economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives

Thank you for starting this . I do apologize that I have not done this type of debate for a year so please bear with me. Thanks. I affirm. Resolved: economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. Definitions: Economic Sanctions: Internationally, restrictions upon trade and financial dealings that a country imposes upon another for political reasons, usually as punishment for following policies of which the sanctioning country disapproves. ought: moral obligation to do something not be used- should not be achieve-do something for the greater good foreign policy objectives-peace, stablity, and human welfare Observations: 1. Because this is a universal topic we will discuss it in broad terms. 2. Economic sanctions will be debated on its execution and result, because this shows the goals and what the action has achieved. V: I value humanitarianism. Peace is top priority in governments. Without the satisfaction of citizens, governments crumble through rebellions. When citizens are satisfied with the government we close to achieving peace because there are not major social unrest. The Declaration of Independence states life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Actions taken to strip humans of these rights are considered unjustified because this destroys the meaning and morality of humanity. VC: Free trade is my value criterion. Free trade promotes the economy that in turn gives stability to the government that in turns promotes human welfare. Not only does free trade promote welfare but it also spreads democracy through soft power and in turn promotes human welfare. Take the Muslim's early expansion, the religion was spread mostly through trade. Economic sanctions restricts trade and in turn restricts human welfare. Contention 1: Economic sanctions weaken the a country's economy especially the one issuing a sanction. By closing trade to any country due to some political reasons you're losing a consumer and in turn your economy weakens. This not only applies to one country but many. And as you can see a well weakened economy results in what we are now, many jobless, strict or closing welfare programs, and an unstable government for the people. And because the government is losing money they begin to cut back on welfare programs and education. This deteriorates human welfare. In CA we are experiencing a decrease in senior homes. Take the example of Thomas Jefferson's Embargo Act, British impressment has caused Jefferson to completely stop trade. The result? The economy plummeted drastically. Impact: Economic sanctions weaken a country's power to improve human welfare. Contention 2: Economic sanctions are unjustified in the way a country cuts trade because the opposing party doesn't agree to their terms. This is unjustified in the way of absolute dominance and harming the innocent. This is simply pushing innocents around to gain what they desire. This will lead to a rebellion. Take the Cold War as an example, Russia and the US disagree on communism and democracy and are arming neutral countries to fight and banning sales of arms to enemies. In the end allied countries evolved into groups like the Talibans. In the end they turn on us after realizing they were pawns of the war. We are screwed and fight back, this leads us into present day War in Iraq and Afghanistan. Impact: As a country cuts trade from many due to disagreements of political terms they cause instability, enemies, and deaths. So again free trade may change views. Contention 3: Economic sanctions destroys the right of free trade between powerful countries such as China and US. Free trade promotes an increase in the economy, that in turn promotes human welfare through government regulations. The economy and politics for some odd reasons entwine. So if politics disagrees between two countries and eventually lead to an economic sanction, then the trade and income between the countries decrease over time into a depression and government standards are relieved then this leads to a decrease in human welfare. Impact: Free trade promotes human welfare and economic sanctions degrades human welfare. Contention 4: Economic sanctions will cause grudges and degrade soft power and ultimately human welfare. "When governments impose sanctions, the officials implementing the policy want to harm the dictator or bad guy heading the other country's government. That's the goal. What they do to achieve it is intentionally harm many innocent people in those countries by cutting them off—if the sanctions are effective—from food, medicine, and other goods that they need or value. " Overall in the end of the oppression they will lash out and cause harm. We are only bottling up the anger of the opposing countries' citizens. So by trading freely with opposing countries we are able to spread our ideas, much like how the Muslims spread theirs during their early days. Impact: This will cause more harm than good. Sources: http://books.google.com... http://www.hoover.org... http://www.globalpolicy.org... http://csburks.com... http://econlog.econlib.org... Thank you and I await your rebuttals.