three-dozen countries between 1993 and 2000. The council estimates that those sanctions have cost American exporters $15 billion to $19 billion in lost annual sales overseas and caused long-term damage to U.S. companies--lost market share and reputations abroad as unreliable suppliers." Economic Sanctions basically restricts the set of option that a business person has. It tells a new business that they cannot export to Cuba, for example. The restriction is not chosen by this business person – as they could if they simply retrained from trade with some partners – but forces this choice upon them. As a result economic sanctions uses these business people as a means to the end of foreign policy goals. Doing so violates the instruction against using moral agents as a means. Conclusion I therefore conclude that economic sanctions are morally prohibited because they infringe upon the rights of citizens of a sanctioned nation and the businesses of the sanctioning nation by using them as a means to an end.