Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives

OK, I really didn't plagiarize! I'm using evidence ! I've posted the sources , I'll post them again in the actual debate if you want! This is a case that I wrote a week ago. I'm playing with it in a round so I can know what I need to do to make this better. And these are my own arguments! I will attack, then rebuild. On his interpretation of the definition of "ought", he says that duties are not necessarily moral considerations. But even if you grant him the definitions, shouldn't we try our best to make sure that our duties are moral? Why should we take on a duty that is not moral? So ought should still be bound with some sort of moral conscience. Standard: States should try to maintain their own security, but they should try their best to make sure that the least number of lives are lost. Why should the life of one country's citizens be valued over the life of the other country's citizens? Alternatives that have worked before such as peace treaties, negotiations and compromises should always be seeked first. C1: A state's desire to maximize its power in the globe is just, but it should not forget to examine the morality in their method of maximizing power. His saying that a state should use every option possible to maximize its power is just like saying a business person should use whatever option possible to earn the most money possible. We have to examine the morality of our actions. Morality is always more important than achieving foreign policy objectives. C2: One. He claims that economic sanctions are sometimes effective. His only example is of the one in Africa. Ahem... Joy Gordon writes in Economic Sanctions, Just War Doctrine, and the fearful spectacle of the civillian dead: In South Africa, for example, the external sanctions imposed on the country were accompanied by extensive political activity toward extensive political activity toward democracy inside South Africa. The factor contributed directly to the end of apartheid, and it is not clear whether the changes which finally took place were attributable to the sanctions themselves or to the political movements within and outside the country. He claims that it is worth it for states to implement sanctions because they have a low cost. One. Should money valued over the lives of citizens of the other country? Two. False Argument. Donald Losman writes in Economic Sanctions: An Emerging Business Menace Direct costs include the loss of current earnings when sales to a target state are terminated. Additionally, asset values may decline and lease revenues can fall. For example, because of Helms-Burton, an American company leasing aircraft was forced to get assurances from a Canadian airline that the airplane would not be operated in Cuba, resulting in the value of the lease falling by 1.5$ million annually. Simarlily, a number of American owned properties in Panama had to be sold at distress prices. If import restrictions are part of the sanctions package, it is also likely that higher cost substitue suppliers, either domestic or foreign, will have to be utilized. Three. Even if you grant him the claim that sanctions have a low cost for the state implementing the sanctions, it is true that people suffer because of the implementation of sanctions. Why should we implement the sanctions knowing that it will hurt people, and knowing that it is not effective? Just for the cause of expanding power? The question comes again: Should foreign policy objectives be valued over morality? My case Value: He claims that Justice is only applicable if we are talking about an individual agent. He offers no warrant for this claim, and a government of a state is basically the individual agent, so justice is still applicable. Criterion: When two are in conflict a legitimate government should always seek alternatives to economic sanctions. Alternatives offered above have succeeded many times more than economic sanctions, and have prevented millions from needless suffering. A nation should be aware of the morality of its actions. Just because a nation wants to expand its power doesn't mean it has the right to deprive citizens of another country their food and water. Gov. Legitmacy will always be preferred over realism. C1: 1st: cross apply the argument that a nation shouldn't implement sanctions when they know that they are ineffective and will cause suffering just because they want more power. 2nd. Cross apply the argument that a nation should always examine the moral aspects of their actions. A desire for more power does not justify depriving citizens of another country their basic necessities. 3rd. Cross apply the argument that sanctions are ineffective most of the time, thus the human rights atrocities they are designed to prevent are not actually being prevented. C2: His argument claims that explicit objectives are a smokescreen concealing the true purposes. Again comes the question of morality. We should never value a greed for power over the lives of innocent people. Thank you, I didn't not plagiarize, and I look forward to my opponent's NR